acho v. Sears Roebuck de Puerto Rico, a woman brought forth a lawsuit alleging that only employees older than 45 years of age were give rate reductions over $3.00 per hour, while no one under 45 years of age had (New 5). The court found in favor of the employee because “the employer failed to articulate any reason other than age to explain the policy’s disparate impact” (New 5).Legislation aimed at appearance may find its best ally in age discrimination legislation because age play an important role in how we look. Age discrimination lawsuits have met with an equal measure of success and failure in the courts. However, in examining one successful and one unsuccessful lawsuit based on age discrimination, we can see how closely looks are aligned with age. In one unsuccessful suit, a court ruled against a woman who had worked as a Playboy Bunny and sued her former employer because of age discrimination “A 1972 case upheld the Playboy Club’s termination of a ‘bunny’ for having lost her ‘bunny image’ through aging” (Sessions 5). However, in another suit based on age discrimination, a court upheld a topless waitress’ claim that her employer refused to let her dance topless because of age “An appeals court allowed a topless waitress at a Dallas gentlemen’s club to sue her employer for his refusal to promote her to a dancer position because of her age” (Sessions 5). Thus, we can see how closely associated age is with appearance and looks. Winning protection for looks discrimination under employment discrimination may have its best chance if it is associated with already protected age discrimination.In those cases where appearance and/or looks discrimination cannot be associated or linked to an already protected characteristics of employment discrimination law, the burden of proof remains with the employee. Cosmetic disfigurement is already afforded prote...
