Physical privacy rights and legal protections

Ethics

Privacy Rights in the Workplace

This paper analyzes business ethics in the workplace. Specifically, it identifiesa basic physical privacy right issue at Harrah's casino in Reno, Nevada.

In July 2001, a Reno bartender filed suit against Harrah's, Inc., the worldwide casino gaming corporation, after she was fired from her bartending job. Darlene Jespersen had worked for Harrah's for twenty-one years as a bartender and in other areas of the casino. In early 2000, Harrah's instituted a new "dress code" policy called "Personal Best" that mandated all female beverage employees wear makeup and style their hair. Makeup required included lipstick, mascara, blush, and powder, and hair was to be curled, teased, or styled every day (Chmela). Ultimately, after attempting to wear makeup, Jespersen refused, and after a successful career at Harrah's, was fired. She filed a discrimination suit in Reno court. Her attorney noted, "The defendant's [Harrah's] policy is discriminatory per se, because it discriminates against women by subjecting them to terms and conditions of employment to which men are not similarly subjected" (Guidos). Since 2001, the suit has made its way through several courts and appeals, and it is currently under consideration by the judges of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, which has not handed down a decision yet.

This lawsuit is an excellent example of a basic physical privacy issue. It indicates just how an issue such as this can spiral out of control. Darlene Jespersen was not fired because she could not perform her job. She had worked for the company for 21 years, 18 of them as a bartender. During those years, she never wore makeup. She found the new policy demeaning and felt if she were a man, the issue would not have been an issue at all (Guidos). Indeed, she felt so strongly about the suit that she continued with it even after Harrah's offered her the job back and they would disregard the policy in her case. A Reno reporter quoted Jespersen shortly after the suit was filed. She wrote, "I want the policy to stop,' Jespersen said. 'This wasn't just because they wouldn't grandfather me in at the beginning. They only responded to me after public support and media coverage. But now they (Harrah's) have made their choice and they have to take that decision to court'" (Guidos). She stool her ground, fighting for the rights of other women even though she was unemployed. Her deontological considerations led her moral actions, and morally, she knew she had to stick to her guns. Policies like this, which discriminate against women, and create false standards of beauty and appearance, will never change unless people like Jespersen work hard and stand up for what they believe is right.

Jespersen's position is based on the deontological considerations that a business should take into consideration regarding employee rights. Morally, it is wrong to force an employee to do something they morally or ethically disagree with, especially after the company hired the employee. If a policy changes, there should be consideration for employees who have been employed for years and may not "fit" with the current policy. As Jespersen emotionally noted, the company could have grandfathered her non-adherence to the program before they took the step of firing her. That would have been the moral and ethical thing to do for a long-time employee. 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.