The Study of Jespersen v. Harrah’s
Mary Verhamme

Abstract
The decision in the case of Jespersen v Harrah’s might have shown that the claimant,
Darlene Jespersen, was not illegal discriminated against because of her sex, it does show that organizations that want to succeed and be known as an employer of choice have to take diversity initiatives one step further then following employment law. Organizations have to employ strategies that support diversity by implementing a plan, communicating the plan, and follow thru and make changes to stay competitive in today’s marketplace.

Introduction
The plaintiff in the case, Darlene Jespersen worked for Harrah’s Operating Company at their location in Reno, Nevada for over twenty years in their Food and Beverage Department as a Bartender. Beginning in April 2000, Harrah’s launched a new program called their “Personal Best” employee appearance program in which employee’s were required to comply with the following policies as stated in Jespersen v Harrah’s (2006):
Overall Guidelines (applied equally to male/female): * Appearance: Must maintain Personal Best image portrayed at time of hire. * Jewelry, if issued, must be worn. Otherwise, tasteful and simple jewelry is permitted; no large chokers, chains, or bracelets. * No faddish hairstyles or unnatural colors are permitted.
Males:
* Hair must not extend below top of shirt collar. Ponytails are prohibited. * Hands and fingernails must be clean and nails neatly trimmed at all times. No colored polish is permitted. * Eye and facial makeup is not permitted. * Shoes will be solid black leather or leather type with rubber (non skid) soles.
Females:
* Hair must be teased, curled, or styled every day you work. Hair must be worn down at all times, no exceptions. * Stockings are to be made of nude or natural color consistent with