Are Dreadlocks Unprofessional?
inc.com
inc.com
We work in some of the most button-down corporate environments imaginable with people who wear dreads. It will not be hard for Woodson's lawyers to find examples of other companies dealing with this issue.
It's hard to even see a controversy here. Sorry, you don't get to not hire someone because they wear dreads.
That said, I don't think moving furniture falls into that category.
But I stand by my statement that safety does overrule religion - I thought of that particular example because it is analogous to a case I read about a while back where a Muslim woman was not permitted to work in a machine shop due to her loose clothing. I'll see if I can dig it up. Similarly, I don't think a Sikh MRI operator could carry a Kirpan.
[edit: My bad, it was a print shop, not a machine shop. http://www.judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Employment/Judgment-... ]
A company should be able to set a policy regarding grooming and/or dress.
The part that I find shittiest about this situation is that the company would have been better just rejecting him outright. Instead they said they would hire him if he agreed to cut his hair to their wishes. Now there's a lawsuit.
How is that beneficial for anyone? Why can't two individuals have an honest negotiation about what it is they want from each other?
> Sorry, you don't get to not hire someone because they wear dreads.
Why not? Why is that something you shouldn't be able to do with your own business.
If you believe that businesses should simply be allowed to set their own standards, then maybe they should be allowed to require men to be clean-shaven; maybe they should be allowed to require women to wear skirts; maybe they should be allowed to prefer men for certain positions (security guards? shift supervisors?).
You can construct a business justification for nearly any form of discrimination, and, of course, you can construct a personal freedom justification for all discrimination.
Fortunately or not, this has been a settled issue in the US since 1964. If you have a policy that would prevent a Sikh from working for you (which this policy would), you're going to lose in court.
How is that beneficial for the employer or the potential employee?
> Because having long hair in no way affects a candidate's ability to do this (or virtually any) job
But it does affect how the company is perceived, and that's not a result of the company but the people who use it. I don't have a problem with dreadlocks, but I honestly understand why someone might be a little weary of hiring someone to come into their home and move all their stuff if they look radically different to them.
> then maybe they should be allowed to require men to be clean-shaven;
Yes.
> maybe they should be allowed to require women to wear skirts;
Yes. You should be able to define the uniform you wish your employees to wear.
> maybe they should be allowed to prefer men for certain positions
Yes. You should also be allowed to prefer women for certain positions.
Here's what I don't get.
One, you don't have to be hired. You're not entitled to every job you apply for. You're also not entitled to the job you have.
Two, certain requirements, such as shaving or your hair style are things that you can change. Perhaps that conflicts with your religion, but that's something you have to deal with. That's your decision. You can still be a Rastafarian and not have dreadlocks, be Muslim and not wear a hijab, and be a Christian and work on Sunday. At what point do you stop accommodating irrationally held religious beliefs and start treating people as if they are adults responsible for their own decisions?
Three, employers are responsible for who they hire. If they don't feel comfortable having that person represent their company, they should be able to not hire them. These laws remove some of that responsibility, but still place all the blame for the actions of that individual with the company.
Here's a case since then about hair length in the workplace:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=searc...
tl;dr: your employer does have the legal right to tell you to cut your hair.
(Genuinely curious, I'm English and this is American law).
Also how are race and colour legally different? Did you mean to say sex (as in gender) and sexuality (as in, gay or not)?
This may be a fun thing to dicker about on a message board thread, but the reality is that even for Blockbuster, who won their suit, it was not fun to attempt to enforce this norm; a lawsuit that made it all the way to a Federal appeals court no doubt cost them many millions of dollars.
And for what? Rasta dreadlock guy would almost certainly cost them another several million dollars for his long hair, and since his claim is based on an actual established religious practice, he'd also probably win. This was a dumb move on Blockbuster's part.
I don't know what the deal is in England, but any competent hiring manager in the US --- any competent one at all --- should be expected to know that they can't decline a candidate because they wear dreads. Since an HR people who does something as dumb as informing a candidate that they've been rejected over their dreads is likely putting you at immediate risk of a 5-6 figure loss, you'd be well within your rights to fire them immediately.
you do believe that the government's caring about your health is the reason why ganja is outlawed?
The "dreads" issue is at least marginally interesting to HN, if only to send loud-and-clear the message of "DON'T MENTION SOMEONE'S HAIR AS A HIRING CRITERIA".
I have friends and professional colleagues with dreads and will tell you that none of them are unhygienic. Is it harder for them to keep their hair clean than it is for me? I don't know, because that's none of my business.
http://www.worldhum.com/travel-blog/item/interview-govind-ar...
You're just not going to get anywhere with this argument. There's nothing inherently wrong with dreadlocks.
When I worked in radio I had an orange mohawk for a while. Nobody cared. When I was an on-set medic however that would not have been ok.
It is sometimes a rather thin line between an individual's beliefs, style or values being impinged upon vs. a common professional expectation of conduct/appearance.
That is correct. For instance, during Prohibition in the United States, use of wine in communion services was permitted, despite its illegality elsewhere.
Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences.
Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA.
