Case: Employer Liable for Appearance Actions A ruling by the California Supreme Court held that LOreal USA, a large cosmetics company, was liable for ordering a supervisor to terminate a female employee. The details of the case are described next. Elysa Yanowitz was a regional sales manager for LOreal USA in California when her boss ordered her to fi re a sales associate with a strong performance record because the employee was not attractive enough. The boss said she wasnt good looking enough and that in her place should be hired someone who was hot. Yanowitz refused, contending that the bosss order was discrimination because male sales associates did not have to be attractive. She repeatedly refused to fi re the female employee and said that the company retaliated against her. Ultimately, Yanowitz left the company on a disability leave due to stress. The court ruling addressed protection for those who refuse orders that they believe are discriminatory. The court also stated that an appearance standard applied to one gender but not the other is sexual discrimination. Yanowitz left the company after retaliation but won the case after the court held that her whistle-blowing was protected.

Questions

1. Define employment at will and discuss how wrongful discharge, just cause, and due process were or were not carried out in this situation.

2. Discuss some examples when appearance can be a legitimate work issue.

3. What is whistle-blowing and should Elysa Yanowitz been protected in this situation?

4. How can employee policies and handbooks help prevent these situations?