'Tomboy' Look Gets



"Tomboy" Look Gets

Woman Fired

[pic] | |

|   Brenna Lewis got fired from her front desk clerk position with Heartland Inns in Ankeny, Iowa, because she looked |

|"tomboyish" and too "masculine." |

|   Earlier this year, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor in the gender discrimination lawsuit she |

|brought against Heartland Inns. There is no federal law making it illegal for an employer to discriminate based on a |

|person's appearance. However, courts (as in this decision) are ruling that employers violate the Title VII sex |

|discrimination prohibition when they use sexual stereotypes to discriminate against an applicant or employee. |

|   This case began when Brenna Lewis was promoted from night auditor to the front desk. In the night job, she was doing well|

|and received two merit-based pay raises and positive customer feedback. After Lewis started her day job, the company's |

|Director of Operations, Barbara Cullinan, expressed the view that she wasn't sure Lewis was a "good fit" for the position |

|since Lewis lacked the "Midwestern girl" look necessary at the front desk. |

|The court noted that Lewis acknowledged she is "slightly more masculine," avoids makeup, and wears men's button-down shirts |

|and slacks. She also acknowledged she had been mistaken for a male and had been referred to as "tomboyish." Cullinan, |

|though, believed the staff at the front desk should be "pretty." |

|Shortly after Cullinan's reaction to Lewis, Lewis was terminated. The company, in a termination letter, said she was |

|"hostile" toward its policies. Lewis's lawsuit followed. |

|Caution for employers: This decision is a reminder not to base employment decisions and actions on sexual or gender |

|stereotypes. The decision or action could constitute a violation of Title VII's prohibition of discrimination "because of |

|sex." |

|Beauty Bias: How Bad Is It? |

|[pic] |

|   Newsweek (July 28, 2010) features an article titled "The Beauty Advantage" reporting the extent of appearance |

|discrimination in America today. Following are significant points applying to the work world: |

|"Handsome men earn, on average, 5 percent more than their less-attractive counterparts (good-looking women earn 4 percent |

|more)..." |

|"...there's a growing bundle of research to show that our bias against the unattractive – our 'beauty bias,' as a new book |

|calls it – is more pervasive than ever. And when it comes to the workplace, it's looks, not merit, that all too often rule."|

| |

|"...in the current economy...looks, it seems, aren't just important; they're critical. Newsweek surveyed 202 corporate |

|hiring managers, from human-resources staff to senior-level vice presidents, as well as 964 members of the public, only to |

|confirm what no qualified (or unqualified) employee wants to admit: from hiring to office politics to promotions, even, |

|looking good is no longer something we can dismiss as frivolous or vain." |

|"Fifty-seven percent of hiring managers told Newsweek that qualified but unattractive candidates are likely to have a harder|

|time landing a job... 61 percent of managers (the majority of them men) said it would be an advantage for a woman to wear |

|clothing showing off her figure at work." |

| "...47 percent [of recruiters] also believe it's possible for a woman to be penalized for being 'too good-looking.'" |

It's called "appearance bias," "appearance discrimination," or "lookism." There's a new book out on the topic, The Beauty Bias, by Deborah Rhode. And there's even a law against it in Michigan and a few localities.

Until recently, appearance bias and lookism were typically defined as discrimination against individuals because they were too overweight, too short, or had other physical traits that others considered "not good looking." But in a strange twist on the generally accepted understanding of appearance bias, in June, a former Citibank employee filed a legal action against Citibank, alleging that she was fired for being too physically attractive.

Debrahlee Lorenzana asserts she lost her position at Citibank because her figure was too "distracting" for male colleagues and supervisors to bear and that her body shape "drew too much attention." Citibank's response (as cited in Business Insurance) states "...we can say her termination was solely performance-related and not at all related to her appearance or attire."

Lorenzana's claim of discrimination because of her attractiveness is atypical.

More typical of a lookism case involved Jennifer Portnick who, several years ago, wanted a Jazzercise franchise. The company turned her down because of a policy requiring exercise instructors to appear fit. Apparently Portnick's weight of 240 pounds didn't fit the fitness policy. Portnick filed a legal action against Jazzercise, based on the San Francisco law prohibiting discrimination because of weight and height. Jazzercise changed its policy.

Whatever the merits of Lorenzana's assertion that she lost her job at Citibank due to her good looks, the issue of discrimination involving appearance is heating up.

