# Legal reasons to deny employment **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 17, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555 "2010-06-17T15:14:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555/21 "2010-06-20T05:36:02Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > What if I only wanted to hire gingers? Sherlock Holmes would get suspicious. > **[The Red-Headed League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Red-Headed_League)** > > "The Red-Headed League" is one of the 56 Sherlock Holmes short stories written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It first appeared in The Strand Magazine in August 1891, with illustrations by Sidney Paget. Doyle ranked "The Red-Headed League" second in his list of his twelve favourite Holmes stories. It is also the second of the twelve stories in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, which was published in 1892. > Jabez Wilson, a London pawnbroker, comes to consult Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. Whi... ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555/22 "2010-06-20T07:36:33Z")
Criminal record is pretty safe. ---
**Author:** ![Audrey\_Levins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@Audrey\_Levins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Audrey_Levins)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555/23 "2010-06-20T08:14:19Z")
A “Facebook friend” of mine–by which I mean “somebody I’ve met who isn’t actually a friend of mine who requested my friendship on FB”–was recently hired at a strip club. Three days after starting her job as a cocktail waitress, she was fired; she was told that she’s “too old” and had “too many tattoos.” She was hired by the in-house management, but the day she was fired, it was by the owners of the club who came in that night, who don’t deal with day-to-day hiring. She says that she called her lawyer and thinks she has a case…but I find that hard to believe, given that Texas is a “right to work” state wherein I have the right to work for you and quit without notice, and you also have the right to fire me without notice. And if anything, they could claim she was still “on trial” and didn’t work out. Three days?? But I’m slightly curious that they told her why they fired her; I think that was foolish on their part. Yes, she’s in her forties–which is “old” by strip club standards, even for a waitress–and yes, she is also covered in tats. But she didn’t hide either when she was hired. I realize this is a slight departure from the OP, which is not about being fired, but about not being hired…but it reminded me of this. Re: the OP, I’m still a bit amazed by Craigslist employment ads, which ask for “recent face and full body shot” pictures of applicants. I guess for some reason I thought that wasn’t legal. Obviously I’m wrong…?? ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555/24 "2010-06-20T12:37:31Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m still a bit amazed by Craigslist employment ads, which ask for “recent face and full body shot” pictures of applicants. I guess for some reason I thought that wasn’t legal. Obviously I’m wrong…?? It’s illegal in the US. This doesn’t prevent companies from asking for them, or applicants from giving them. However, if an applicant provided photos at a company’s request, and then was not hired, I imagine that the applicant could ask the EEOC or some similar agency to look into the matter. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555/25 "2010-06-20T14:12:27Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Not necessarily. If you stated a preference for Gingers then that would give women an unfair advantage over men since that is a female name. > > And, as I think of it, if you had a “No Gingers” rule, then the opposite could be said as it would be unfairly discriminating against women. As 0% of men have that name, and say .005% of women have it, then it is skewed against women. I dunno. Ginger is a britishism for redhead, not a name. > [@Duckster](#): > > As others have pointed out, someone with “Ginger” hair is reflected in race and national origin, both areas identified in discrimination laws. You could add sex to the mix as well. No, red hair can be dyed as well. I can remember seeing pictures of hair straightened in a manner called ‘gassing’ by blacks in the 40s and 50s and in the very early 60s that left the hair an odd orangy red color. People dye their hair red, and other colors as well. Anecdotally a black woman at my last job had red extensions or weave or whatever they call it inserted and was told to remove it because it was a screaming non-natural red, unnatural hair colors being barred at work by the appearance policies in place. There are a lot of japanese cosplayers that have their hair dyed unnaturally in reds as well as other colors. > [@TimeWinder](#): > > On the off chance this isn’t a whoosh, “Ginger” is euro-speak for “redhead.” They don’t mean people named “Ginger.” exactly =) > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sherlock Holmes would get suspicious. > > [The Red-Headed League - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_the_Red-Headed_League) I love that story! > [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > It’s illegal in the US. This doesn’t prevent companies from asking for them, or applicants from giving them. However, if an applicant provided photos at a company’s request, and then was not hired, I imagine that the applicant could ask the EEOC or some similar agency to look into the matter. It is odd, because I understand that a head shot is frequently requested/required in european CVs. I have a friend that is a professional HR person, and she says that if there was a way to remove all mention of age and sex from a CV, they would love it, they have already done it with race. She says you cant really remove age from one, as the dates give it away but it is getting very close to being able to remove all mention of sex from them. Now unless you mention mens clubs memberships, they are getting pretty nonspecific on sex. ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555/26 "2010-06-21T04:02:40Z")
