I am a male with long hair. I have a job opportunity that will, when I finish training, require me to cut my hair. It says so in the handbook.
This job is with a prominent casino conglomerate not dealing with food handling so it’s not a sanitary issue. In fact, the same handbook permits women to have long hair as long as it is tied back, something I would gladly do.
Isn’t this discriminatory?
Discriminatory? Yes. Illegal? That depends on what country you live in and if you live in the United States, what state you live in and within any given state probably on what local jurisdiction you live in. Want to give us a hint?
As a State Parks employee, in California, men are required to have their hair at a certain length. The only exception is if your hair length is related to your religion. Actual enforcement of this varies, but the requirement is allowed.
Sure. So what? Assuming you are in the U.S., so long as you are not being discriminated against for something that is illegal to discriminate against (such as your race, sex, religion, etc.), your employer can generally do whatever they want.
They can discriminate against you because of the length of your hair, your grooming, the way you dress, or anything else not protected.
I believe it falls into the general area of dress codes, which are allowed to reflect that men and women are expected to dress differently. As long as the dress code applied to men and women reflect the same adherence to social norms, it is not discriminatory. Like it or not, because of those social norms, one can interpret long hair on a man as detracting from “professional appearance” or some such thing, while not detracting from it for women.
Bolding mine.
Just out of interest, as a matter of general principle, how is this NOT discrimination on the basis of sex?
I mean, the OP has already told us that women are allowed to wear long hair, as long as it’s tied back, but men have to cut their hair. If i allow all members of one sex to do something, and no members of the other sex to do the same thing, upon what basis am i discriminating other than sex?
A cite for the “social norms” thing:
From http://www.ppspublishers.com/biz/dresscode.htm - bolding mine.
It is good that there is a legal citation for this, one I was unable to find elsewhere. This is why I asked this question here!
At various points in history, social customs were different than they are now. If I were to contend that in 2010 making males cut long hair is archaic, whom would I launch this appeal to and what evidence would it take to sway them?
(I realize the first place to appeal would be the prospective employer however I am assuming they will not budge unless legally compelled.)
As far as evidence goes - well, there’s basically no evidence that you can bring to the table. And I don’t mean that in a bad way. It’s just that people, including judges, are already familiar with social norms. So, with a legal standard like this it basically comes down to whether the dress requirement fits the current soical norms in the judgment of the judges.
That’s why your the judge and I’m the law talking guy…
edited to add: of course you would bring evidence like news articles, sociology professors, statistics on hair length and whatever else - but that would be dog and pony, basically the judges already know if they think ‘society is ready for dudes with long hair’
Let me bold a different part of yabob’s quote:
I think that’s the bit you’d be fighting.
ETA: Now if the ERA had passed thirty years back…
I never had any doubt that you were correct. But, in my opinion, this judgment does NOT mean that the OP’s case is not discrimination. All it means is that the OP is subject to a particular type of discrimination that has been ruled allowable under the law. There is, in my opinion, no possible name for what is happening here other than “discrimination on the basis of sex.”
I also, from a historical and logical standpoint, find the court’s argument about “social norms” rather puzzling. After all, one of the main purposes of anti-discrimination legislation in the first place was to act as a counter to many prevailing social norms. After all, it was in the past a “social norm” that women would be secretaries and men would be executives, and hiring practices based on these norms were commonplace. It was also a social norm, in parts of the country, that blacks and whites would drink from separate water fountains and sit in different parts of the restaurant.
Discrimination based on sex (and race) was a prevailing social norm for much of American history, and laws against such discrimination recognize this fact, and attempt to correct it. It seems somewhat odd that these laws should then be parsed to allow certain types of discrimination simply because such discrimination continues to be a social norm.
If it is that important to you then perhaps you are training for the wrong job. Many businesses who work with the public have strict standards of appearance, and these standards vary according to sex, as described by many posts above. For a casino, perhaps part of their image is to be very conservative. Places that are very conservative might also allow women to have pierced ears but not men (I’ll bet they have restrictions on body mods, too). So if you would be that unhappy cutting your hair, maybe you should get out now and cut your losses.
Discrimination means that you would be rejected for a position because of your sex, but as you can see from other posts with pretty good cites, requiring different standards of appearance for the sexes is not discriminatory on its face.
No, it IS discriminatory on its face.
It has simply been allowed under the law.
I’m making a principled argument here, not a legal one.
If your hair length is more important to you than a paycheck, then you should probably look for other employment where such appearance demands are not a stipulation of employment.
For casinos it’s all about image to the consumer. Whatever it takes to get them to gamble more.
It isn’t odd - it’s a recognition that some kinds of discrimination matter more than others. There isn’t a comparable history of packing people into ships, selling them into slavery, splitting up their families, and finally granting them freedom but denying them basic political rights based on the length of their hair.
Hair length isn’t going to become a protected class. It’s a lot easier to go to the barber than it is to become white or male.
I’m not arguing for hair length to become a protected class; as i’ve made clear on more than one occasion, i’m making an argument of principle, not of law here. I’m simply arguing that both sexes should be treated equally.
You are correct that it is easy to go to the barber, but it is also just as easy, from a practical standpoint, to allow the guy with long hair to keep the long hair. I have just as much of a problem with a dress code that refuses to allow women to wear pants, and insists that they wear skirts instead. Sure, it’s easy for them to buy and wear a skirt, but if wearing pants doesn’t impede their job performance, why should it matter?
This is not an issue i’d go to the barricades to defend, but i don’t think it’s completely trivial either.
‘Sex’ means female. It is perfectly ok to discrim against males.
I am probably venturing into GD territory but I can’t imagine a high-dollar accounting firm requiring women to wear pants-suits and neckties because that’s what they require men to wear. Is that firm discriminating on the basis of sex? No. Because it’s within social norms.
Dictating standards of appearance because some clients might be turned off by appearances outside a narrow range of conservative values is a long way from separate drinking fountains.
This is a company that does not want to be represented by long-haired men. Any man can apply and get the job if he is willing to cut his hair. This is much different than saying they discriminate on the basis of sex. No man is being turned down for a job simply because he is a man.
The casino owner disagrees with you. While the appearance of a male worker with long hair and the female worker with pants may not impede their performance…it is not the image that the owners/management wish to present to their customers. So it doesn’t matter if it impedes your performance…it’s marketing.
You forgot white people too. :rolleyes: And straight people. Those poor, poor oppressed straight white men.