Of course there are successful cases of lobbying for a privilege like the one you mentioned - an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves.
Actually, the US Constitution prevents the government from establishing an official religion or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Federal law extends this protection of religion into the commercial sphere by preventing employers from discriminating on the basis of religion (unless it is a religious organization, or the employee's religion would somehow interfere with the job).
"an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves."
Prohibition is an interesting case, as it was actually one religious group (low-church Protestants) lobbying for it over the objections of another (Catholics and some high-church Protestants).
That this suggests hairstyle requirements in dress codes are a complete waste of time is a valid but orthogonal point.
Lets say there are 2 guys - one with long hair as personal preference, another - as part of religious practice. The company would fire the number #1 because he doesn't follow the dress code, yet coudlnt' fire #2 because of religion. Is this what the law provides for?
-- A religious accommodation claim is distinct from a disparate treatment claim, in which the question is whether employees are treated equally. An individual alleging denial of religious accommodation is seeking an adjustment to a neutral work rule that infringes on the employee’s ability to practice his religion. The accommodation requirement is “plainly intended to relieve individuals of the burden of choosing between their jobs and their religious convictions, where such relief will not unduly burden others.”[118]
Btw, thank you for the information and bearing up with me :)
As in it's just as illegal to only hire Christians than it is to not hire one.
The fact that your choosing to not join the religion - also your protected right - doesn't come with exactly the same perks is not grounds for discrimination.
I consider the fact that I'm not mandated by the government to pray to Mecca three times a day at work a pretty acceptable trade off.
thank you, i couldn't say it better myself. Reminds me about Medieval Europe - either join the religion or burn at stake.
Consider the case of a disabled worker in a wheelchair. The employer is required to make reasonable accommodations if the employee is otherwise suited for the job. That doesn't mean that the US discriminates against the non-disabled.
Incidentally, the same law protects the atheist with a tattoo of His Noodliness* as a statement of non-belief, as well as the Christian with a tattoo of the Cross.
it isn't a matter of personal choice. Brandishing off one's religion is a matter of the one's personal choice.
>Incidentally, the same law protects the atheist with a tattoo of His Noodliness* as a statement of non-belief
don't know about employment law. In the immigration law your religion needs to have a registered tax free church in the US , otherwise it isn't a religion
The issue is that you can come up with all sorts of interesting restrictions that are theoretically neutral, but amount to de facto religious discrimination. For instance, consider a store owner who hates Islam, but knows better than to say so for fear of being sued. Instead the store owner prohibits employees from wearing head scarves. Presto! Now most Muslim women would be unable to work there.
It's to prevent these supposedly neutral rules that the law of reasonable accommodation is in place.
"needs to have a registered tax free church in the US , otherwise it isn't a religion"
This is limited to particular circumstances like data collection, but doesn't apply to religious freedom laws (like the employment law).
Instead the store owner forces employees to wear head scarves. Presto! Now most non-religious women would be unable to work there. Unfortunately, there is no law that can help them. This asymmetry is a discrimination against non-religious citizens.
Not true. Most non-religious women have no problem with head scarves.
"This asymmetry is a discrimination against non-religious citizens."
Asymmetry != discrimination. The asymmetry of the law is due to the asymmetry of religious discrimination. Namely, it is easy to target religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws, while it is hard to target non-religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws.
This is due to the fact that the non-religious are free to do or not do these things (head scarves, dreadlocks, etc.), while the religious have no choice if they are to be faithful to their beliefs.
yep. asymmetry of religious discrimination. It is definitely here. If history is any indicator, the religious discrimination, especially in its most nightmarish forms, has almost always been perpetrated by religious people (just of another religion), and not by non-religious people
>Namely, it is easy to target religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws, while it is hard to target non-religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws.
absolutely unfounded claim. There are a lot of religious practices, that if "dress-coded" would prevent, for example, me from going there, and i'd have no "religious accommodation" way of getting around them.
As tptacek has written, is there even a controversy here?
He was obviously not rejected due to his religion, but due to not adhering (or wanting to adhere to) a policy that was in place prior to his application.
Note: I have absolutely no objection people having dreads, and would have no trouble with colleagues having it. I merely believe that a company should have a freedom to say "no thanks" to applicants not wanting to fit in the existing rule framework.
Also, it ticks me off slightly that he uses religion as a way to gain sympathy for his complaint.
This is something that some Rastafarian take very seriously. If you did cut your hair depending on where you live and what the Rastafarian believe there, it could result in a leg or hand being forcefully amputated.
So seeing that statement by the employer makes it seem they are ignorant of the religion. And, somehow they think a little hair off the head wouldn't hurt. At this point if I was the lawyer, I would look to settle.
It also depends on the job - a company hiring in house legal representation who may end up in court eventually shouldn't be criticized for wanting a "cleaner image" in the court room. Someone hiring a programmer? Who cares...
This is almost case-in-point for why you don't want employers having the right to dictate hairstyles.
I have no desire for a corporation able to define anything about my style or individuality, however, it happens regularly. It's one of the many reasons I work for myself.