U.S. Court Rules Dreadlock Ban During Hiring Process Is Legal

[Dug]

Dreads can be really well kept and look really neat but it takes work. Makes sense for wild and unkept ones

[anon5123]

Yea, I'm not really on board with the whole militant atheist mindset.

There's a difference between being "militant" and wanting to put an end to the bullshit that religion causes on a daily basis and has been causing for centuries.

[BreakerOfWills]

Dreadlocks are a hairstyle, not a hygiene choice.

There are neat clean dreadlocs, and dirty unkept dreadlocks, and if someone turns up to an interview with bad hygiene then why do you need to go as far as their hairstyle to decide you're not hiring them?

Then there's a whole bunch of people in here saying that people with dreadlocks are lazy and stupid which is just gettin into ignorant assumptions.

[THE Bigzoman]

What if they had dreads, but also a big booty?

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit.

[GennGreymane]

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit.

*insert tracer from overwatch booty gif here*

[Garnier Fructis]

There's a difference between being "militant" and wanting to put an end to the bullshit that religion causes on a daily basis and has been causing for centuries.

There are ways to do that other than 'oh, you're Buddhist? Yeah we don't hire buddhists here.' Many religious people are already very angry over perceived loss of rights (relating to gay marriage) and it reflects in their voting behavior. Imagine what this country would be like when we start allowing religious discrimination.

[Endus]

It's asking for trouble, really. Especially if it's just being used to conceal racist hiring preferences. If they'd hired anyone with dreadlocks for a similar position, that'd call their policy into question. Also, it's a hairstyle; I'd think that asking "we have a dress and grooming code here, and dreadlocks aren't something we allow; would you be willing to adopt an approved hairstyle if hired?" would be the reasonable route to go. If they say "sure", then it's not reason to not hire them. And the fact that it's not an immutable characteristic, which is why the appeals court ruled in the company's favor, means it's not really grounds for refusing to hire the person either, not unless they state that they won't abide by the grooming code.

[anon5123]

There are ways to do that other than 'oh, you're Buddhist? Yeah we don't hire buddhists here.' Many religious people are already very angry over perceived loss of rights (relating to gay marriage) and it reflects in their voting behavior. Imagine what this country would be like when we start allowing religious discrimination.

I never said "allow religious discrimination".

I just don't want them getting special protections/rights based on their religion.

[Garnier Fructis]

I never said "allow religious discrimination".

I just don't want them getting special protections/rights based on their religion.

Religion being a protected class is just preventing religious discrimination. So not including them in the list of protected classes is the same as allowing religious discrimination.

[THE Bigzoman]

I never said "allow religious discrimination".

I just don't want them getting special protections/rights based on their religion.

Which given the discussion thus far, is just an euphemism for allowing religous discrimination.

[Kapadons]

I never said "allow religious discrimination".

I just don't want them getting special protections/rights based on their religion.

What specials rights does a religious employee gain at work? I'm having a hard time coming up with some. Allowed to pray. Allowed to wear hijab and the like.

I think the only protection really would be you can't fire or not hire someone because they are a different religion than you or your "company" which I'm having trouble understanding why this would be a big deal to offer.

Perhaps I am missing something ?

[Mistame]

Sorry, culture is not race. Ever. Hairstyles, dress, etc, are culture, not race. Obviously, there's exceptions for religion, but meh. Not everyone's sane.

So is being a conscientious objector, but you're still protected.

So you're saying I still have imaginary spaghetti friend even if I don't believe in him? Can I change him to a hot chic?

I just don't want them getting special protections/rights based on their religion.

I think having to "accommodate" religious dress is absurd, especially if it violates an existing dress code.

Perhaps I am missing something?

What if a nun applies at Hooter's? (Admittedly could be hot, but that's one "habit" that should be broken) Or if the company dress code forbids head wear of any type?

[jimboa24]

Companies have the right to keep and maintain a strict dress code and set grooming standards. You might not like it or agree with it, but it's part of freedom - the freedom to set, enforce and keep standards in the work place. As long as it legitimately was the dreadlocks that kept her from being considered and not her race, the company is in the clear.

[Kapadons]

What if a nun applies at Hooter's? (Admittedly could be hot, but that's one "habit" that should be broken) Or if the company dress code forbids head wear of any type?

If the employer has a dress code, and they make it abundantly clear what it is before hiring, and you accept the job knowing what it will be, you really have no legal or moral ground to stand on to not follow said dress code.

Now if they change the dress code mid way through your employment and it's spefically aimed at your religious garb with no valid reason for doing and they aren't uniform in applying it ( allowing ball caps but not hijabs) then you should have an avenue to resolve this.

