Jloj

Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:95–111 DOI 10.1007/s10672-007-9037-z

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

Published online: 12 April 2007 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

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 coworkers. Workplace civility policies may hold promise for limiting both legal liability and practical consequences in the absence of a legislative response. Key words workplace appearance . sex discrimination . gender stereotyping . sexual orientation . retaliation . workplace civility As the number of employment-related discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims based on employee appearance has continued to increase, so has the variety of fact patterns that underlie such claims. For example, in Yanowitz v. L’Oreal (2005), the California Supreme Court upheld plaintiff’s right to bring a retaliation claim based on her apparent targeting for disciplinary and other adverse action after she refused to follow a superior’s order to fire a dark-skinned female salesperson and “get me somebody hot” (referring to a light-skinned blond). The majority of appearance-based discrimination claims, however, still represent two types: those based on the effects of employer dress codes, grooming standards, or other appearance-based requirements, and those based on the effects of coworker

References: Adamitis, E. M. (2000). Appearance matters: A proposal to limit appearance discrimination in employment. Washington Law Review, 75, 195 (January). 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. Bello, J. D. (2004). Attractiveness as hiring criteria: Savvy business practice or racial discrimination? 8 Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 483, 504–505 (Fall). 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. Bovalino, K. M. (2003). How the effeminate male can maximize his odds of winning Title VII litigation. 53 Syracuse Law Review, 1117, 1134. 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. 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). 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). 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. 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. Jawahar, I. M., & Mattsson, J. (2005). Sexism and beautyism effects in selection as a function of selfmonitoring level of decision maker. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 563–573. 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. Kramer, Z. A. (2004). The ultimate gender stereotype: Equalizing gender-conforming and gendernonconforming homosexuals under Title VII. U. Illinois Law Review, 465–499. Kramer, Z. A. (2006). Some preliminary thoughts on Title VII’s intersexions. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 7, 31–58. 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. Lloyd, A. (2005). Defining the human: Are transgender people strangers to the law? Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just, 20, 150. Lucero, M. A., & Allen, R. E. (2006). Implementing zero tolerance policies: Balancing strict enforcement with fair treatment. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 35–41 (Winter). Meyers, L. (2006). Still wearing the “kick me” sign. APA Monitor on Psychology, 37, 68–70. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137. Quill, E. (2005). Employers’ liability for bullying and harassment. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 645–666 (Winter). 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. 110 Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:95–111 Schneyer, K. L. (1998). Hooting: Public and popular discourse about sex discrimination. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 31, 551 (Spring). 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). 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. Yuracko, K. A. (2004). Private nurses and Playboy Bunnies: Explaining permissible sex discrimination. 92 California Law Review, 147, 151–152 (January). Cases Cited Cases Cited Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) Back v. Hastings-on-Hudson Union Free School District, 365 F.3d 107; 119–20 (2nd Cir. 2004) Baker v. Cal. Land Title Co., 507 F.2d 895 (9th Cir.1974) Bibby v. Phila. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2001) Booth et al. v. Maryland Dept. of Public Safety, et al., 327 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2003) Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 126 S. Ct. 240 (2006) Centola v. Potter, 183 F.Supp. 2d 402; 408–409 (D. Mass. 2002) Christopher v. National Educational Association, 422 F.3d 840; 845 (9th Cir. 2005) City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power, et al., v. Manhart et al., 435 U.S. 702 (1978) Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004); cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2940 (June 20, 2005) Craft v. Metromedia, Inc., 766 F.2d 1205 (8th Cir. 1985); cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1058 (1986) Dandan v. Radisson, WL 336528 (N. D. Ill. 2000) Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211; 217–218 (2nd Cir. 2004) Dick v. Phone Directories Co., Inc., 397 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2005) Doe v. City of Belleville, 119 F.3d 563; 581 (7th Cir. 1997) EEOC v. Audrey Sedita d/b/a Women’s Workout World, 755 F. Supp. 808 (N. D. Ill. 1991) Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority, Lexis 12634 (June 24, 2005) Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845; 855 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) Guardian Capital Corp. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 360 N.Y.S. 2nd 937 (1974) Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) Hamm V. Weyauwega Milk Products, Inc., 332 F.3d (7th Cir. 2003) Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998) Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1999) 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) Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238 (1976) Klein v. McGowan, 198 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 1999) Lynch v. Baylor University Medical Center, Lexis 62408 (N.D. Tx., 2006) McCown v. St. John’s Health System, Inc., 349 F.3d 540 (8th Cir. 2003) Medina v. State of New Mexico, 413 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2005) Miller v. Kellogg, Lexis 31021 (N.D. Neb., 2006) Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2001) Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75; 82 (1998) Pedroza v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 397 F.3d 1063 (2005) Philips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542; 545 (1971) Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) Rivera v. Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, 702 A.2nd 1359 (N.J. Super. 1997) Schmedding v. Tnemec, 187 F.3d 862; 865 (8th Cir. 1999) Schroer v. Billngton,424 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D. D.C. 2006) Simonton v. Runyon, 232 F.3d 33; 34–35 (2nd Cir. 2000) Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 (3rd Cir. 2006) Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir., 2004) Spearman v. Ford Motor Co., 231 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 2000) UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) Employ Respons Rights J (2007) 19:95–111 Vickers v. Fairfield Medical Center et al., 453 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2006) Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292; 304 (N.D. Tex. 1981) Wiseley v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., 94 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. 402 (D. N.J. 2004) Wood v. Sempra Energy Trading Corp., Lexis 2848 (D. Conn. 2005) Wright v. CompUSA, 352 F.3d 472 (1st Cir. 2003) Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA Inc., 36 Cal. 4th 1028 (Aug. 11, 2005) 111