three (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
threeplusfire) wrote2005-01-12 05:42 pm
threeplusfire) wrote2005-01-12 05:42 pm
fuckwits
What the fucking fuck? It's perfectly legal to require women to wear makeup to work and you can fire them if they don't live up to your standards.
Can't believe it can you? Read the ruling.
It's most certainly not the same as forbidding men to wear makeup, and it's a big fat pile of steaming bullshit. For shame, justices of the 9th Circuit court of appeals. Shame on you.
Can't believe it can you? Read the ruling.
It's most certainly not the same as forbidding men to wear makeup, and it's a big fat pile of steaming bullshit. For shame, justices of the 9th Circuit court of appeals. Shame on you.
no subject
Jespersen contends that the makeup requirement imposes "innumerable" tangible burdens on women that men do not share because cosmetics can cost hundreds of dollars per year and putting on makeup requires a significant investment in time. There is, however, no evidence in the record in support of this contention. Jespersen cites to academic literature discussing the cost and time burdens of cosmetics generally, but she presents no evidence as to the cost or time burdens that must be borne by female bartenders in order to comply with the makeup requirement. Even if we were to take judicial notice of the fact that the application requires some expenditure of time and money, Jespersen would still have the burden of producing some evidence that the burdens associated with the makeup requirement are greater than the burdens the "Personal Best" policy imposes on male bartenders, and exceed whatever "burden" is associated with ordinary good-grooming standards.
So.... we know that women have to wear makeup and men do not. We know that makeup takes up money and time in general. BUT for some bizarre reason we're holding out some bizarre belief that in THIS ONE CASE, makeup is totally free and doesn't take any time to put on, because the plaintiff doesn't have specific evidence! (What does she need to do, produce receipts? A detailed log of the amount of time she takes putting on the stuff?). And even if she DOES prove that it costs money and takes time, we're not convinced that men aren't being forced to spend at least that much money washing themselves, shaving, clipping their nails, and getting a haircut now and then!
But oh, wait, women at this company ALSO have to do all of those things! Apparently the judges here are under the impression that department stores pay you to take their makeup, because otherwise there is no way to say that the burden placed on men somehow counterbalances that placed on women.
ARGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
(I think I'll re-post this comment in my journal...)
no subject