Are Dreadlocks Unprofessional?(inc.com)
inc.com
Are Dreadlocks Unprofessional?
http://www.inc.com/news/article/2010/10/virginia-company-sued-for-refusing-to-hire-man-with-dreadlocks.html
62 comments
I think you are probably right, but I believe there is an exception for safety issues. For example, a machine shop can require you to get a crew cut and wear tight clothing regardless of your religion. Religious tolerance doesn't mean you have the right to wrap your dreads around a lathe.
That said, I don't think moving furniture falls into that category.
That said, I don't think moving furniture falls into that category.
Machine shops everywhere already have safety practices for long hair: you tie your hair, wear it up, and cover it with a helmet.
You may be right about that particular safety procedure. I work behind a desk so I won't comment on how to stay safe around machinery.
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-... ]
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-... ]
Am I the only one who thinks this situation is a good example where discrimination laws are not serving their intended purpose?
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.
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.
Because having long hair in no way affects a candidate's ability to do this (or virtually any) job, and just the notion that dreadlocks project an unprofessional image is itself a form of discrimination: it's companies using job openings to subtly but overtly make it that much harder to practice a particular religion. Unlike you, I see this as a great example of Civil Rights law having its intended effect.
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.
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.
The best course of action for this company would have been to just say no we're not going to hire you.
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.
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.
this has been a settled issue in the US since 1964
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.
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.
tl;dr: this case was based on a claim of sex discrimination, not of race or religion.
So we're agreed that some sorts of discrimination, specifically regarding the cutting of hair at an employer's request, are in fact legal; now it's merely a matter of specifics.
The specifics are race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. I'm not making them up.
OK, but we have evidence that an employer can tell you to cut your hair despite it being one of your five types of discrimination. So what it is about the other four that means you can't?
(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)?
(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)?
The law isn't against hair discrimination!
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.
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.
It's not as simple as that. For example, religious freedom laws don't allow Rastas to smoke ganja, nor Sikhs to carry their swords onto planes.
Actually, Sikhs can carry the Kirpan in most public places in both Canada and the US. You are correct though that an aircraft is not one of these places.
Smoking plants and carrying weapons represent health and safety concerns for the people surrounding them. Dreadlocks do not. There's a huge difference. Don't even pretend that carrying a weapon is similar to having a certain hair style.
>Smoking plants and carrying weapons represent health and safety concerns for the people surrounding them.
you do believe that the government's caring about your health is the reason why ganja is outlawed?
you do believe that the government's caring about your health is the reason why ganja is outlawed?
I hope I speak for all of us when I say that this is not a discussion we can productively have on HN.
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".
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".
yeah it went so well the last time it happened; keep ridiculing. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1641042
[deleted]
The article says it's for reasons of hygiene, coming into close contact with people.
In other words, "people who practice Rastafarianism are usually not hygienic; just look at their hair". You can see how this isn't going to play well for them in court.
I've many friends with dreads and with the best will in the world, something you wash every few months if that, doesn't meet normally accepted standards of hygiene. That's true of whites with dreads as well, so it's not racist.
Having a standard that says "employee hair must be clean, neatly arranged, and safe for physical work" would probably have been fine. That's not what happened here. This candidate offered to conceal his hair and was told he had to cut it.
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.
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.
If you were managing, say, a catering business, then it would be your job to know.
If you were managing, say, a high-end restaurant kitchen, you might end up on ICA and judging Top Chef despite your dreads:
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.
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.
But they do allow you to do DMT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_B...
Totally situational. The guy is a mover, not a heart surgeon. I certainly think that as the "stuffy old guy" generation of management is slowly replaced with the "hip younger guy/girl" generation, more interesting/unusual styles will likely become more frequently acceptable. Still, it is situation and industry dependent.
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.
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.
It is probably not situational when the candidate offers to conceal his hair on the job, and you in effect respond by saying "cut your hair or no deal". Even police departments have had to back down and allow Sikhs to wear turbans.
what is bothering me in all such cases is the emphasis of the religious grounds for the things like long hair.
It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair because of religion would have more "right" for it than one who'd just happen to prefer his hair long. Why such preferential treatment of religion?
"It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair because of religion would have more "right" for it than one who'd just happen to prefer his hair long."
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.
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.
>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.
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.
"Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA."
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).
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).
yes, the law prevents anybody from interfering into your personal religious beliefs or from making various economic, social, political, etc... decisions based on your religion. Ie. you're guaranteed to have the same rights as anybody else. Nothing in the law guarantees you preferential treatment or more rights just because of your religious beliefs or practice.
That's not the case. As a matter of law, actions undertaken for religious reasons are more protected than actions undertaken for mere personal preference. You may disagree with this approach, but that's a different question.
