However, that was not an option, and it points to the rigidity of the corporation and its rules.
Harrah's defense of their policy is utilitarian in its outlook and its purpose. It stresses utility (beauty) over values or concerns of personal beliefs and personal privacy. A Harrah's spokesman for the "Personal Best" program noted, "Harrah's customers, people who are loyal to the Harrah's brand name, expect a certain quality of product, a certain quality hotel room, quality of food, and, yes, a certain quality in the appearance of the people who are serving them food and beverages'" (Chmela). It seems this stance is both rigid and extremely discriminatory against female employees, where a different appearance level is required. The policy does not require male beverage employees to wear makeup or style their hair, and it does not allow any flexibility in the policy. Harrah's only purpose is to create a policy that "pleases" their customers by only hiring attractive beverage workers. It uses no ethics or morality in the decision, only the utilitarian principle that its own needs are more important than the needs of the staff. In fact, in "right to work" states such as Nevada, where Jespersen was employed and the original suit was filed, the workers have little right except the "right" to work, and employers can fire largely at will.
Several workplace and women's organizations have become involved in the case, and one representative stated their point clearly. She said, "It's a setback for women everywhere,' Wilchins said, 'Women, a long time ago, won the right to be judged based on the quality of their work, not whether they comply with an...
Since the original suit was filed in 2001, it has made its way through several local and district courts. In December 2004, the Ninth District Court of Appeals judged the firing was legal because the "Personal Best" policy also contained some stipulations for male employees (they had to have clean fingernails, short hair, and "clean" faces) (Chmela). However, in May 2005, they reversed their decision and agreed to revisit and review the case, which they did in June. They have not yet handed down a decision from that hearing (Kravets).
The Jespersen case is a clear physical privacy rights issue. When must an individual give up their rights and ethics they believe in just so they can be employed? While of course there are some considerations that take precedence, such as cleanliness, it seems that how a person looks should not be a consideration for the job they do. If only "beautiful" or attractive people can serve drinks, then a majority of "real" American people would be banned from working in a wide variety of jobs. A person's employment should be based on the quality of the job they do, rather than on issues that infringe on their physical and personal privacy rights.
References
Chmela, Holli. "Personal Best' Not up to Par." Washington Times. 11 Jan. 2005. http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20-8556r.htm
Guidos, Rhina. "Fired Bartender Sues Harrah's Over Makeup Policy." Reno Gazette-Journal. 7 July 2001.
Kravets, David. "Court to Decide Case on Makeup." Reno Gazette Journal. 22 June 2005. http://www.rgj.com/news/printstory.php?id=102344
