that one might say from an objective standpoint what is required which you can see from looking at the policy and just from common sense knowing that being required to purchase cosmetics and apply them is going to be more murdered some than not doing  so i think the supreme court has been clear in in the price waterhouse case that you don't need expert testimony to know if somebody is required to do something that is stereotyped that's something that can be considered just because we know about that so her testimony would be important but then if you look at the way the analysis was done in the carroll case again the courts seem to be looking at the way women as a group one might say are the perspective of reasonable people objecting to this requirement customers react to them now exactly how people react to that seems to me is absolutely a factual question and it wasn't appropriate for the trial court to make that evaluation himself and to not give the nonmoving party the benefit of the reasonable inferences that could be drawn if you look at the way the analysis has been done in these cases again in particular looking at carol and i keep bringing us back to that because it seems to me that the women beverage service here are being required to put a uniform on their face and then arch their required to change the look o then it's going to be a factual question and just spoke about what she had to do and how it made her feel that she felt terribly demeaned and humiliated a jury should have an opportunity to evaluate that and decide whether that's a an appropriate terms that applies to an individual because of their sex or race or national origin then you look to see whether that has adversely affected their status as an employee or if it's deprives them of an employment opportunit about protecting individuals from being treated differently because of their sacks and the way that sex stereotypes have been used to prevent women in particular from having employment opportunities or being subjected to different treatment based on ideas about women and in particular that women need to be attractive they need to be alluring the same way and hopkins was supposed to be ladylike as well as being and the fact a business person that type of stereotype has been very harmful to w when she had to put on the makeup it made her on it able to do her job because she was so upset and because it changed the way people looked at her she was taken less seriously now there's a bartender and we see this just in the the job description  which is in the record act at starting at age eighty three describes the range of things that a bartender needs to do and and one among those things is monitoring gas consumption of alcohol and intervening as needed according to guidelines i difficult that's part of her job now these are all factual questions but to decide as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could decide that a woman who was number one being required to present herself in a way that was very difficult to her because of who she is as a woman  an alien to her she's never done it she tried it in good faith for a number of weeks but it was so alien to her sense of her gender and how she presents in the world that she couldn't she couldn't do her job in interfered with how people interacted with her and how she her look like a different person she doesn't feel like herself she has to do this now she's not she's not she's not performing she doesn't have to be in character why does she need to wear a mask as opposed to looking like herself suppose she doesn't want to wear stockings with that you know  job opportunities she would need to put forward that evidence and employer would need to show why staff and why stockings are necessary to do the job and then a jury would need to to decide just as you would in in any case now industry yes your honor but the legal standard is not what an employer may want to impose on employees based on their idea of what their customers might like or for whatever other reason but are they treating people differently based on their sacks and do they have a good reason for doing that if paris decides they want to have a more professional image they don't just want to be some some people casino they want to have a high class elegant image can they do that by because this makeup requires requirement involved in any parts they have to be done exactly the same way not the employees isn't even allowed to decide how to put the makeup on a consultant a stranger and exactly how it has to be and then they have to look like a photograph exactly the same way every day and so if we look at this requirement in this context it can't be justified in the same way if you looked at the airline cases they had many different sorts of requirements on their on their stewardesses and each one was tested and then the airline had to explain why the women had to be then why they had to be single maybe in some settings a skirt might be essential i'm not sure what would justify that requirement to tell you the truth but it would be it would be up to an employer who wanted to have that requirement to explain why women can't do whatever the job is and the sort of slacks the point is professionalism needs to be about neat clean and a neutral standard that respects people's right to be individuals and not be judged by their sacks or their race or their religion  example you couldn't have an employer that was insisting on everybody dressing that certain way based on their right even if it was a nice outfit you couldn't color coding you couldn't you couldn't require that that people wear a particular sort of a badge that violates the statute and when they want to do something like that it's their burden to describe why they why they need it i think