Is it right or even legal?

[rah]

Yes, As long as it's written up and doesn't discrimnate, it's legal in an at-will state.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
Unless men are also required to wear makeup, you cannot be required.

I'd like to know where you think this legal restriction comes from. Do any courts hold that appearance standards for women and men are not dependent on social gender norms?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'd like to know where you think this legal restriction comes from. Do any courts hold that appearance standards for women and men are not dependent on social gender norms?

Well now, wait a minute. Let's say the job is sewer worker, and the employees spend all day down in the sewer making repairs. Is there any legitimate business reason why the women employees would be required to wear make up? How about dresses?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are wrong!

No, that's alright. The sticky situation is an at will state, which means they can come up with any reason whatsoever to say you are fired, and as long as it is not obvious that it is because of discrimination based on race, gender, etc, they are in the clear (it usually isn't hard to disguise the true intent).

Since she is at the front desk, I think that additional requirements for looks can be put on which are not done for the nurses.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Well now, wait a minute. Let's say the job is sewer worker, and the employees spend all day down in the sewer making repairs. Is there any legitimate business reason why the women employees would be required to wear make up? How about dresses?

That's not what I said, Zkrib. Please think before you post.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


That's not what I said, Zkrib. Please think before you post.

I did think. Maybe what you said wasn't clear.

Bottom line though, it seems like we're all in agreement.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I did think. Maybe what you said wasn't clear.

What I said was quite clear. The conclusion you drew from reading what I said was evidence of muddled legal reasoning. I'm not surprised, because I've seen this quality from you before.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You are wrong!

No, that's alright. The sticky situation is an at will state, which means they can come up with any reason whatsoever to say you are fired, and as long as it is not obvious that it is because of discrimination based on race, gender, etc, they are in the clear (it usually isn't hard to disguise the true intent).

Since she is at the front desk, I think that additional requirements for looks can be put on which are not done for the nurses.

To expand on this a bit, the burden will fall to you to prove that their given reason is just a pretext, which makes it even easier than otherwise for them to disguise their true intent.

[Zkribbler]

...social gender norms...

Oh yes. Crystal clear. No room for debate about what you meant. How can I have been so foolish?

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know. As I said, this is not the first time I've seen you post something ridiculous. You're pretty harmless though, so I usually let it slide.

[Darius871]

Just characterize ugliness as an ADA-protected disability and then they can't fire you for it. Though requiring makeup might be a reasonable accommodation on their part...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Darius871
Just characterize ugliness as an ADA-protected disability ...

That might work! A disability has to interfer with a "major life function." Being ugly would affect your ability to procreate.

[Darius871]

Actually, a number of cases have oddly found that sex (and by extension procreation) isn't a "major life activity" as meant by the statute; for instance Squibb in the 7th Circuit found that a nurse's excruciating back pain wasn't an ADA disability even though it made it impossible for her to make love to her husband (apparently he couldn't just try being gentle about it...).

However, the EEOC regulations in the CFR, and most Circuits deferring to the CFR, construe "major life activity" to include working (despite the USSC's expressed doubts in Sutton about the logical paradox that construction creates), so she could be substantially impaired in that major life activity merely by being fired. However, depending on the Circuit, she'd probably have to additionally show that the disability disqualifies her from other similar jobs in the geographic area. That would be pretty tough unless good looks are generally a hiring prerequisite for the medical receptionist "class" of jobs, but at least in my area there's plenty of fugly receptionists, so...

[Chemical Ollie]

Why would gyn patients care about the makeup of a front desk clerk?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Darius871
Actually, a number of cases have oddly found that sex (and by extension procreation) isn't a "major life activity" ...

We must pity the personal lives of the judges who made such a finding.