T e D.C. appearance law was meant to be broad and


inclusive. Katz said personal appearance lawsuits are often muddied by other factors that may be more readily covered under discrimination law such as age, instead of strictly pursuing beauty. “I’ve never seen anything like the Iowa case where the


person was discriminated against for being too beautiful,” Katz said, whose fi rm specializes in employment law and sexual harassment.


THE BEAUTY ADVANTAGE It is a documented reality that being good-looking has its rewards—fi nancially and in leveraging opportunities. At one time, even discuss- ing the topic seemed trite, but more and more mainstream and legal scholars are documenting how looks can aff ect one’s job, career, and life. A high-profi le case in New York


36


involved a 33-year-old Queens, NY, woman who sued Citibank three years ago claiming that, for wearing pencil skirts, turtlenecks, and peep-toe stilet- tos, she was fi red from her desk job for being “too hot.” Debrahlee Lorenzana claims her


supervisors commented on her pants and skirts being too tight and revealing, but did not make the same comments to other, less attractive women employ- ees with similar attire. Her media blitz about her case was a catalyst for addi- tional discussion on the topic of beauty discrimination. Attorney Jeff rey B. Jones, offi ce


managing shareholder with Littler Mendelson, has worked in discrimina- tion law since 1997. Based in Orlando, Fla., Jones is focused on training compa- nies to avoid lawsuits when it comes to a broad spectrum of discrimination issues. “I haven’t seen any of these so-called


THE ANNUAL TOTAL GLOBAL INVESTMENT FOR


APPEARANCE- RELATED


PRODUCTS


beauty discrimination cases,” Jones said. “We see more cases where someone felt they were discriminated against because the person hired was younger and more attractive. It is very clear that a lot of decisions are being made based upon looks, especially in sales. It’s human nature. T ose are the things we advise clients to be careful about, which can lead to age and gender discrimination claims. “We remind companies that they want to make sure their


policies are uniformly enforced with the same set of rules for men and women.” T e beauty premium has been widely researched in a culture consumed with image. According to economists,


DIVERSITY & THE BAR® MARCH/APRIL 2013


pretty people, whatever their aspirations, tend to do better. Over a career, a good-looking man will make about


$250,000 more than his less attractive counterpart, according to economist Daniel S. Hamermesh, who is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. His research focuses on the study of physical beauty and how it impacts employment and earning potential. T e American Society of Plastic Surgeons reports that 13 percent of women and 10 percent of men surveyed would consider cosmetic surgery if it made them more competitive at work. Newsweek surveyed 202 corporate hiring managers, from human resources staff to senior-level vice presidents, as well as about 1,000 people from the general public to gauge their views about the importance of looks. Fifty-seven percent of hir-


ing managers told Newsweek that qualifi ed but unattractive candidates are likely to have a harder time landing a job, while more than half advised candidates spend as much time and money on “making sure they look attractive” as on perfecting a resume. When asked to rank employee attributes in order of importance, managers placed looks


above education. In her book, T e Beauty Bias: T e


Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law, Stanford University law professor Deborah Rhode argues that appearance- based discrimination is a pervasive social problem that can be addressed, at least in part, through anti-discrimination laws. According to Rhode, appearance discrimination translates into lower wages, lower damage settlements, and countless other tangible harms. One thing is certain: the goal


to achieve beauty is big business. Consumers' annual total global invest- ment in appearance totals close to


$200 billion, according to Rhode. T e complexity of “beauty bias” is apparent as the


Boston offi ce of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has weighed in on the beauty debate through its recent investigation. T e EEOC launched an investigation into alleged discriminatory hiring practices at Marylou’s Coff ee. T e East Coast coff ee shop chain is known for hiring


young, pretty female baristas, clad in the chain’s signature pink shirts and black shorts. T e coff ee chain is not the only franchise challenged for its exclusive workforce that is based on looks. Hooters restau-


MCCA.COM


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52