Edit - as a company we do not allow any piercings or jewelry (except a small wedding band) and no visible tattoos. It's written in plain English and Spanish and is part of the employees original hiring paperwork they fill out and sign. Upon hiring we have no issues. We always run into issues later with someone not wanting to take out their nose peircing or earrings for fear of the hole closing or getting a tattoo later and not wanting to cover it up.

[Barnabas]

It's asking for trouble, really. Especially if it's just being used to conceal racist hiring preferences. If they'd hired anyone with dreadlocks for a similar position, that'd call their policy into question. Also, it's a hairstyle; I'd think that asking "we have a dress and grooming code here, and dreadlocks aren't something we allow; would you be willing to adopt an approved hairstyle if hired?" would be the reasonable route to go. If they say "sure", then it's not reason to not hire them. And the fact that it's not an immutable characteristic, which is why the appeals court ruled in the company's favor, means it's not really grounds for refusing to hire the person either, not unless they state that they won't abide by the grooming code.

She obviously wasn't interested in changing her hairstyle by the fact she filed a lawsuit against the company.

[Sesshou]

It's asking for trouble, really. Especially if it's just being used to conceal racist hiring preferences. If they'd hired anyone with dreadlocks for a similar position, that'd call their policy into question. Also, it's a hairstyle; I'd think that asking "we have a dress and grooming code here, and dreadlocks aren't something we allow; would you be willing to adopt an approved hairstyle if hired?" would be the reasonable route to go. If they say "sure", then it's not reason to not hire them. And the fact that it's not an immutable characteristic, which is why the appeals court ruled in the company's favor, means it's not really grounds for refusing to hire the person either, not unless they state that they won't abide by the grooming code.

Its HR. They're looking to narrow down the applicant pool as far as possible in most cases. Their job isn't to think 'oh, well they could change this and this to be a better fit for our work environment.' Their job is 'nope, next.'

Showing up looking the part for the job you want is important. It shows you understand company culture and what is expected of you. Rejecting someone because of a hair style may sound silly, but it isn't any different than rejecting someone for showing up in jeans. It is on you to do your research and know if your appearance is going to be acceptable. It is on you not to give HR reasons to reject you.

[Nurvus]

There are ways to do that other than 'oh, you're Buddhist? Yeah we don't hire buddhists here.' Many religious people are already very angry over perceived loss of rights (relating to gay marriage) and it reflects in their voting behavior. Imagine what this country would be like when we start allowing religious discrimination.

Denying someone a job because they won't use anything other than dreadlocks, is not automatically religious discrimination just because they are Rastafarian.

Not saying you claimed otherwise, it's just that these kinds of threads tend to have some pretty aggressive leaps in logic.

[Garnier Fructis]

Denying someone a job because they won't use anything other than dreadlocks, is not automatically religious discrimination just because they are Rastafarian.

Not saying you claimed otherwise, it's just that these kinds of threads tend to have some pretty aggressive leaps in logic.

I know; my first post in this thread was me saying this case was fine.

[Endus]

She obviously wasn't interested in changing her hairstyle by the fact she filed a lawsuit against the company.

That happened after they declared it to be the reason. It doesn't mean she wasn't willing to change it, it means she felt it was unfair as a determiner to begin with.

Its HR. They're looking to narrow down the applicant pool as far as possible in most cases. Their job isn't to think 'oh, well they could change this and this to be a better fit for our work environment.' Their job is 'nope, next.'

While this is true for entry-level stuff, it really isn't past that point. And even at entry-level, HR reps know better than to give that kind of a reason. If you shitcan a resume because it's on pink paper, you say something like "they didn't seem like they would be a good fit for our corporate culture", something uselessly vague.

Because when you give a stupid reason like this, lawsuits like this can happen. Which, even if you win, cost you time and money.

[Sesshou]

While this is true for entry-level stuff, it really isn't past that point. And even at entry-level, HR reps know better than to give that kind of a reason. If you shitcan a resume because it's on pink paper, you say something like "they didn't seem like they would be a good fit for our corporate culture", something uselessly vague.

Because when you give a stupid reason like this, lawsuits like this can happen. Which, even if you win, cost you time and money.

Which is exactly why the HR rep shouldn't have said anything. However, that doesn't mean make it the HR reps role to try to fix the issues of the applicant which is what you were suggesting they try to do by seeing if the applicant would be willing to change. Besides, by asking them if they would change that, you are opening yourself up just as much for a lawsuit should they refuse.

You're right that if we're talking some experienced and hard to fill position that HR doesn't work the same way... except her actions indicate she was weeding out applicants and nothing at all suggests this was a hard to fill, higher level position. In fact, if it was one of those, there likely wouldn't have been a law suit because the chance of winning wouldn't be worth getting black balled by the industry because nobody wants a potential litigation risk.