Employers in Michigan can't legally discriminate against applicants and employees because of their height and weight. It's against the law in Santa Cruz, Calif., for an employer to discriminate against applicants and employees based on their height, weight or physical characteristics. The law in Washington, D.C., prohibits discrimination in employment based on personal appearance. And it's illegal in San Francisco for employers to discriminate against applicants and employees because of their weight and height.

This raises a key question: Can employers, managers, and supervisors make accurate judgments about applicants and employees based on their appearance? A study titled "Personality Judgments Based on Physical Appearance" gives a cautious, marginally "yes" answer.

Laura Naumann, psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a lead researcher in the study, answers the question this way: "Certain physical cues might be particularly important for employers interviewing new applicants. For example, positive emotional expression such as smiling, making eye contact, and leaning forward demonstrate sincere interest in the conversation. If the job you're hiring for calls for a sociable, friendly, and approachable type, look for someone who is smiling broadly and has an energetic posture. However, just because a person isn't smiling doesn't mean that they are a poor worker, it's just more likely to indicate that they are more reserved, quiet, and introverted."

The study, published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, involved having observers view full-body photos of people they did not know. The observers were asked to make judgments based on the physical appearance of the individuals shown in the photos. The physical appearance of individuals in the photos had multiple components (facial expression, posture, and clothing, for example). Each individual had a standardized, posed photo and a photo in which they were free to adopt a spontaneous pose and expression.

Key conclusions were:

• There was "some degree of accuracy [by observers] for extraversion and marginally significant levels of accuracy for openness and emotional stability."

• Observers "were not accurate at judging agreeableness and conscientiousness."

• Observers were more accurate in making judgments about agreeableness and openness from the spontaneous photos than from the standardized photos. They were marginally more accurate in making judgments for conscientiousness and loneliness when viewing the spontaneous photos.

• Observers' "impressions of extraversion were most strongly correlated with targets' energetic stance and smiling."

• "Agreeable targets were more likely to smile and stand in a more relaxed way; observers' judgments in the spontaneous condition were also correlated with these cues."

• "Conscientious targets were less likely to dress in distinctive ways."

• "Emotionally stable targets were healthier looking and stood in more relaxed ways; observers' judgments correlated with these cues but correlated with invalid cues such as whether the target was smiling and stood with an energetic stance."

The study's conclusion: "When observers saw targets in their spontaneous poses, they were able to judge 9 of 10 traits with some degree of accuracy, and for four of those traits, the observers were more accurate than in the standardized condition. In addition, for six of the 10 traits, judgments made in the spontaneous condition provided incremental validity in predicting the targets' actual personalities above and beyond judgments made in the standardized condition. These findings suggest that observers' lay theories about personality and its manifestation in physical appearance have some kernel of truth to them..."

Appearance-based decisions are risky. Asked how the study's findings might identify risks in face-to-face interviewing of job applicants, Naumann explained:

"It will depend on the type of job. If you are looking for someone who will be a good sales associate or someone constantly interacting with people, you want to hire someone who has good social skills and puts others at ease. These extraverted types are going to smile more, stand in more engaged and energetic ways, and may even dress more stylishly." So far, so good.

However, "one of the unfortunate downsides to making judgments based on appearance," Naumann continued, is that "people do largely base their first impressions on a person's clothing and overall appearance." Then, "in cases where someone is dressed in a messy, disheveled way, others are likely to attribute more negative attributes to that person -- such as unfriendly, unreliable. However, in our study, we found that people's judgments of conscientiousness – is the person reliable, dependable, and organized – based on clothing and appearance were not good predictors of the person's actual levels of conscientiousness."

Naumann explained further: "Certainly in an interview setting where social norms dictate dressing up and looking your best, an applicant who has not taken any time to look his or her best, that may be an acceptable indicator that this person is less careful and organized. However, under circumstances where the employer has known an employee and seen their work performance in many different arenas, it's important to not base their judgment on their appearance – unless you're in an industry such as fashion or retail where appearance is part of the job.

[NOTE: Information and guidance in this story is intended to provide accurate and helpful information on the subjects covered. It is not intended to provide a legal service for readers' individual needs. For legal guidance in your specific situations, always consult with an attorney who is familiar with employment law and labor issues.]

Read more:

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download