Question
Case Study TITLE VII ISSUE Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006). In this 7-4 split decision, the Ninth Circuit, rehearing
Case Study
TITLE VII ISSUE
Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006). In this 7-4 split decision, the Ninth Circuit, rehearing the case en bane, held that Harrah's Operating CO.'s ("Harrah's") dress and grooming code did not amount to unlawful disparate treatment or sex stereotyping under Title VII. Plaintiff Darlene Jespersen was a female bartender at the sports bar in Harrah's Casino in Reno, Nevada for more than 20 years. Her employment was terminated when she refused to wear makeup in accordance with Harrah's newly adopted "Personal Best" program. The Personal Best program required, among other things, that women wear makeup and that men do not wear makeup. Jespersen brought suit alleging that the makeup requirement for female bartenders constituted unlawful disparate treatment and sex stereotyping under Title VII.
The court ruled that Jespersen failed to offer evidence sufficient to support either of her claims. Specifically, the court held that Jespersen failed to state a disparate treatment claim because she did not offer evidence that Harrah's grooming requirements placed an unequal burden on women, reasoning that "[w]hile [the policy's] individual requirements differ according to gender, none on its face places a greater burden on one gender than the other." Id. at 1109. The court also held that there was no evidence of intentional or unlawful sex stereotyping. The court hinted strongly, however, that Jespersen could have put on evidence that Harrah's Personal
Best makeup standard imposed a greater burden on women (in terms of cost and time) than it did on men. Had she done that, the Ninth Circuit's decision indicates that Jespersen's claims might have survived summary judgment and gone to a jury.
- case summary-
- arguments for plaintiff -
- arguments for the defendant -
- court's decision and reason -
- what you feel the court should have decided and why -
- what the company (i.e., HR) should have done to prevent a lawsuit -
- what the Company (i.e., HR) should do in the future -
- (5) sources listed in a bibliography format -
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started