> [@Audrey\_Levins](#): > > Three days after starting her job as a cocktail waitress, she was fired; she was told that she’s “too old” and had “too many tattoos.” > > She was hired by the in-house management, but the day she was fired, it was by the owners of the club who came in that night, who don’t deal with day-to-day hiring. > > She says that she called her lawyer and thinks she has a case…but I find that hard to believe, given that Texas is a “right to work” state wherein I have the right to work for you and quit without notice, and you also have the right to fire me without notice. And if anything, they could claim she was still “on trial” and didn’t work out. Three days?? It is illegal in the US to discriminate against the old (but not against the young). There is an age cutoff before it applies, but I can’t remember what it is - it might be 40, but I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555/27 "2010-06-21T09:43:24Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > It is odd, because I understand that a head shot is frequently requested/required in european CVs. I have a friend that is a professional HR person, and she says that if there was a way to remove all mention of age and sex from a CV, they would love it, they have already done it with race. She says you cant really remove age from one, as the dates give it away but it is getting very close to being able to remove all mention of sex from them. Now unless you mention mens clubs memberships, they are getting pretty nonspecific on sex. It’s kind of funny in a twisted way, because in many EU countries it’s illegal to base hiring decisions on anything but “ability to do the job” (which includes “ability to get on well with coworkers and other people you work with” and may include “having the looks required by the role”), and the EU’s own Standard CV Format has spaces for things like DoB, Gender, and Head Shot, but all of them with a line that says something like “discriminating based on this may be illegal”. In recent years, I’ve started seeing companies state “please do NOT include a head shot in your CV”. I like those, it may be true or not but it sounds like they are at least making an effort to qualify people based on ability and not on whether they wear dreadlocks or have freckles. You would be able to remove age from a CV by not making listing degrees a requirement; even in that case, someone who went to college and started work late in life will seem younger than they are. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555/28 "2010-06-22T01:19:43Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > It’s kind of funny in a twisted way, because in many EU countries it’s illegal to base hiring decisions on anything but “ability to do the job” (which includes “ability to get on well with coworkers and other people you work with” and may include “having the looks required by the role”), So, a felony record would be OK? 😛 In fact a record for robbing banks would show banking expereince?:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555/29 "2010-06-22T01:27:47Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > It’s illegal in the US. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Sternvogel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Sternvogel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sternvogel)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555/30 "2010-06-22T01:39:35Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > And, as I think of it, if you had a “No Gingers” rule, then the opposite could be said as it would be unfairly discriminating against women. As 0% of men have that name, and say .005% of women have it, then it is skewed against women. I dunno. _Mister_ Baker would [like a word with you.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Baker) ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555/31 "2010-06-22T09:46:13Z")
> [@Audrey\_Levins](#): > > A “Facebook friend” of mine–by which I mean “somebody I’ve met who isn’t actually a friend of mine who requested my friendship on FB”–was recently hired at a strip club. > > Three days after starting her job as a cocktail waitress, she was fired; she was told that she’s “too old” and had “too many tattoos.” . . . > > But I’m slightly curious that they told her why they fired her; I think that was foolish on their part. Yes, she’s in her forties–which is “old” by strip club standards, even for a waitress–and yes, she is also covered in tats. But she didn’t hide either when she was hired. Under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age with regard to persons who are 40 or older, but not younger persons. What that means, oddly enough, is that it probably is illegal under federal law to fire a stripper who is in her forties because of their age, while it would be just fine to fire 39 year old stripper on that basis. ([see here](http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html).) Your friend may indeed have a case. In addition, state or local laws may be more protective. For instance, the New York Human Rights Law prohibits all age discrimination for all ages. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-reasons-to-deny-employment/543555.md?page=1)