Posts Tagged ‘ Gender Discrimination ’

Gender-Bending at the DMV: What would RuPaul do?

September 10th, 2014. By LucyC

Kinda hard to think about this case—which we all knew would be coming down the pike—without thinking of the likes of RuPaul. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

South Carolina’s DMV is being sued by a boy and his mother over the 16-year old’s right to wear his “everyday” makeup for his driver’s licence photo. In her lawsuit, Teresa Culpepper alleges the SCDMV told her son to remove his mascara for the photo. When he refused, the SCDMV refused to take the photo, citing a policy that a driver’s license applicant cannot “purposely alter his/her appearance so that the photo would misrepresent his/her identity.”

OK—so where does that leave all us lipstick-loving, hair-colored, false eyelash-wearing women?  And what about wigs—how does that work? And what about women who wear trousers?  Wow, what a can of worms…

The back story: earlier this year Chase Culpepper reportedly showed up for his DL photo wearing foundation, mascara, eye shadow, and lip gloss—you might have seen Chase’s pic splattered across the news at the time. Makeup’s everyday stuff for most women—part of the external persona. According to Chase’s mum, the makeup and androgynous gender performance are part of Chase’s identity. Although Chase was born male, he wears gender non-conforming clothes and makeup.

Teresa Culpepper states that her son passed his driving test and satisfied all other requirements for a license. The only obstacle was the interpretation of the SCDMV’s policy by an employee at the Anderson office of the DMV. Apparently, a DMV employee complimented Chase on his makeup, but said he would not be able to wear fake eyelashes in the picture. “C.C. [Chase Culpepper] and his mother informed her that his eye lashes were real,” Culpepper states in her complaint.

“The employee then said she needed to speak with a supervisor and left to do so. She returned and told C. C. that her supervisor had stated that he needed to ‘go home’ and ‘take off the makeup.’ C. C. and his mother informed the employee that C. C. wears makeup daily and that how he looked at the time is how he looks on a regular basis,” according to the complaint.

Tammy King, the manager of the SCDMV’s Anderson office and the named defendant, then allegedly told the Culpeppers that “C. C. could not take his driver’s license photograph while wearing his regular everyday makeup,” because “it was in her ‘discretion’ to not allow C. C. to have his driver’s license photo taken if she felt he was wearing a disguise.”

Wait a minute—hadn’t they just explained all this?

“C. C.’s mother asked defendant King if a female applicant seeking a driver’s license wearing makeup of the kind C. C. was wearing, i.e., foundation, mascara, eye shadow, and lip gloss, was required to remove her makeup prior to taking a photograph for a driver’s license.

“Defendant King did not respond to plaintiff’s question,” Culpepper says. No, probably because there is no answer.

Lots to ponder here, folks…If a woman wears makeup to look more feminine, it’s not gender-bending, right? But if a man wears makeup…? If RuPaul is highly established as a drag queen (ie, a man doing some gender-bending via cosmetics), which of his/her personas gets photographed at the DMV? Is it up to him/her? We’ve got a wealth of fodder right here for when you’re slow on conversation at your next cocktail party.

The complaint goes on: “There is no disputing, and the SCDMV has acknowledged, that C.C. wears makeup on a regular basis.

However, the SCDMV and its employees have interpreted the policy to prohibit a male applicant from wearing regular everyday makeup that they allow female applicants to wear under the same policy.”

Culpepper claims the defendants discriminated against her son because of “their preconceived notion of how males should and can look. This preconceived notion is a sex stereotype and does not constitute a legitimate state interest.” No shit Sherlock.

Predictably, I suppose, the SCDMV’s policy is vague and relies on an interpretation of what “misrepresenting his/her identity” means, leaving the interpretation up to the discretion to SCDMV employees, something that is not allowed in the private sector. So, you ask—what’s the exact policy? Well, there isn’t one. In their suit, the Culpeppers argue that the policy leaves applicants like Chase at the mercy of sex/gender discrimination and sex stereotyping.

As the complaint states: “Defendants impermissibly discriminated against C.C. based on his sex and their sex stereotype…They unconstitutionally restrained C. C.’s freedom of expression and compelled and continue to compel him to convey an ideological message of their design. And they deprived C.C. of his constitutionally protected liberty interest in his personal appearance. Moreover, defendants’ policy is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, enabling SCDMV personnel to make arbitrary and capricious decisions based on their perception of how a particular individual should look as male or female.” Amen to that.

So, Chase Culpepper, better put your best face on because could you could become the poster boy for DMV discrimination.

Gosh—I sure hope this doesn’t translate into a no make-up at all policy… passport photos are bad enough…

Tags: Chase Culpepper, Gender Discrimination, SCDMV
Posted in Emerging Issues, Totally Tortelicious | No Comments »

Ruth’s Chris Steak House Faces Discrimination Class Action

October 18th, 2011. By AbiK

Been to a Ruth’s Chris Steak House? Aside from it being a tongue twister (try saying “Ruth’s Chris” fast ten times), once you get inside you’ll notice it looks very…boys’ club.

It’s that solid wood thing going on that’s characteristic of most bigger name steak houses. Like Smith & Wollensky. Or Peter Luger (though Luger’s is missing those white lint-producing tablecloths). Outback, Longhorn’s, Morton’s…same drill. And the handles on those steak knives—if you didn’t know any better you’d think you were handling a Winchester Model 1895.

No, not much feminine going on there. So it seems almost apropos that a sexual discrimination lawsuit would somehow crop up in the midst of all that manliness. And so one has—for Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

A group of current and former female employees has filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against Ruth’s Chris. Their complaint alleges that female employees have been subjected to: lower compensation than their male counterparts; sexist comments; and harsher disciplinary action than that which is doled out to the guys there.

The women are seeking class action status for this one, and if gets certified the class would include all female Ruth’s Chris employees who worked at the restaurants or the company headquarters from September, 2006 to the present.

To quote from the lawsuit (Bush v. Ruth’s Chris Steak House, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 10-01721): “The work environment at RCSH [Ruth’s Chris Steak House] is one that is demeaning to women, reflects a culture of male domination and female subjugation, and is a causative factor in the discrimination against women in compensation, promotion, and termination.”

What’s interesting here is that the “Ruth” in Ruth’s Chris was actually Ruth U. Fertel, who purchased Chris Steak House in New Orleans in 1965 and got the whole thing going. She passed away in 2002. One can only wonder what the successful, entrepreneurial businesswoman who created this businessman’s beefery would think of this…

Tags: Employment, Equal Rights, Gender Discrimination, Ruth's Chris Discrimination Lawsuit, Ruth's Chris Steak House, Workplace Discrimination
Posted in Class Action, Emerging Issues, Employment | No Comments »