Can an employer force men to cut their hair while letting women keep their locks?

[Ferret_Herder]

@LHUW

Wow, nearly three years since the last reply.

And since the first reply, too. :dubious:

[Telemark]

@LHUW

I honestly feel deep down that if I were to choose to cut it then I would compromise my soul. If that’s not a religion then what is?

Personal preference.

[biggie42]

I can say I am lucky…
I work for the UK Government, as an inspector in the meat industry
I like many here have long hair. And like all of us , I get pressurized into getting a haircut.
But we have rules over here, and I am refusing point blank to cut my hair.

Very much to my surprise not only has my hair been accepted, but I have been promoted.
I nearly fell over when that happened.

I wish my brothers elsewhere had the protection I have over here…

[BigT]

@suranyi

Why do you think social custom isn’t important? It’s very important – in every society. It’s what makes civilization run smoothly.

So did sexism, racism, and homophobia. In fact, they were all social norms. Social norms may be useful in other ways, but whether something is a social norm is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong.

Surely there were threads about the immorality of ceremonial deism back in 2010. It’s the same concept.

[Leo_Bloom]

@OldGuy

This was not in the OP, but people seem to be ignoring this. How can the employer decide if my hair length relates to my religion. It is presumably well-known that Orthodox Jews for example have longish hair, but how does my employer decide if my religion does so. I presume they’re not even allowed to ask me my religion. If I’m required to to give some kind of “affirmative defense” of my long hair and I say it’s a religious tenet of The Great OldGUy Religion (all hail the great OldGuy), can they fight this? How many adherents do I have to bring forward to testify it is? Does my self-published bible listing this as the 18th commandment count?

@Bijou_Drains

If you claim your hair is long due to religion you must tell them that is the reason. Not sure how you are required to prove that you follow that religion…

So I, a man, can walk into a job wearing a dress. And, if fired, claim discrimination because I am transgendered (a gender category–LGBT).

And them my boss would, like you guys (so where were you?) look into the thread

I own a restaurant. Can I fire a waiter due to his off-putting mannerisms?

[suranyi]

@BigT

So did sexism, racism, and homophobia. In fact, they were all social norms. Social norms may be useful in other ways, but whether something is a social norm is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong.

Surely there were threads about the immorality of ceremonial deism back in 2010. It’s the same concept.

For the record, note that this is a zombie and I wrote those remarks two years ago. I don’t feel like particpating in this conversation further at the moment.

[Leo_Bloom]

Hey, a real-life zombie! And he’s tired and wants to go back home…

[Una_Persson]

@Leo_Bloom

So I, a man, can walk into a job wearing a dress. And, if fired, claim discrimination because I am transgendered (a gender category–LGBT).

1. No. You actually have to be transgender, as in swear under oath, not just wear a dress. Subtle but important legal difference. Crossdressers and people in drag are to the best of my knowledge NOT covered, no matter how much they want to carry the transgender label.

2. No with an if. The EEOC ruled in Macy v. Holder that transgender persons are covered under Title VII with broad anti-discrimination protections. While it’s generally agreed in the corporate HR world that this will be the “law of the land”, and the EEOC has certified that transgender discrimination is one of their new high-priority focus areas, it doesn’t yet have a large case history to back it. Therefore, it’s possible a transgender person could lose in court - possible, but in the opinion of many HR attorneys I’ve spoken with, unlikely. Gay and lesbian status were not covered by the EEOC ruling.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Omar_Little

For casinos it’s all about image to the consumer. Whatever it takes to get them to gamble more.

This is based on the assumption that the OP would be dealing with the public as part of his job. (Or perhaps “dealing to” would be more accurate in this case). I’ve really never been able to wrap my mind around the underlying principle that coercing your employees to wear conservative hairstyles, or uniforms, or ties, or whatever, will increase trade. Certainly as a customer I have never, ever in my life remotely cared if the barista who pours my coffee wears blue jeans instead of khakis, or if he happens to be male and wears his hair long, provided that it’s not being worn loose in situations where that would be hazardous or inappropriate due to the nature of the work. Even then, I probably wouldn’t notice it immediately.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@yabob

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.

I’m curious about how short the casino requires the male employees’ hair to be worn. If we’re talking Leave-It-To-Beaver-style with white sidewalls and shorn at the back, then I’d consider that unfair by contemporary standards unless the women are required to wear beehives, bouffants, or perms.