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

[THE Bigzoman]

Here's an interesting tidbit from my facebook feed:

TLDR: Dumb H/R bitch slips up that she wasn't hiring a black applicant because of her dreadlocks, black girl lawyers up, lawyers argue that the dumb H/R bitch violated the Civil Rights Act, and the appeals court shut em down. Here's some specifics for you armchair lawyers in here:

In their suit, the EEOC claimed that this was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's Title VII, arguing that dreadlocks are a "racial characteristic" that have been historically used to stereotype African-Americans as "not team players" and as unfit for the workplace. Therefore, claiming that dreadlocks do not fit a grooming policy is based on these stereotypes and inherently discriminatory, as dreadlocks are a hairstyle "physiologically and culturally associated" with African-Americans.


The court of appeals disagreed, ruling that CMS's "race-neutral grooming policy" was not discriminatory as hairstyles, while "culturally associated with race," are not "immutable physical characteristics." In essence, traits in a person's appearance that are tied to their culture but are otherwise changeable are not protected and can be used to deny job offers.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has been routinely interpreted by the courts to only protect against "immutable characteristics" and not cultural practices. In Garcia v. Gloor, the courts ruled against the plaintiff, arguing that being fired for speaking Spanish at work despite their employers English-only policy did not violate Title VII.

I don't like the precedent it would've set if the courts ruled in the favor of dreadlocks. At the same time, this is why my co-workers will never see my hair grow too far out of fade nor will I ever wear jeans on casual friday because they're all kind of baggy.

Thoughts?

[bladeXcrasher]

Nothing wrong with companies setting dress/appearance policies. They are private businesses.

[Siq1ne]

Here's an interesting tidbit from my facebook feed:

TLDR: Dumb H/R bitch slips up that she wasn't hiring a black applicant because of her dreadlocks, black girl lawyers up, lawyers argue that the dumb H/R bitch violated the Civil Rights Act, and the appeals court shut em down. Here's some specifics for you armchair lawyers in here:



I don't like the precedent it would've set if the courts ruled in the favor of dreadlocks. At the same time, this is why my co-workers will never see my hair grow too far out of fade nor will I ever wear jeans on casual friday because they're all kind of baggy.

Thoughts?

Not hiring somebody based on race is not right. Not hiring somebody because they aren't going to be presentable for your company? Perfectly fine. Dreadlocks aren't very pretty to look at. I wouldn't hire anybody with dreadlocks. I want somebody who can at least come to a damn interview the way you're suppose to. I mean, all she had to do was dress the part and decided that it wasn't worth it to do so.

Sadly these situations are going to lean toward race wars before any meaningful conversation about appropriate dress codes are had.

[TwoNineMarine]

I agree with this. If your hairstyle doesn't fit in with whatever the job is they should be able to not hire you.

I don't think the government has any place in deciding this but that's another discussion I suppose.

If there is an aspect of you you can't change (height, skin color, age, etc) then they shouldn't discriminate against that. But if it's your fucking hair then yes, they should be able to tell you no.

[Kujako]

I'd say it depends on the reason for the dreadlocks. Rastafarian is a recognized religion in many places, not sure about the US.

[Yamuri]

what biased BS, call her a bitch all you want but it's their policy to have people be professional in their own code, not yours. Not every issue needs an extremist.

[THE Bigzoman]

what biased BS, call her a bitch all you want but it's their policy to have people be professional in their own code, not yours. Not every issue needs an extremist.

I don't think you caught why I called her a dumb H/R Bitch. She was a dumb bitch for telling the applicant that's why she wasn't getting hired.

[Yamuri]

I don't think you caught why I called her a dumb H/R Bitch. She was a dumb bitch for telling the applicant that's why she wasn't getting hired.

It doesn't matter, it's something she can fix and go back. It sounds like solid advice rather than a slip up.

[THE Bigzoman]

It doesn't matter, it's something she can fix and go back. It sounds like solid advice rather than a slip up.

It doesn't make her any less shitty at her job. It's not her job to advise applicants on what to do better at next time.

It's a nice gesture, but it's not their job.

[Garnier Fructis]

Seems fine. Protected status should only go to things that people have no control over, and religion.

[bladeXcrasher]

It doesn't make her any less shitty at her job. It's not her job to advise applicants on what to do better at next time.

It's a nice gesture, but it's not their job.

I mean, nothing from your Facebook feed says the applicant didn't inquire as to why she wasn't accepted.

[Damajin]

I'm fine with this, and I even have a co worker who has dreadlocks, but he's in Engineering and the only type of dress code they have to follow involves types of shoes, shirt and pants.

People have decided men with Metal style long hair aren't acceptable for hiring for a long time, this really isn't any different.

[hydrium]

It doesn't make her any less shitty at her job. It's not her job to advise applicants on what to do better at next time.

It's a nice gesture, but it's not their job.

Are you seriously saying that a person working in HR was wrong to tell an applicant what they could do to improve their chances in the future?

I'm sorry, are you from some bizzaro dimension where stupid is applauded and aspirational?

[Flutterguy]

I have to shave for work. Isn't that sexist? It's not my fault I'm male and having prominent facial hair is a secondary sex characteristic of mine.

[Deleted]

i agree with the court, a private company should be able to set their own dress codes, and that includes hair styles and facial hair too, as long as they are not found to be discriminating based on race/gender etc then i think that is fine.

[THE Bigzoman]

Are you seriously saying that a person working in HR was wrong to tell an applicant what they could do to improve their chances in the future?

I'm sorry, are you from some bizzaro dimension where stupid is applauded and aspirational?

No.

I'm from a world where "stupid" doesn't bust you wide open for a lawsuit.

[Cerus]

Seems fine. Protected status should only go to things that people have no control over, and religion.

Religion is a choice and 100% under your control.

[Flutterguy]

Religion is a choice and 100% under your control.

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

[dacoolist]

Here's an interesting tidbit from my facebook feed:

TLDR: Dumb H/R bitch slips up that she wasn't hiring a black applicant because of her dreadlocks, black girl lawyers up, lawyers argue that the dumb H/R bitch violated the Civil Rights Act, and the appeals court shut em down. Here's some specifics for you armchair lawyers in here:



I don't like the precedent it would've set if the courts ruled in the favor of dreadlocks. At the same time, this is why my co-workers will never see my hair grow too far out of fade nor will I ever wear jeans on casual friday because they're all kind of baggy.

Thoughts?

At the company I work for, they have a ton of diversity, and I think it's refreshing seeing people being able to express themselves from their culture - and to bat I live in TEXASS' - so to explain this more: I don't see any issues wearing dreads at all, and I think it would make people feel more comfortable if the people they meet ALSO like dreadlocks.. Again, I work for 'that fruit company' - so it's a large company that cares about everyone, not just the bottom line

[Zenotetsuken]

Glad that got overturned. Next they would be saying that having your pants hang below your ass is protected by civil rights. If you choose to present yourself in an unprofessional way, jobs should absolutely have every right to deny your application or reprimand you if you already work there.
Just like guys with facial hair/long hair, if you choose to keep your facial hair/long hair while applying for a job, the interviewer has every right to tell you that shaving and/or getting a haircut would be a requirement of the position. Same standard should be held for every applicant regardless of race/sex/religion.