so...
If I read this correctly the woman was working in this field THEN the employer changed the "rules" to make make-up manditory...
I'm not so sure that's discrimination, but it is damn inconsiderate.
What I do see as the discrimination is the undue cost aspect for several reasons..
ok each need a manicure so that cost is equal, but the woman is required to wear polish... that means she will either have to pay someone to do that (as part of her manicure) or do it herself, either way her increased cost for the manicure is say... $10 and 20 minutes. Styling takes 5-15 minutes a day with some gel/spray/mousse.
Each must have their hair groomed. The male must have his cut short that runs about $20 every 3-4 weeks and time of say... half an hour (with an appointment!). The woman must have her hair down and either "teased, curled or styled" which requires a few things... first, (at least to me) down implies longer hair which restricts the option of a short (thus manly) cut. Teasing and/or curled requires half an hour DAILY minimum to style and at least one styling product. "Styled" is too subjective for me... a little gel while blow drying could be styled... or not depending on the supervisor. Needless to say the required salon vists are at least an hour once a month (about the same as the male) with a cost of $50 or more... AND a daily investment of half an hour or more to keep up.
now the make-up... foundation/concealer and/or face powder runs about $10 at WALMART, blush is another $5-6, mascara another $6, and lip color $6-8. Applying all that stuff takes time... 15 -30 minutes (less as she becomes more practiced).
THAT (to me) is an undue burden on the female JUST BECAUSE SHE IS FEMALE.
The company required a person's "personal best"... what if their personal best was make-up free? The "personal best" portion of that regulation is too subjective.
Honestly if I were setting on the jury, I would say it is discrimination for all of the above reasons.