here’s the thing, ** oldscratch **. Except for the short list of no-no’s (age, sex, race, religion, etc.) that we can all seemingly recite by the time we’re 3, employers are allowed to “discriminate” (ie “make a clear distinction” the first definition in my American Heritage dictionary) pretty much how they want in their hiring practices. You need to get over the idea that “discriminate” is the same thing as illegal discrimination.
Even with the ADA, the employer is only required to make “reasonable accomodations” for disabilities, and only for those who can otherwise perform the essential job duties.
AND. They’re allowed to demand uniforms, if they so choose. they are NOT required to demonstarte that said uniforms in ANY way allow the employee to perform the job better or are even connected to job performance. Some “uniforms” are for safety or security reasons (hard hats, prison guard uniforms for example) others are, well, for more esoteric reasons. And the concept of “uniforms” also includes some personal appearance issues, such as VISIBLE tatoos and piercings (frankly, I doubt that most employers will get around to knowing if you have a tatoo or piercing on your genitals), hair color, hair length, facial hair etc.
Now, as far as other reasons an employer may choose to screen you out: as long as it’s not on the list of no-no’s they can.
Appearance is one thing you may be judged on during an interview. Attitude is another. And, frankly, some appearance category things spill over into attitude pretty easily.
The employer may not discriminate based on physical, cultural, linguistic or other characteristics. This from the EEO. That would seem to make the claim that if I had tattos, given to me as part of my national heritage, or holes or scars given to me as part of my national heritage, the emplyor would not be able to dicriminate against me because of them.
oldscratch, it depends on what it is that you have no control over, when it occurred, and if it is part of a protected class or not. If you had a big disk in your lip and an employer didn’t want to hire you in the first place, I don’t think you have any recourse, whether the disk is for religious reasons or is just purely cosmetic
If you were hired without the disk and converted to the actual, not made up, religion of Diskism and started wearing one, I’m not sure - I think the employer would have to demonstrate that having the disk was detrimental to business and that there were no comparable positions to place you in before terminating you.
If you just like wearing a big disk in your lip and your culture says it’s acceptable, that doesn’t mean anything - no employer has to hire you or keep you just because your “culture” says a certain style of dress is okay.
If you have a recognized physical disability, such as a cleft palate, and a company won’t hire you and you can prove it’s not essential to the job to NOT have a cleft palate, then you might have a case. If, for example, you wanted a job as a lower-jaw model, a company could well make the case that you don’t meet the physical requirements for the job. If you wanted to be a typist, that defense probably wouldn’t stand up in court. Of course, you have to prove that they were not hiring you solely because you have this physical disability.
If you start a job as “normal” and then develop the cleft palate somehow, the company could not fire you unless having the CP somehow prevented you from carrying out the duties of your position. If you had been a successful lower-jaw model before the CP, they would have a case. If you had been a typist, they almost certainly wouldn’t be able to legally fire you simply for having a CP.
It seems that if this is a practice based on your culture they can not discriminate. From the EEO webpage once again. “It is unlawful to discriminate against any employee or applicant because of the individual’s national origin. No one can be denied equal employment opportunity because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group. Equal employment opportunity cannot be denied because of marriage or association with persons of a national origin group; membership or association with specific ethnic promotion groups; attendance or participation in schools, churches, temples or mosques generally associated with a national origin group; or a surname associated with a national origin group.”
It seems to me that the disk would fall under the heading of culture.
I have an employee with piercings and tattoos. She looks very unprofessional, but I was told that I can’t fire her without a written policy.
Personally, I think that looking and dressing like a professional helps one act like a professsional. IF I had my way, I would get rid of business casual.
So, looks to me like what it all comes down to is that, while IMHO, employers should not discriminate (meaning “make a clear distinction”) based on someone’s physical appearance, they legally can and often do.
In cases based solely on physical appearance (such as weight, lizard lips, cauliflower ears, etc.), I’d think the legal grounds would be shakier. The cases where people sued (and usually won I think) because they weren’t hired because they were too obese kinda go along with that. As far as ears that look like “rabid acid weasels on crack” (what an unique visual that is…) it’d be interesting to see what the outcome would be. Taking the spacers out in order to “fit the uniform” would seem to me to be good enough, but corporate America might see it differently.
I wish I could make a living doing what I have my degree in… archaeology’s pretty uniformless. My old field crew almost fell over when they saw me sans nosering, in a business suit. Unfortunately, this attitude is not universal.
So, you aren’t claiming at this point, to be personally affected by the process, right? You don’t have the plate inserted in your lip as part of a cultural heritage? But you may be attempting to get there through the culture of those born in the US in the 80’s who really like to decorate their bodies this way, right?
Or even if not.
while it may seem obvious to YOU that the disk would fall under the “heading of culture”, it might not, according to the EEO et al. Don’t know. hasn’t come up on a test case yet. Don’t know that the ACLU would take it on.
You would have to PROVE that the disk was exactly the reason that you weren’t hired. and frankly, that’s a lot harder than you’d think. Things that Civil Rights commission would look at would be: how many people were applying for the job? how many were hired? what were those other people like? It is NOT enough for you to simply state “they didn’t hire me” to find that “they didn’t hire me because of this lip thing”.
If you’re asking if an employer should morally be allowed to screen out unusual appearance gigs, that’s a different question. and, not an easy one to answer.
