## Facts

- Darlene Jespersen worked for nearly 20 years as a bartender at a Reno casino operated by Harrah’s and received consistently strong performance evaluations.
- Harrah’s implemented a “Beverage Department Image Transformation” program establishing detailed, sex-differentiated appearance and grooming standards for guest service employees.
- The policy required female beverage servers to wear specified makeup (including face powder, blush, mascara, and lipstick) and maintain prescribed hair styling and grooming.
- The policy required male beverage servers to refrain from wearing makeup and to keep hair cut above the collar, and to be clean-shaven or have neatly trimmed facial hair.
- Jespersen refused to comply with the makeup requirement, stating it adversely affected her dignity and ability to do her job.
- Harrah’s insisted on compliance; Jespersen was terminated (or treated as terminated) for noncompliance.
- Jespersen sued under Title VII alleging sex discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment to Harrah’s.

## Issues

1. Whether Harrah’s sex-differentiated grooming standards, including a makeup requirement for women, constituted sex discrimination under Title VII.
2. Whether Jespersen produced sufficient evidence that the grooming code imposed unequal burdens on women or amounted to impermissible sex stereotyping under Title VII.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Harrah’s.
- The panel held that sex-differentiated grooming standards are not categorically unlawful under Title VII if the overall policy does not impose unequal burdens on one sex.
- Jespersen failed to present evidence that the time or cost of complying with the makeup requirement was greater for women than the burdens imposed on men by the comparable grooming requirements.
- Jespersen also failed, on the summary judgment record, to raise a triable issue that the grooming policy constituted actionable sex stereotyping.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII does not automatically prohibit employer grooming and appearance codes that differentiate between men and women.
- A sex-differentiated grooming policy may violate Title VII if it imposes an unequal (disproportionate) burden on one sex; the plaintiff must produce evidence of that disparity.
- A sex-stereotyping theory may apply to appearance-related requirements, but the plaintiff must present evidence that the challenged requirement reflects discriminatory stereotyping sufficient to constitute sex discrimination under Title VII.
- On summary judgment, conclusory objections to gender-specific requirements are insufficient without record evidence showing unequal burdens or actionable stereotyping.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit panel upheld Harrah’s grooming policy because the plaintiff did not produce evidence that the makeup requirement imposed a heavier burden on women than the grooming requirements imposed on men, and the record did not support a triable claim that the policy was actionable sex stereotyping under Title VII.


Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 392 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2004)