Court Opinion

ID: 9498863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:29:52.541024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:06.867353
License: Public Domain

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,
with whom Judges KOZINSKI, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER join,
dissenting:
I agree with the majority that appearance standards and grooming policies may be subject to Title VII claims. I also agree with the majority that a Title VII plaintiff challenging appearance standards or grooming policies may “make out a prima facie case [by] establishing that the challenged employment action was either intentionally discriminatory or that it had a discriminatory effect on the basis of gender.” Maj. Op. at 1108 (emphasis added). In other words, I agree with the majority that a Title VII plaintiff may make out a prima facie case by showing that the challenged policy either was motivated in part “because of a sex stereotype,” Maj. Op. at 1111, or “creates an ‘unequal burden’ for the plaintiffs gender,” Maj. Op. at 1110. Finally, I agree with the majority that Jespersen failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establish that Harrah’s “Personal Best” program created an undue burden on Harrah’s female bartenders.1 I part *1114ways with the majority, however, inasmuch as I believe that the “Personal Best” program was part of a policy motivated by sex stereotyping and that Jespersen’s termination for failing to comply with the program’s requirements was “because of’ her sex. Accordingly, I dissent from Part III of the majority opinion and from the judgment of the court.
The majority contends that it is bound to reject Jespersen’s sex stereotyping claim because she presented too little evidence — only her “own subjective reaction to the makeup requirement.” Maj. Op. at 1112. I disagree. Jespersen’s evidence showed that Harrah’s fired her because she did not comply with a grooming policy that imposed a facial uniform (full makeup) on only female bartenders. Harrah’s stringent “Personal Best” policy required female beverage servers to wear foundation, blush, mascara, and lip color, and to ensure that lip color was on at all times. Jespersen and her female colleagues were required to meet with professional image consultants who in turn created a facial template for each woman. Jespersen was required not simply to wear makeup; in addition, the consultants dictated where and how the makeup had to be applied.
Quite simply, her termination for failing to comply with a grooming policy that imposed a facial uniform on only female bartenders is discrimination “because of’ sex. Such discrimination is clearly and unambiguously impermissible under Title VII, which requires that “gender must be irrelevant to employment decisions.” Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 240, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (plurality opinion) (emphasis added).2
Notwithstanding Jespersen’s failure to present additional evidence, little is required to make out a sex-stereotyping — as distinct from an undue burden — claim in this situation. In Price Waterhouse, the Supreme Court held that an employer may not condition employment on an employee’s conformance to a sex stereotype associated with their gender. Id. at 250-51, 109 S.Ct. 1775. As the majority recognizes, Price Waterhouse allows a Title VII plaintiff to “introduce evidence that the employment decision was made in part because of a sex stereotype.” Maj. Op. at 1111; see also Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 277, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (requiring that a plaintiff show “direct evidence that decisionmakers *1115placed substantial negative reliance on an illegitimate criterion in reaching their decision”). It is not entirely clear exactly what this evidence must be, but nothing in Price Waterhouse suggests that a certain type or quantity of evidence is required to prove a prima facie case of discrimination. Cf. Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 98-102, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003) (holding that a plaintiff may prove discrimination in a Title VII case using either direct or circumstantial evidence and that, to obtain a mixed-motive instruction, the plaintiff need only present evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that sex was a motivating factor for an employment practice).
Moreover, Price Waterhouse recognizes that gender discrimination may manifest itself in stereotypical notions as to how women should dress and present themselves, not only as to how they should behave. See 490 U.S. at 235, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (noting that the plaintiff was told that her consideration for partnership would be enhanced if, among other things, she “dress[ed] more femininely, [wore] make-up, [had] her hair styled, and [wore] jewelry”); see also Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir.2005) (recognizing that one can fail to conform to gender stereotypes either through behavior or through appearance); Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566, 574 (6th Cir.2004) (“After Price Waterhouse, an employer who discriminates against women because, for instance, they do not wear dresses or makeup, is engaging in sex discrimination because the discrimination would not occur but for the victim’s sex.”); Doe v. City of Belleville, 119 F.3d 563, 582 (7th Cir.1997) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that Price Waterhouse does not apply to personal appearance standards), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 523 U.S. 1001, 118 S.Ct. 1183, 140 L.Ed.2d 313 (1998).
Hopkins, the Price Waterhouse plaintiff, offered individualized evidence, describing events in which she was subjected to discriminatory remarks. However, the Court did not state that such evidence was required. To the contrary, the Court noted that
By focusing on Hopkins’ specific proof ... we do not suggest a limitation on the possible ways of proving that stereotyping played a motivating role in an employment decision, and we refrain from deciding here which specific facts, ‘standing alone,’ would or would not establish a plaintiffs case, since such a decision is unnecessary in this case.
Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 251-52, 109 S.Ct. 1775; see also id. at 271, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (recognizing that “direct evidence of intentional discrimination is hard to come by”). The fact that Harrah’s required female bartenders to conform to a sex stereotype by wearing full makeup while working is not in dispute, and the policy is described at length in the majority opinion. See Maj. Op. at 1107. This policy did not, as the majority suggests, impose a “grooming, apparel, or appearance requirement that an individual finds personally offensive,” Maj. Op. at 1112, but rather one that treated Jespersen differently from male bartenders “because of’ her sex. I believe that the fact that Harrah’s designed and promoted a policy that required women to conform to a sex stereotype by wearing full makeup is sufficient “direct evidence” of discrimination.
The majority contends that Harrah’s “Personal Best” appearance policy is very different from the policy at issue in Price Waterhouse in that it applies to both men and women. See Maj. Op. at 1111 (“[The Personal Best policy] applies to all of the bartenders, male and female. It requires all of the bartenders to wear exactly the *1116same uniforms while interacting with the public in the context of the entertainment industry.”) I disagree. As the majority concedes, “Harrah’s ‘Personal Best’ policy contains sex-differentiated requirements regarding each employee’s hair, hands, and face.” Maj. Op. at 1112. The fact that a policy contains sex-differentiated requirements that affect people of both genders cannot excuse a particular requirement from scrutiny. By refusing to consider the makeup requirement separately, and instead stressing that the policy contained some gender-neutral requirements, such as color of clothing, as well as a variety of gender-differentiated requirements for “hair, hands, and face,” the majority’s approach would permit otherwise impermissible gender stereotypes to be neutralized by the presence of a stereotype or burden that affects people of the opposite gender, or by some separate nondiscriminatory requirement that applies to both men and women. By this logic, it might well have been permissible in Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2000), to require women, but not men, to meet a medium body frame standard if that requirement were imposed as part of a “physical appearance” policy that also required men, but not women, to achieve a certain degree of upper body muscle definition. But the fact that employees of both genders are subjected to gender-specific requirements does not necessarily mean that particular requirements are not motivated by gender stereotyping.
Because I believe that we should be careful not to insulate appearance requirements by viewing them in broad categories, such as “hair, hands, and face,” I would consider the makeup requirement on its own terms. Viewed in isolation — or, at the very least, as part of a narrower category of requirements affecting employees’ faces — the makeup or facial uniform requirement becomes closely analogous to the uniform policy held to constitute impermissible sex stereotyping in Carroll v. Talman Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Chicago, 604 F.2d 1028, 1029 (7th Cir.1979). In Carroll, the defendant bank required women to wear employer-issued uniforms, but permitted men to wear business attire of their own choosing. The Seventh Circuit found this rule discriminatory because it suggested to the public that the uniformed women held a “lesser professional status” and that women could not be trusted to choose appropriate business attire. Id. at 1032-33.
Just as the bank in Carroll deemed female employees incapable of achieving a professional appearance without assigned uniforms, Harrah’s regarded women as unable to achieve a neat, attractive, and professional appearance without the facial uniform designed by a consultant and required by Harrah’s. The inescapable message is that women’s undoctored faces compare unfavorably to men’s, not because of a physical difference between men’s and women’s faces, but because of a cultural assumption — and gender-based stereotype — that women’s faces are incomplete, unattractive, or unprofessional without full makeup. We need not denounce all makeup as inherently offensive, just as there was no need to denounce all uniforms as inherently offensive in Carroll, to conclude that requiring female bartenders to wear full makeup is an impermissible sex stereotype and is evidence of discrimination because of sex. Therefore, I strongly disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there “is no evidence in this record to indicate that the policy was adopted to make women bartenders conform to a commonly-accepted stereotypical image of what women should wear.” Maj. Op. at 1112.
I believe that Jespersen articulated a classic case of Price Waterhouse discrimi*1117nation and presented undisputed, material facts sufficient to avoid summary judgment. Accordingly, Jespersen should be allowed to present her case to a jury. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

. I have little doubt that Jespersen could have made some kind of a record in order to estab*1114lish that the "Personal Best" policies are more burdensome for women than for men. The cost of makeup and time needed to apply it can both be quantified as can, for example, the cost of haircuts and time needed for nail trimming; had a record been offered in this case to establish the alleged undue burden on women, the district court could have evaluated it. Having failed to create such a record, Jespersen did not present any triable issue of fact on this issue.

. Title VII identifies only one circumstance in which employers may take gender into account in making an employment decision— namely, "when gender is a 'bona fide occupational qualification [ (BFOQ) ] reasonably necessary to the normal operation of th[e] particular business or enterprise.’ ” Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 242, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (alterations in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)); see also Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 334, 97 S.Ct. 2720, 53 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977) (recognizing that the BFOQ was meant to be an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex). Harrah’s has not attempted to defend the "Personal Best” makeup requirement as a BFOQ. In fact, there is little doubt that the "Personal Best” policy is not a business necessity, as Harrah’s quietly disposed of this policy after Jespersen filed this suit. Regardless, although a BFOQ.is a defense that an employer may raise, see Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 515 (9th Cir.2000), it does not preclude the employee from demonstrating the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination and presenting her case to a jury.