the case law talking about the harm of stereotypes is very clear and i would refer the court to the now and hard case starting in a restaurant i don't know where it would be in phoenix but in san francisco here it might be the castro or in west hollywood in los angeles who decided that they would have a lot more lunch customers if they required all the male waiters to wear really tight because the customers would like that  because and it would be it would be stylish and think they like that look they don't care what the women wear because most of the clientele don't care what the women wear but they want the an end to be particularly good looking and and to actually a lowering that would violate the statute and if they had a rule that said all the employees need to be healthy and fit and clean and have and come to work nicely that would be fine because it's not using sex to make a distinction or a restricting stereotype to make a distinction again unless they have a really idea about safety is that an employer required only women to wear safety suits because employers are well known or more prone to injury and certainly that wouldn't be permissible it would be an unequal burden saying that women must wear safety particularly because the time taken to put one on flies in the same situation that you're you're requiring women to spend a fair amount of time to dress for individual's performance you know form certainly isn't unique to males or females and therefore you'd be using a harmful gender start stereotype to impose an unequal burden on women norm where men in professional settings wear ties because it's based on generally accepted social norms it's acceptable when you well i guess i guess that's not quite my question i regarding with their men whether some men would like to wear make up and i'd like to address that argument although there's no direct testimony of that and he obviously you can  people with the application make up based on what the consultant said how long do you think it would take a an average person to apply the make up on the way that was advocated by thier consultant a half nothing in the record set forth by ms jesperson standard my argument is not that there is no evidence in the record that there is no time or burden required on men you have to look at the context of which the appearance standard is applied and intent whereas here whether you use the word stereotype or cultural norm it's not being used negatively and it's being used in your manner has kind of pointed out i guess   it's generally accepted in society that most women a lot of women look a significant percentage of women wear makeup in a professional setting as opposed to say a requirement that their women employees were about the nichols case i want to highlight that in that footnote as it was i see as you said the question is whether a particular appearance requirement is reasonable or not and i said that that question of reasonableness as a legal matter needs to incorporate the l about hartley attacked on employees of harmful sex stereotypes that will naturally most often require a jury determination but certainly the question of harmful stereotypes needs to be in that consideration of whether something is reasonable as well as things like time cost and the range of other things that the case that the case has spoken about i want to emphasize that this analysis needs to be taken from the perspective of the employees who are affected and as we just have the discussion leverage servers have any discretion in terms of the neck up they have to look like their personal best photo every day so they have to have a photograph taken yes but the issue is in terms of the makeup they need to whether there's discretion about how to apply the makeup the women and only women have to do that is uniform both men and women have to make up and also have to look at their personal lives yes all employees have to look at personal best and conform to the photo and we don't we don't argue with the idea that there's standardization or uniformity the question is the element of the uniform that applie men's faces are fine if they're clean and they look like themselves and no women are acceptable professional competent unless they change their facial look that's the demeaning message that we believe is squarely how cases and the tie cases go into that category that for a male professional being required to wear a tie is not going to that stereotype doesn't demean his professional stature now you need to look at that in a particular context of course  all about whether particular stereotypes limit job opportunities the fact that they may be common just like notions that women want to be in order to be attractive doesn't that doesn't answer the question so for a for a man who has a challenging though darlene is into a woman who was required to look more feminine just like an hopkins she was fired it's not a theory she lost her job of twenty one years despite excellent job performance because she didn't look them in enough and in that sense is indist restriction in the policy against faddish you know no tap to other things that apply to everybody to say let's have a professional look but women don't have to alter their appearance to be attractive in this particular way to be professional sex and then weren't fired especially if you look at that list of jobs that's in the record your honor you really that point is a bunch of those jobs are things that she plainly wouldn't even qualify for any one of them requires that the applicant be nailed for having s some of the other ones whether to be an engineer or whether to be an accountant whether to work on a computer systems to drive a truck coming there was no reason to think she could do a bunch of those jobs and as to the other