[This is a comment on a Slate analysis found here; the title says lawsuits against look discrimination is a bad idea, but the article is a bit more open-ended.]
The NY Daily News is also drooling over Debrahlee Lorenzana, but things like her talking about her breast implants on television makes her an easy target for the tabloids. Anyways, what is she claiming? An important part is selective targeting -- she claims others at her job dressed similarly but she targeted unfairly. The Village Voice article also pointed to allegations of this nature:
Other problems also popped up. In order to provide services to a client, a banker needs to become certified to do things like open a checking account or take a loan application. Lorenzana says Fisher didn't send her to enough of the required training sessions, which meant she wasn't authorized to do something as simple as order a debit card for a client and was forced to rely on her colleagues for favors. "When I complained," Lorenzana says, "Craig would say, 'Just go ahead and bring in new business.' So I went out every day and looked for business." But then, she says, when clients would come into the branch asking for her—or would fax papers to the branch with her name on them—Fisher would give those hard-won accounts to male colleagues.
Appearance claims are not trivial since they have gender, religious and ethnic/racial overtones in many cases.* Lorenzana suggests aspects of her ethnicity (though unlike some Hispanic women, her "assets" were not shall we say totally God given) is used against her, her natural looks a target. It has been the case that certain ethnic looks have been selectively deemed unattractive or inappropriate based largely on prejudice. Other women (and men) have claimed companies deem not not feminine/masculine enough in their dress. Such clothing or hair has religious or ethnic/racial aspects. So forth.
Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., is an interesting case. I see that resident libertarian bad boy Judge Kozinski supported the claim, signing on to the dissent by a liberal judge. He dissented separately in fact to expand upon it. He underlines this is simply not a matter of feeling makeup is 'degrading,' or even a matter of self-expression, but a selective burden on women:
Nor is there any rational doubt that application of makeup is an intricate and painstaking process that requires considerable time and care. Even those of us who don't wear makeup know how long it can take from the hundreds of hours we've spent over the years frantically tapping our toes and pointing to our wrists. It's hard to imagine that a woman could "put on her face," as they say, in the time it would take a man to shave—certainly not if she were to do the careful and thorough job Harrah's expects. Makeup, moreover, must be applied and removed every day; the policy burdens men with no such daily ritual. While a man could jog to the casino, slip into his uniform, and get right to work, a woman must travel to work so as to avoid smearing her makeup, or arrive early to put on her makeup there.
More here. As noted above, it seems a bit too facile to say dress and grooming "are just another job requirement," given the true scope of the matter. Is a ban on headscarves or yarmulkes just another job requirement? Does not federal discrimination law require certain accommodations that take into consideration such things? The article also suggests:
"A dress code or a boss who offers explicit wardrobe guidance can be an egalitarian counterweight to the subtle class biases that inappropriate clothing choices would otherwise trigger"
This might be true and the claim here is in part that dress codes were selectively enforced. But, the devil is in the details. Gail Collins (of the NYT) in a recent book told about a woman who got in trouble for not wearing a skirt to court in the 1960s. A skirt was an explicit wardrobe requirement too, but there was a problem there. We cannot micromanage here, but general policy and sometimes laws themselves should set some limits.
Anyways, the general sentiment seems to be that this woman is a bit of a bimbo and has a weak case -- article after article highlighting her looks does not help too much there. OTOH, maybe, that helps her case. But, it sounds like she is alleging more than "they fired me for being too beautiful," even if she loses in the end.
---
* There have been much litigation regarding appearance that rests in part on constitutional grounds of various types, including basic liberty:
Justice Powell, concurring opinion.When the State has an interest in regulating one's personal appearance, as it certainly does in this case, there must be a weighing of the degree of infringement of the individual's liberty interest against the need for the regulation.