There are areas where one’s personal appearance may have a negative effect on the companies business - for example, (and a recent one that I recall), there was a bagger at a grocery store with Tourette’s . He could not help his outbursts, and yet, they did have a chilling effect on the customers at the store. where’s the balance?
In looking at this from an HR point of view, I submit the following:
[ul]
[li]In these days of relatively low unemployment, it can be costly to a company to hire a new employee.[/li][li]It is costly in most cases to train a new employee.[/li][li]Most HR people except those in a relatively few companies like software, music/entertainment industry, etc. tend to dress and act somewhat conservatively. Most of the “How to Do a Job Interveiw” books I have read imply that HR people tend to hire folks like themselves.[/li][li]Most people (at least all the ones I know :)) do not see tattoos and piercings as individual expression; all they see is STRANGE…WEIRD…and probably a sign of rebellion.[/li][li]So from an HR position, if there are 2 or more persons applying for the position with relatively equal qualifications, the individual who is exhibiting “self expression” in this manner will undoubtly be the first to be eliminated from consideration[/li][/ul]
OldScratch, I firmly believe that people need to consider all the ramifications when they make choices in their lives. I am NOT speaking here regarding anyone who did not choose to purposely mulilate or otherwise disfigure their bodies. This may sound harsh but that’s the way I see it. If someone decides to ride against the current of “popular” opinion, I can honestly see no reason they can cry about discrimination. You rolls the dice, you takes your chances.
That’s why I love being a computer nerd. One HR guy I interviewed with said immediatly that I was one of the top candidates because I came in to the interview with a T-shirt and jeans. He said he always suspicious of a someone who interviews for a computer job in a suit becuase a. It indicates a lack of confidence in their own abilities, and b. it is an indicator that they are not comming from a computer heavy field. There are obviously a few computer houses that still rely on the old professional look BS, but those arn’t the companies you want to work for anyway, so its a nice weeding out factor to not waste time with an old stodgy company.
The way that’s written, it seems to me they mean “culture” to mean something more similar to ethnic group. If they meant “cultural practices”, they could have worded it more clearly as “…birthplace or ancestry.Equal employment opportunity cannot be denied because of cultural practices or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group”
I live in Nevada, which is a right to work state, meaning that you have a right to work until your employer sees fit to can your ass.
I have been discriminated based on my physical appearance- long hair, makeup and a matched set of 34c-cups. Was actually fired from a job for “not meeting standards of service” by a boss who couldn’t seem to tell me what I had done wrong, or not done right.This same boss tolerated male employees talking back to supervisors and being rude to customers. I had done neither of these things.
Yes, I do think an employer has a right to enforce a dress code, require tatoos be covered, and otherwise demand a professional appearance. Long hair on males shouldn’t be an issue, but unfortunately it is, as is (frequently) facial hair.
Employers definitely shouldn’t have the right to discriminate on appearance factors related to religous beliefs and cultural background- ritual scarification, women wearing scarves and veils, things of this nature. Nor should they have the right to discriminate against you because you are just plain ugly.
Here’s the thing, oldscratch. An employer will take a look at your various adornments and think, “Hmmm…I bet this guy is wearing all this stuff because he’s rebellious, has a problem with authority, and refuses to knuckle under to the powers that be. No way will I hire him.”
And in many cases the employer will be right. Let’s face facts…you are a non-conformist, you do have a problem with authority. Now, in some jobs this is good, but in many it is a problem. If you are looking for a high-tech job, you have to prove you can do the job, but most empoyers will look past the adornments. But if you want to work in a bank they probably won’t. And of course it depends on your location. I’m sure it will be ten times easier to get a job in the Bay Area than it would in Dallas.
But the point is…these tattoos and piercings mean something, they are there for a reason. Most people wouldn’t do what you’ve done, it takes a certain disrespect for the opinions of others. Is it unreasonable for a potential employer to use them as a rough guide to your attitude, whether positive or negative? If I was looking for someone who was a non-conformist I might give you extra points, if I was looking for someone to follow orders and keep his mouth shut I would subtract points. Something tells me that you’re not the type who follows orders and keeps his mouth shut…hence it would be reasonable for someone who wants those qualities to decline to hire you.
There is a Supreme Court dec somewhere, where they ruled that you COULD hire someone on the basis of simply being better looking, ie that “ugly” was not a "protected class’. However, it was from a public type job, where the employer was able to show a nexus between sales & personal appearance.
Oh, Agi, after reading my “flame”/response you in the PIT, I realized that you might have thought that my “insults” were for real- they were not. I apologize if you thought I meant them, or if you were hurt by them. Does not mean I have in anyway changed my position, tho.
What I wanna know is, where in the Constitution did Congress get the authority to pass Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which made it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion) in the first place?!
Even if the job requires certain speaking or grammatical skills, or the linguistic characteristics of the candidate interfere with his ability to communicate with his co-workers?
And is it “discrimination” to offer to train your new hires in “how to speak with a standard American accent”?
I am with you on that. Having hair down to the top of my belt has exposed me to quite a bit of discrimination that I think is unfair and unwarranted. On the other hand, it has made me stronger and less likely to discriminate against others in the process. Many a prospective employer has passed up the opportunity to utilize a this very good tech. I have even been passed up for musically oriented jobs because of my hair, believe it or not. Their loss.
So, BTW, where is your company going to be located?
'Salright. I took the debate to the Pit of my own free will, expected to be flamed, and exercised my right to flame back. Now, stop calling me Agi. I’m bored with it.
