This Was Settled In 1989

But some people never learn.

Remember when I said discrimination on a job is very hard to prove unless they do something stupid? Well get a load of this!

Lesbian alleges discrimination by Phoenix Chili's restaurant over dress code
Arizona Family
Ryan Simms
January 16, 2019

PHOENIX (3TV/CBS 5) - A national restaurant chain could be sued by a Valley woman over its dress code for female employees.
Meagan Hunter worked at a north Phoenix Chili's restaurant for two years.

In that time, she said her bosses praised her constantly and even recommended her for a promotion.

After going to training for that new position, however, she said everything changed.

"To succeed in this company, I (was told) I would have to dress more gender appropriate," Hunter told Arizona's Family.

Hunter is a lesbian and said a boss told her she needed to dress more feminine if she truly wanted the promotion.

Um… well I guess he said something really stupid. Not because she is a lesbian but what he said “she needed to dress more feminine if she truly wanted the promotion” now compare this to the 1989 Supreme Court ruling.

Student Project: Appearance Policies as Sex Discrimination in the Workplace: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
A guide to Title VII and sex stereotyping.

Case Summary:
In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Ann Hopkins was one of eighty-eight candidates for partnership with the firm, but the only woman. Hopkins brought a Title VII suit, after she was allegedly denied the partnership position for not conforming to stereotypical notions of how a woman should act, dress, and behave.

Implications:

• The Court took a broad approach to define “sex” within Title VII and recognized sex-stereotyping as discrimination because of sex.
• Justice Brennan clarified the term “sex stereotyping” in relation to Title VII:

“[W]e are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group, for “’[i]n forbidding employers to discriminate against individuals because of their sex, Congress intended to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.”’ Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 251. 

• Applying this principle to the case at hand, the Court found that sex discrimination includes not only refusing to promote someone because she is female, but also refusing to promote someone because she is a female who does not act "appropriately" feminine. 
• Thus, discrimination “because of sex” includes prohibiting an employer from discrimination against gender stereotypes.

Hmm… the restaurant did exactly what the Supreme Court ruled was illegal, the manger definitively put his foot in his moth.