Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
"Borgata Babes" from Borgata Casino Hotel & Spa
Schiavo v. Marina Dist. Development Co., LLC, 123 A.3d 272 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., 2015).
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)
Female employees of Wal-Mart brought Title VII action against employer alleging sex discrimination and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, back pay, and punitive damages. The women alleged that the company's nationwide policies enabled men to be promoted faster than women and get paid more than women. The Court held that a class consisting of more than a million women employees of a single employer all over the U.S. cannot be certified as such if they fail to prove that all the members were subject to the same discrimination in respect to the employment policy, and so do not fulfil the criterion for commonality of fact or issue. This was the largest class action lawsuit in U.S. history.
Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., Inc., 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006)
The court held that objectively applying makeup did not harm female bartenders more than men. The policy which required female employees to wear makeup, and required male employees to keep their hair short, was not sufficient to establish female employee's prima facie disparate impact Title VII sex discrimination claim. The plaintiff failed to show that the policy imposed unreasonable or unequal burdens on female employees.
Schiavo v. Marina Dist. Development Co., LLC, 123 A.3d 272 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., 2015)
A casino required a specialized group of costumed beverage servers to remain fit and within a stated weight range. The court found the policy did not discriminate against women on its face in violation of the Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Employees were also subject to weight standards that applied to both males and females in the group and imposed the same limit of no more than 7% weight increase from employee's baseline weight. This policy also recognized pregnancy in the category of bona fide medical conditions representing an exception to enforcement of standards. The plaintiffs failed to satisfy the unequal burdens test and the employer's business was justified by the fact that entertainment and costumes aided its Las Vegas-style casino theme.
Viscecchia v. Alrose Allegria LLC, 117 F. Supp. 3d 243 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)
Employer's requirement that male employees have short hair did not violate Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination or New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). There were no hair length requirements for female employees in employer's hair policy and the policy was part of a comprehensive grooming code regarding hair that was applicable to all employees, and female employees were bound by other policy provisions, which required all employees to have clean, trimmed, well brushed hair and prohibited “extreme styles,” and requirements were not more onerous for one gender than the other.
Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, L.L.C., 585 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (S.D. Iowa 2008)
Absent a showing that her discharge occurred under an inference of discrimination, a female hotel guest service agent (GSR) failed to establish prima facie case of sex discrimination. She relied solely on evidence describing how the hotel's female GSR employees had to be “pretty,” but both male and female GSRs were held to the same business dress standard.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes