I do not agree that I mischaracterized the Jespersen opinion. Harrah’s first had its female employees made up by a professional and photographed, after which they had to achieve a look that “matched” the photograph every day. How is that different from a “beauty” standard? Men were merely required to keep their hair short, and not to wear makeup.
How does that make Harrah’s grooming standard “appropriately applicable to male employees”? The point of the article is that twenty years after Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, employers should not be in the business of enforcing a particular standard of gender-specific attractiveness (unless they can show it’s a bona fide occupational qualification).