Appearance-based Sex Discrimination and Stereotyping in the Workplace: Whose Conduct Should We Regulate?

Abstract

Court treatment of sex discrimination and harassment claims based on appearance and gender stereotyping has been inconsistent, particularly where the facts involve reference to sexual orientation. Ironically, court willingness to allow such claims may turn on the choice of verbal or physical conduct by, or the sex or sexual orientation of, the alleged offenders. Because plaintiffs in such situations may assert retaliation claims to increase their chances of prevailing, employers should focus less on regulating aspects of personal appearance unrelated to job performance and more on problematic reactions by co-workers. Workplace civility policies may hold promise for limiting both legal liability and practical consequences in the absence of a legislative response.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Harrah’s policy included the requirement that women’s hair “must be teased, curled, or styled every day you work,” an explicit makeup requirement for women mandating that “make up (foundation/concealer and/or face powder, as well as blush and mascara) must be worn and applied neatly in complimentary colors,” and that “lip color must be worn at all times.” To enforce its policy, Harrah’s required employees to attend “Personal Best Image Training” at which “Image Facilitators” gave women a makeover to get them “properly” made up. Harrah’s then instructed employees on adherence to the standards, took portrait and full body photographs of each employee looking their “Personal Best,” placed these photographs in the employee’s personnel file, distributed them to the employee’s supervisor, and used them as the standard to which the employee would be held accountable on a daily basis.

  2. 2.

    The much-discussed Hooters litigation, in which male applicants challenged Hooters’ practice of hiring only attractive, well-endowed women to be food and beverage servers, was settled prior to judicial determination in the midst of an EEOC investigation. Playboy clubs, which won the right to utilize such practices before the now-defunct New York Human Rights Appeal Board, had long since ceased to exist before a recent comeback in Las Vegas.

  3. 3.

    Sex refers to biological sex attributes, such as chromosomes and genitalia. Gender refers to characteristics typically associated with masculinity or femininity, such as dress, tone of voice, hobbies, and personality traits. Sexual orientation is determined by the sex of the desired object of one’s affections. Gender identity refers to a person’s self identity; i.e., whether the person thinks of himself or herself as a male or a female (Greenberg 2003).

  4. 4.

    Although it has become commonplace for gender stereotype and same-sex cases to include derivative retaliation claims (e.g., Lynch v. Baylor University 2006; Miller v. Kellogg 2006; Slagle v. County of Clarion 2006), their ultimate success rate remains to be determined, and they raise numerous questions that complicate an already confusing area. For example, does ensuing conduct need to differ in kind or intensity to support a retaliation claim? Can prior conduct continue but still be found causally related to protected activity? Will prior cases holding that a lowered performance rating without tangible consequences is not actionable now come into question if the threat of such action might “dissuade a reasonable person” from filing a Title VII complaint or opposing illegal conduct? Will sensitive (or clever) employees take to filing “good faith” but minor complaints to gain “protected” status under various anti-retaliation laws? A full treatment of these developing issues is beyond the scope of this article.

  5. 5.

    Judge Pragerson also notes that the policy, as prima facie discriminatory, could hardly be upheld as a business necessity under the BFOQ doctrine given that Harrah’s had “quietly disposed of” its policy after Jespersen sued.

References

  1. Adamitis, E. M. (2000). Appearance matters: A proposal to limit appearance discrimination in employment. Washington Law Review, 75, 195 (January).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bello, J. D. (2004). Attractiveness as hiring criteria: Savvy business practice or racial discrimination? 8 Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 483, 504–505 (Fall).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berkley, R. A., & Watt, A. H. (2006). Impact of same-sex harassment and gender-role stereotypes on Title VII protection for gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bovalino, K. M. (2003). How the effeminate male can maximize his odds of winning Title VII litigation. 53 Syracuse Law Review, 1117, 1134.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Drogosz, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1996). Another look at the effects of appearance, gender, and job type on performance-based decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 437–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Greenberg, J. A. (2003). The gender nonconformity theory: A comprehensive approach to break down the maternal wall and end discrimination against gender benders. 26 Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 37 (symposium article).

  8. Hardage, J. A. (2002). Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc. and the legacy of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: Does Title VII prohibit “effeminacy” discrimination? 54 Alabama Law Review, 193 (Fall).

  9. Heilman, M. E., & Saruwatari, L. R. (1979). When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job applications for managerial and non-managerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 360–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Heilman, M. E., & Stopeck, M. E. (1985). Attractiveness and corporate success: Different causal attributions for males and females. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 379–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jawahar, I. M., & Mattsson, J. (2005). Sexism and beautyism effects in selection as a function of self-monitoring level of decision maker. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 563–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kirshenbaum, A. M. (2005). “Because of ... sex”: Rethinking the protections afforded under Title VII in the post-Oncale world. Albany Law Review, 69, 139–177.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kramer, Z. A. (2004). The ultimate gender stereotype: Equalizing gender-conforming and gender-nonconforming homosexuals under Title VII. U. Illinois Law Review, 465–499.

