Monday, February 25, 2019

Jespersen vs. Harrahs Case Analysis Essay

Facts Darlene Jespersen was a bartender at Harrahs Casino in Reno in the sports bar. She was frequently praised by her supervisors and customers for being an outstanding employee. When Jespersen first started her job at Harrahs the female bartenders were not required to fatigue opus but were encouraged to. Jespersen tried to wear makeup to school a few times but trenchant that she did not like it due to the fact it made her feel sick, degraded, subject and violated. She also believed that it interfered with her ability to deal with unruly customers because it took away her credibility as an individual and as a person. After 20 years of working for the company, Harrahs implework forceted the Personal Best program contained certain visual aspect standards that applied equally to men and women.Women were now required to wear makeup and when Jespersen refused, she was fired. Jespersen sued Harrahs under Title VII. Argument for Jespersen Jespersen refused to wear makeup to work be cause the cost-in time, m stary and personal dignity. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 employers be free to adopt different air standards for each sex, but these standards may not impose a greater preventative on one sex than the other. Women were required to wear makeup and men were not which allowed men to save hundreds of dollars and hours of time. Harrahs had no right to fire Jespersen because the rule whole applied to women. Argument for Harrahs Employers are allowed to impose different appearance rules on women than men as long as the overall burden upon the employees is the same.Harrahs rules did not impose a heavier burden on women than on men. Outcome Jespersen appealed the judgment of the United States District Court for District of Nevada granting defendant employer summary judgment in the employees sex discrimination action filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The final emergence was that the original judgment granting Harrahs su mmary judgment was affirmed because Jespersen failed to show up sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on her claim. My depression I agree with the final outcome of this case. Jespersen did not have ample evidence to prove that by Harrahs requiring her to wear makeup was then sexual stereotyping. The Personal Best program had plenty of restrictions and requirements for men as well as women.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.