The plaintiff in this case worked as a bartender at Harrah?s Casino in Las Vegas for 20 years. ?By all accounts, she was a great employee.? ?In 2000, Harrah?s instituted a policy requiring its female employees ?to ?wear ?make-up ?and? colored ?nail polish, and prohibiting male employees from doing the same.?? The policy also required short hair for men and styled, loose hair for women.?? After the plaintiff refused to comply with the policy, she was terminated. ?She sued for sex discrimination. ?The district court granted summary judgment to the casino and the Ninth Circuit affirmed 2-1.?? Judge Tashima concluded that the different standards for men and women did not impose an unequal burden on the sexes, and did not amount to unlawful sex stereotyping in violation of Price-Waterhouse v. Hopkins.?? (Apparently the judges in the majority had not noticed that there is a reason that women often take longer to get ready than men.) ?In a very persuasive dissent, Judge Thomas concluded that Harrah?s policy both imposed added daily burden on women and was founded on the outmoded stereotype that women in the workplace should be viewed as sex objects.? ?Jesperson v. Harrah?s Operating? Co., ?No. ?03-15045 ?(Tashima, Silverman, Thomas; 12/28/04).