  14. Kramer, Z. A. (2006). Some preliminary thoughts on Title VII’s intersexions. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 7, 31–58.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lloyd, A. (2005). Defining the human: Are transgender people strangers to the law? Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just, 20, 150.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lucero, M. A., & Allen, R. E. (2006). Implementing zero tolerance policies: Balancing strict enforcement with fair treatment. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 35–41 (Winter).

  18. Meyers, L. (2006). Still wearing the “kick me” sign. APA Monitor on Psychology, 37, 68–70.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Quill, E. (2005). Employers’ liability for bullying and harassment. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 645–666 (Winter).

  21. Sachs, M. (2004). The mystery of Title VII: The various interpretations of Title VII as applied to homosexual plaintiffs. Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal, 19, 359.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schneyer, K. L. (1998). Hooting: Public and popular discourse about sex discrimination. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 31, 551 (Spring).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Trotier, G. S. (2002). Dude looks like a lady: Protection based on gender stereotyping discrimination as developed in Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc. 20 Law and Inequality Journal, 237 (Summer).

  24. Watkins, L. M., & Johnston, L. (2000). Screening job applicants: The impact of physical attractiveness and application quality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 76–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yuracko, K. A. (2004). Private nurses and Playboy Bunnies: Explaining permissible sex discrimination. 92 California Law Review, 147, 151–152 (January).

    Google Scholar 

Cases Cited

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)

  2. Back v. Hastings-on-Hudson Union Free School District, 365 F.3d 107; 119–20 (2nd Cir. 2004)

  3. Baker v. Cal. Land Title Co., 507 F.2d 895 (9th Cir.1974)

  4. Bibby v. Phila. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2001)

  5. Booth et al. v. Maryland Dept. of Public Safety, et al., 327 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2003)

  6. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 126 S. Ct. 240 (2006)

  7. Centola v. Potter, 183 F.Supp. 2d 402; 408–409 (D. Mass. 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Christopher v. National Educational Association, 422 F.3d 840; 845 (9th Cir. 2005)

  9. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power, et al., v. Manhart et al., 435 U.S. 702 (1978)

  10. Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004); cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2940 (June 20, 2005)

  11. Craft v. Metromedia, Inc., 766 F.2d 1205 (8th Cir. 1985); cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1058 (1986)

  12. Dandan v. Radisson, WL 336528 (N. D. Ill. 2000)

  13. Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211; 217–218 (2nd Cir. 2004)

  14. Dick v. Phone Directories Co., Inc., 397 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2005)

  15. Doe v. City of Belleville, 119 F.3d 563; 581 (7th Cir. 1997)

  16. EEOC v. Audrey Sedita d/b/a Women’s Workout World, 755 F. Supp. 808 (N. D. Ill. 1991)

  17. Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority, Lexis 12634 (June 24, 2005)

  18. Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845; 855 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)

  19. Guardian Capital Corp. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 360 N.Y.S. 2nd 937 (1974)

  20. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)

  21. Hamm V. Weyauwega Milk Products, Inc., 332 F.3d (7th Cir. 2003)

  22. Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998)

  23. Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1999)

  24. Jespersen v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., 392 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2004); vacated, 409 F.3d 1061 (May 13, 2005); 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir., April 14, 2006 rehearing en banc)

  25. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238 (1976)

  26. Klein v. McGowan, 198 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 1999)

  27. Lynch v. Baylor University Medical Center, Lexis 62408 (N.D. Tx., 2006)

  28. McCown v. St. John’s Health System, Inc., 349 F.3d 540 (8th Cir. 2003)

  29. Medina v. State of New Mexico, 413 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2005)

  30. Miller v. Kellogg, Lexis 31021 (N.D. Neb., 2006)

  31. Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2001)

  32. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75; 82 (1998)

  33. Pedroza v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 397 F.3d 1063 (2005)

  34. Philips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542; 545 (1971)

  35. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)

  36. Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc)

  37. Rivera v. Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, 702 A.2nd 1359 (N.J. Super. 1997)

  38. Schmedding v. Tnemec, 187 F.3d 862; 865 (8th Cir. 1999)

  39. Schroer v. Billngton,424 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D. D.C. 2006)

  40. Simonton v. Runyon, 232 F.3d 33; 34–35 (2nd Cir. 2000)

  41. Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 (3rd Cir. 2006)

  42. Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir., 2004)

  43. Spearman v. Ford Motor Co., 231 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 2000)

  44. UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991)

  45. Vickers v. Fairfield Medical Center et al., 453 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2006)

  46. Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292; 304 (N.D. Tex. 1981)

  47. Wiseley v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., 94 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. 402 (D. N.J. 2004)

  48. Wood v. Sempra Energy Trading Corp., Lexis 2848 (D. Conn. 2005)

  49. Wright v. CompUSA, 352 F.3d 472 (1st Cir. 2003)

  50. Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA Inc., 36 Cal. 4th 1028 (Aug. 11, 2005)

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stan Malos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Malos, S. Appearance-based Sex Discrimination and Stereotyping in the Workplace: Whose Conduct Should We Regulate?. Employ Respons Rights J 19, 95–111 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-007-9037-z

Download citation

Key words

  • workplace appearance
  • sex discrimination
  • gender stereotyping
  • sexual orientation
  • retaliation
  • workplace civility