by the light of the moon...

Grooming standards are fine and I have no problem with costuming/uniform requirements that are relevant to the job. However, I have to say that I anticipate an appeal based on First Amendment protection on freedom of expression.

That said, I wonder about whether community and professional standards will play a major role. (The article did not quote or link to the actual ruling, I noticed. We have no information on the basis upon which the prevailing judges ruled.) For example, extensive tattoos, earrings, and even noserings may be considered acceptable in a punk/underground music store or bar but be unacceptable in an upscale restaurant or corporate office. I don't see an ethical problem with such restrictions when they reflect the clientele of the organization and the widely held professional standards relevant to the job.

Hmmm…I am pretty sure I am more wary of “grooming standards” than you seem to be here, because they can so easily be used to enforce a dominant social paradigm that isn’t comfortable or appropriate for everyone. If it’s one grooming standard that all affected people agree on without coercion, that can be acceptable; two arbitrary standards, divided only by the perceived outer gender of the employees, and enforced without the employees having the power to refuse or to have a hand in building them, is discrimination on the basis of gender.

This sort of double standard is, of course, common, and is indeed often part of those “community standards” or “professional standards” which you mention. My point is that “professional standards” do not always equal just treatment, and I personally feel that it is more important to treat people justly (and fight for visions such as GPAC's, where fair treatment for workers of any gender is more important than current professional standards) than to uphold a ”professional standard” that treats them unjustly.

I agree with you that these “standards” will certainly play a role in any future court case. I also assume that I will probably be disappointed with that role, unless the Harrah’s community is a whole lot more progressive than the Harrah’s management. There’s a whole ‘nother post there, on whether community standards are always fair, or if employees can be punished for not seeming “white enough” or otherwise matching the dominant grooming paradigm. (See this alternet.org article for more on that thread.)

But if we put aside, for a moment, the idea that the dominant grooming paradigm has thorny implications of its own, we still have the question of whether dividing grooming standards arbitrarily by gender is just. I agree with you that if everyone in a store is limited to/ordered to maintain the same number of nose rings, tattoos, painted nails, or what have you, then while it may be an oppressive policy, it is not discrimination by gender. But if my XX chromosomal phenotype means that I have to paint my nails, and a man's XY phenotype means he is not obligated to do so (or is even prevented from doing so), that is differential treatment. I see that as a violation of civil rights, and totally inappropriate.

You are right that we don’t know the nuances of the ruling, and so the court may or may not have agreed with me that it was a civil rights issue. But the impact of that policy, regardless of intent and regardless of whether it is found to be legal, is that a woman was fired for not wearing make-up, when the men she worked with were not. That is unjust, and it perpetuates women’s status as second-class citizens.

I hope you are right in that there will be an appeal. Thanks for your comment.