Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was expecting crazy makeup. He looks great. I don't see the problem with his makeup, it's very well done. If the women are wearing it, he should be able allowed as well.. End of story.
Numerous court cases have upheld employers right to require different dress codes for men and women. While they cannot require a dress code for 1 but not the other, they can put different requirements in them. Harrah's Casino won a big lawsuit over this very issue. They required a strict dress code for females, requiring stockings, a particular color of lipstick, nail polish and lots of other stuff. Their dress code for men was very simple along the lines of well groomed.
Courts have been consistent on this issue. Targeting one group = not allowed. Different policy for different group = allowed.
In this particular case, depending on the job requirements the company may be well within their rights to fire this guy, or they could wind up on the losing end of a lawsuit. I would wager that most company will just allow it to prevent any lawsuit and quietly fire the employee some time down the road after extensively documenting his shortcomings.
The last sentence I fully agree with.
The rest, I don't know. I was talking about "allows," as opposed to what employees can lawfully require. I've never heard of a case of cosmetics being forbidden and that supported by the legal system. It's not a hygiene or safety issue as, for example, hair or piercings can be. I wouldn't be surprised if the courts see makeup (for adults) as a free speech issue. Edit: correct, free speech has already been ruled as limitable in the workplace, but no way would the courts say free speech can be restricted more for one gender than the other.
Last edited by goodheathen; 07-14-2017 at 01:02 PM..
Finally people are pointing out all the double standards
That was part of the point. Usually the articles about school or workplace dress codes feature females complaining about not being allowed to do things that their male counterparts would never be allowed to do. This one, however, is a legitimate gripe and interesting law-related matter.
That was part of the point. Usually the articles about school or workplace dress codes feature females complaining about not being allowed to do things that their male counterparts would never be allowed to do. This one, however, is a legitimate gripe and interesting law-related matter.
The "complaining" that women do about archaic dress codes is valid. There are some things boys can wear at school that girls could get reprimanded for; like shorts or lower cut tops.
Anyways, I agree with him. Let him wear makeup if he wants he isn't hurting anyone. A lot of contour and highlight going on but he looks great
The rest, I don't know. I was talking about "allows," as opposed to what employees can lawfully require. I've never heard of a case of cosmetics being forbidden and that supported by the legal system. It's not a hygiene or safety issue as, for example, hair or piercings can be. I wouldn't be surprised if the courts see makeup (for adults) as a free speech issue. Edit: correct, free speech has already been ruled as limitable in the workplace, but no way would the courts say free speech can be restricted more for one gender than the other.
The Harrah case specifically calls out the fact that men were forbidden to wear facial makeup and earrings. It was decided by the court that this policy is ok. I don't think they even really narrowed the scope much. look it up.
While I agree that someone could win a lawsuit over men not being allowed to wear makeup, it would have to be a particular case and it would be an uphill battle.
Quote:
All employees had to look “well groomed, appealing to the eye.” Both male and female employees were required to wear the same uniform (black pants, white shirt, black vest and bow tie); both could wear tasteful jewelry but not outlandish hairstyles. However, there were additional, separate requirements for each gender. Men had to keep their hair short and their fingernails trimmed, and were specifically not allowed to wear makeup.
The requirements for women were more extensive with respect to hair (teased, curled or styled), stockings and fingernails. But the last straw for Jespersen was that female employees were required to wear face powder, blush, mascara and lipstick. Because her past experiences with makeup had left her feeling “demeaned” and “degraded,” Jespersen refused to wear it and lost her job.
Quote:
On appeal, the 9th Circuit initially affirmed the district court’s decision. Likewise refusing to evaluate the makeup requirement separately, the court stated that Jespersen had produced no evidence that the entire grooming code imposed greater burdens on female bartenders than on male bartenders. It agreed that sex stereotyping was not applicable to grooming cases.
The "complaining" that women do about archaic dress codes is valid. There are some things boys can wear at school that girls could get reprimanded for; like shorts or lower cut tops.
Anyways, I agree with him. Let him wear makeup if he wants he isn't hurting anyone. A lot of contour and highlight going on but he looks great
If there are schools that allow boys to wear shorts but not girls, that's not right, but the complaints I've seen are about girls being forbidden to wear shorts (or maybe their near-equivalent skirts) shorter than boys do. Boys don't wear low-cut tops I hope the media will start focusing on more legitimate dress-code stories. There happens to be one in the news about changes Paul Ryan is making.
The Harrah case specifically calls out the fact that men were forbidden to wear facial makeup and earrings. It was decided by the court that this policy is ok. I don't think they even really narrowed the scope much. look it up.
While I agree that someone could win a lawsuit over men not being allowed to wear makeup, it would have to be a particular case and it would be an uphill battle.
And if that kooky 9th circuit upheld that decision you can be assured your not gonna have better luck shopping it to a real court.
Alright, you have a point, though if the plaintiff had been male, maybe the makeup-verboten part would have gotten the whole thing struck down. Of course as a front-facing job, that's a special situation (where appearance inherently affects job performance). For the makeup-wearing man in the article, it sounds like a bad idea legally for the business to say no. It's possible he does work with the public, but apparently that hasn't caused problems before and was fine with previous management, i.e., a precedent has been set.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope the media will start focusing on more legitimate dress-code stories. There happens to be one in the news about changes Paul Ryan is making.
