CLOTHES DON'T MAKE THE MAN (OR WOMAN), BUT GENDER IDENTITY MIGHT

• Published in: Columbia journal of gender and law 2006-01, Vol.15 (1), p.90
• Main Author: Levi, Jennifer L
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Families & family life; Gender; Households; Non-binary gender; Social conditions & trends; Society
• ISSN: 1062-6220

(11) See Harper v. Blockbuster Entm't Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387 (11th Cir. 1998) (dismissing a challenge to a policy that prohibited men, but not women, from having long hair); Tavora v. New York Mercantile Exch., 101 F.3d 907, 908 (2d Cir. 1996) (upholding an employer's policy which required male employees to have short hair, but which did not require the same for female employees); Wislocki-Goin v. Mears, 831 F.2d 1374, 1380 (7th Cir. 1987) (dismissing a Title VII claim alleging that a grooming policy imposed unduly harsh requirements on women); Fountain v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 555 F.2d 753, 755-56 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring male, but not female, employees to wear ties was not sex discrimination under Title VII); Barker v. Taft Broad. Co., 549 F.2d 400, 401 (6th Cir. 1977) (upholding a policy that limited the manner in which hair of men could be cut and that limited the manner in which women's hair could be styled); Earwood v. Continental Se. Lines, Inc., 539 F.2d 1349, 1351 (4th Cir. 1976) (finding sex differentiated grooming standards consistent with Title VII); Longo v. Carlisle DeCoppet & Co., 537 F.2d 685, 685 (2d Cir. 1976) (upholding a policy which required short hair for men, but not women); Knott v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 527 F.2d 1249, 1252 (8th Cir. 1975) (finding grooming policy that "reflect[ed] customary modes of grooming" acceptable even though differences in policy existed for men and women); Dodge v. Giant Food, Inc., 488 F.2d 1333, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (upholding a policy that prohibited only men from wearing long hair); Austin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1257 (N.D. Ind. 1998) (finding acceptable under Title VII a grooming policy requiring male employees to maintain their hair length above the collar); Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 229, 231 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (upholding a "policy that prohibits to both sexes a style more often adopted by members of one sex" under a Title VII challenge); Lanigan v. Bartlett and Co. Grain, 466 F. Supp. 1388, 1392 (D. Mo. 1979) (finding a sex discrimination claim insufficient where an employer prohibited female, but not male, employees from wearing pantsuits in the executive office). (18) See Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., Inc., 392 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir. 2004), reh'g granted, 409 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005). For the previous twenty years that [Darlene Jespersen] worked at Harrah's, her employer encouraged her and other female beverage servers to wear makeup alt