Judge Johnson noted that New Jersey's anti-discrimination law permits an employer to require its workers to adhere to reasonable workplace grooming, appearance and dress standards, as long as they do not violate other provisions of the law or other laws. And he concluded that despite the plaintiffs' claims that they were made to act as stereotypical sex objects to market the casino, the casino's requirements were reasonable.

The law only recognizes sex-stereotyping when employers use stereotypes to impose a professional disadvantage on one sex or punishes a trait in one sex that it praises in the other, but neither situation occurred at the Borgata, the judge ruled.

And as for the casino's policy forbidding the “Borgata Babes” from gaining more than 7 percent of the weight at which they were hired, the judge found that the policy itself, which contained exceptions for medical issues and pregnancy, was not unlawful and that the plaintiffs had not backed up their claim that it was only enforced against female employees with anything more than unverified anecdotes.

Frank v. United Airlines
The Superior Court of New Jersey said the terms and conditions of the CBSs’ employment are lawful for several reasons. First, the court said the offer letter and terms of the PAS fully disclosed Borgata’s expectations of the CBSs, and the CBSs voluntarily accepted those terms and conditions.
Second, the court concluded that the appearance and grooming standards are not unlawful gender stereotyping. “Borgata established its weight standard in an attempt to objectively regulate appearance and applied it evenly to both sexes. While the policy may advance societal perception that fit people are more attractive than those who are overweight, that purported stereotype impacts both males and females and is not actionable under the LAD [New Jersey Law Against Discrimination].”