Because it is a violation of federal law to discriminate against a candidate for employment over race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
That this suggests hairstyle requirements in dress codes are a complete waste of time is a valid but orthogonal point.
That this suggests hairstyle requirements in dress codes are a complete waste of time is a valid but orthogonal point.
in this case the guy was clearly discriminated over his long hairs, not over his religion. The employer would presumably do the same to any long haired guy.
His hairstyle is part of his religious practice. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafarianism#Locks
where is in the law it is said that you must accommodate and bent over to whatever quirk/fantasy my pastor/guru can come up with?
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?
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?
Yes, this is what the law provides for. See the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidelines: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359518
-- 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]
-- 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]
i don't believe my eyes. You're right, and i was wrong. The law does provide for preferential treatment on the basis of religion. Time for non-religious people to stand up and fight against the discrimination
Btw, thank you for the information and bearing up with me :)
Btw, thank you for the information and bearing up with me :)
Um, before you go on a crusade you might want to re-think the consequences: Freedom of religious expression guarantees the right to no have a religion.
As in it's just as illegal to only hire Christians than it is to not hire one.
As in it's just as illegal to only hire Christians than it is to not hire one.
you're missing the point. A company can not fire a religious guy over long hair and can fire a non-religious one with the same hair length and dirtiness. That is discrimination, a penalty for being non-religious.
Considering you are perfectly free to join the exact same religion and have the same protections, it is not.
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.
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.
>Considering you are perfectly free to join the exact same religion and have the same protections
thank you, i couldn't say it better myself. Reminds me about Medieval Europe - either join the religion or burn at stake.
thank you, i couldn't say it better myself. Reminds me about Medieval Europe - either join the religion or burn at stake.
Actually, that doesn't constitute discrimination.
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.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
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.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
>disabled worker in a wheelchair
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
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
"Brandishing off one's religion is a matter of the one's personal choice."
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).
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).
Or, I know! How about we stop using positions of economic authority as a cudgel to get them to wear their hair in certain ways?
The two ads I had to click to hide and the sharing toolbar on inc.com are all more objectionable than dreadlocks.
As tptacek has written, is there even a controversy here?
As tptacek has written, is there even a controversy here?
In all honestly I would think they might be an occupational hazard for someone working as a mover, no?
I have fairly long dreadlocks. My job is at a desk but I have done my share of moving, carpentry, welding etc outside of my job. He just needs to keep his dreadlocks tied back, covered or whatever to keep them out of the way and from getting snagged. They are no more or less dangerous than anyone else with long hair - except they get caught on velcro a little easier.
there are couple of situation where long hair would be funny, not for long though - in a machine shop or inside moving
tank with main caliber gun auto-stabilizing targeting system on - even untied headphone wires would on several occassions pull the head in
Tons of people with long hair work in machine shops. In fact, it's possible that more people with long hair work in machine shops than other professions, statistically, because of the socioeconomic signifiers of long hair on caucasian men (there are far more long-haired white men than there are rastas and sikhs).
Is this really an issue? The applicant seems to be "in violation" of an established, company policy of stating "that hair, facial hair, beards and general grooming must be neat, clean and trimmed".
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.
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.
Require his dreads to be neat and clean, then move on. You can no more dictate hairstyle than you can dictate that men be clean-shaven; whether or not it's your established "rule framework", it's going to get you sued by the first litigious Muslim candidate you reject, and rightly so: modulo hygiene, employee hairstyles are none of your business.
Ok, Did their lawyers tell them to write that.
First of all a Rasta can't cut his hear, Nazarite vow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
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.
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.
I would say going through the process of building up your dreadlocks is what makes them appear unprofessional.
http://www.dreadlocks.us/dreadlocks-faq.html
http://www.dreadlocks.us/dreadlocks-faq.html
It depends on how smelly they are. Hopefully this is not considered a trolling comment, but, in all seriousness some dreadlocks reek and some don't. It depends on how long they have been in, how they were formed and the persons individual preference on how they maintain them.
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...
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...
You see how "wanting a cleaner image in the court room" here has a societal impact on Sikhs and Muslims, right? A well cared-for beard or hairstyle is not "unclean" simply because it doesn't match how Europeans wear their hair.
This is almost case-in-point for why you don't want employers having the right to dictate hairstyles.
This is almost case-in-point for why you don't want employers having the right to dictate hairstyles.
I agree with your point, and don't personally accept the given definition of a "clean image", which is why I quoted it. I am just addressing the fact that decisions can easily ride on the appearance of an individual. To extend the lawyer analogy, imagine you are in court defending yourself from some criminal accusation. If you had to pick your lawyer between two identically skilled individuals, and one had dreads to his waste and the other was a "clean cut" individual, which would you choose?
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.
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.
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.