- BUSINESS: His and hers haircuts now one price
- Article from the Palo Alto Weekly on a newly passed California law that attempted to eliminate gender based price discrimination, particularly the practices of charging more to launder women's blouses and cutting women's hair. From 1996.
- FAIR HAIR CARE? KERRY CUT COST HALF OF HILLARY'S
- Article from the Drudge Report lambasting a hair care salon for charging $75 to cut John Kerry's hair, half the cost that the salon charged Hillary Clinton. From 2002.
- Survey's ammo for bill on gender-pricing
- Two articles from the Tamba Tribune on the efforts to pass a bill that would outlaw gender based pricing discrimination. Article focuses primarily on pricing differences in haircuts, laundering, and tailoring.
- Gender Pricing and Dry Cleaning and Laundering Ordinances
- Brochure from Miami Dade County, Florida on their
pioneering
ordinances requiring gender neutral pricing, except forLadies Night
promotions - MAYOR GIULIANI SIGNS CITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 804-A INTO LAW, PROHIBITING THE PUBLIC DISPLAY OF DISCRIMINATORY PRICING BASED ON GENDER
- "While it should be noted that charging such prices based on gender is a form of discrimination already prohibited by the City's Human Rights Law, DCA now has mandated powers to collect fines from violators as a result of this law." The DCA is New York City's Department of Consumer Affairs. From 1997.
- A REMINDER ABOUT FAIR PRICING POLICIES
- The position of the International Fabricare Institute a trade association of laundering businesses.
- Open Your Mind, Then Your Wallet
- An article on the ability of businesses to charge different customers different prices, many of such practices being legal because they are not based on a protected class. Primarily focuses on the possible effects of the internet which might make differences in price offered to different people more or less visible. Notes in paragraph 5 a settlement between Victoria's Secret and the Federal Trade Commission in which Victories Secret agreed to stop sending different catalogs to men on their mailing lists than the women received. The catalogs for men had lower prices for the same articles of clothing. (Note to
dangergirljones, under your reasoning this wouldn't have been discrimination because the women were just being offered a lesser discount than men were. The FTC disagreed with you.) Note, other articles detail that in the original lawsuit Katzman filed against Victoria's Secret, Katzman lost her case on the definition of the law she sued under. Katzman sued alleging that Victoria's Secret was a racketeering organization based on the pricing scheme of offering $25 discounts to men and $10 discounts to women. The courts rules that the practice did not qualify Victoria's Secret as a racketeering organization and therefore she could not use the RICO statute against them. Congress crafted the RICO statute to fight organized crime, but other groups have sued and prosecutors have charged non-mafia type businesses under it's provisions. Most notably, Operation Rescue lost much money as a racketeer influenced organization for it's activities in blocking abortion clinic access. After Katzman lost on the RICO grounds, the FTC took up the case.
More links to come later.