And the sign said, "Long haired freaky people need not apply."
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why,
He said, "You look like a fine upstanding young man. I think you'll do."
So I took off my hat I said, "Imagine that, huh, me working for you!"


For the record, I'm completely down with the sentiment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but I disagree with Title II and Title VII. (Or at least, I understand that there was a time when they were needed...) Bigoted hiring or customer policies are ugly, illogical, and unhealthy, but I think property owners have a right to them. These parts of the Civil Rights Act made sense back then, when bigotry in the workplace was widespread. I highly doubt it would flourish today if allowed. In this thread, however, I'd like to clear up a few things up about Title VII...specifically, gender discrimination employment law.

From what I understand, gender/sex discrimination is fairly easy to distinguish.

Quote :

"What Constitutes Sex Discrimination? The essence of sex discrimination is unequal treatment on the basis of sex. The treatment must not simply be different, but also unequal, and therefore unfair. For example, requiring women and men to use separate restrooms does not constitute sex discrimination. But it is sex discrimination to provide different working conditions, salaries, hiring, promotion or bonus criteria to women and men."

-FindLaw

Then there are the bona fide occupational qualification exceptions.

Quote :

"One example of bona fide occupational qualifications are mandatory retirement ages for bus drivers and airline pilots, for safety reasons. Further, in advertising, a manufacturer of men's clothing may lawfully advertise for male models."

-Wikipedia

So here's the situation. An employer is considering two applicants that are completely equal in every way, except their gender. Both are [equally] qualified, but the employer adds one additional job requirement to one of the applicants, but not the other, and the basis upon which this additional criterion is given is the applicant's gender. This is clearly sex discrimination and illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Right?

In other words, allowing, say, shoulder-length hair for a female applicant, but requiring ear-length or shorter hair for a male applicant, is sex discrimination. But requiring ear-length or shorter hair for all applicants wouldn't be. Right? (Also, there isn't anything about hair length that would count as a bona fide occupational qualification exception for one gender but not the other, is there? I think not.)

Why, then, are there employers in Wake County that won't hire long-haired males, but employ long-haired females? Have they just not been sued yet?

[obligatory: "Grow up, hippie!"]

12/1/2008 4:11:36 PM

12/1/2008 4:14:50 PM

Quote :

"[obligatory: "Grow up, hippie!"]"

and if you and a woman were equally qualified and you both had the same hair length,

i would take the woman, because it looks better for the company and they are more likely to have the "pleaser" personality trait making them better employees

12/1/2008 4:15:41 PM

protected classes....the white male under age 40 isn't in a defined "protected class", so it's very hard to establish discrimination.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM. Reason : unless covered by religion, national origin, sexual preference, disability....but you get the point.]

12/1/2008 4:16:10 PM

why don't u shave in a mohawk while you're at it

12/1/2008 4:18:11 PM

barely scanned the post

but the factor at play is the same reason that, for example, pot remains illegal.

What politician wants to go to bat for revoking the Civil Rights Act? Nobody who wants to get elected to any office in the future, regardless of the legitimacy of what he's trying to do.

12/1/2008 4:35:22 PM

So we have to revoke an act whose positive effects more than outweigh its negatives over this? I mean, it's probably time we amended these things to better consider issues as they apply to, say, transgendered persons.

12/1/2008 5:21:22 PM

I think there's probably a significant amount of latitude that can be granted towards things like, "professional appearance" that would make it not gender discrimination when it comes to things like hair length or ear piercings (or facial hair, visible tattoos, etc.).

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 5:26 PM. Reason : adadsf]

12/1/2008 5:24:48 PM

An Open Letter to the O.P.

Dear OP,

LOL WUT?

Sincerely,
Joe

12/1/2008 5:49:40 PM

^^ This hits the nail on the head. A standard of professional appearance for all applicants is allowable, and the discriminating application of that standard is legal because the standards for professional appearance differ by gender but are not set by the company. They are the product of a larger industry, and you can argue about the fairness of that all you want or work towards deconstructing their origins in the hope of eventually changing them, but as it stands right now, the disparity still exists and is something beyond the company's control or the law's jurisdiction to enforce.

12/1/2008 6:34:42 PM

Is this why I'm unemployed?

12/1/2008 6:35:58 PM

Well that plus your philosophy, if you bother to follow it, probably means your work ethic is for shit.

12/1/2008 6:37:43 PM

Maybe, but there's no way for potential employers to find that out. The references I provide would say nice things about me.

12/1/2008 6:42:19 PM

It's pretty simple, actually. Either you a) accept being unemployed, b) change your appearance, or c) apply to different firms or job types that are more accepting of your appearance.

I'm not saying that lightly, but it's the reality of the situation. I'm also a guy who's had a ponytail and goatee for almost ten years, and when I was hunting for jobs, I interviewed for one consulting firm that said everything was great but they wanted me to cut my hair before they would pass me to a second round of interviews with one of their executives. I said no thanks, and then interviewed and ended up working for McKinsey & Company, a MUCH better and more prestigious consulting firm than the discriminating one that told me to cut my hair. McKinsey folks had side bets on when I might cave to the pressure and cut my hair (never happened), and staffing did tell me that it was a consideration they had to take into account when deciding what projects to put me on (ie. my appearance wasn't a McKinsey issue, but they had to be realistic about the fact that it might be an issue to some of our clients).

But I ended up much better off by sticking to my guns, and I think it's no coincidence that the better firm was also the more tolerant one, even though they work with much higher level clients in a "more" professional environment. Employers that are better to work for in general are more likely to look past appearances and focus on the talent and skills of a potential hire.

12/1/2008 6:59:08 PM

There are ways to still maintain a neat and professional appearance while having long hair. A clean ponytail and even facial hair aren't usually an issue if you dress well and have excellent hygiene. Pull your hair back into a ponytail, keep your goatee trimmed or at least shaped, and wear a shirt and tie and most people probably won't care.

12/1/2008 7:07:53 PM

Quote :

"Employers that are better to work for in general are more likely to look past appearances and focus on the talent and skills of a potential hire."

I'm in design and that's pretty close to the standard.

Hell, half the time the guy or gal who hires you might be wearing Chuck Taylors.

12/1/2008 8:01:35 PM

Quote :

"It's pretty simple, actually. Either you a) accept being unemployed, b) change your appearance, or c) apply to different firms or job types that are more accepting of your appearance."

12/1/2008 9:46:01 PM

^^ it also depends a lot on the business you're in...

Design, yeah.

Insurance agent? Probably not so much.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 10:57 PM. Reason : also, are we listening to Five Man Electrical Band, or Tesla?]

12/1/2008 10:56:40 PM

You can always work at Whole Foods

12/2/2008 12:18:52 AM

Cut your fucking hippie hair.

12/2/2008 12:47:33 AM

Hippies not apply?

12/2/2008 1:56:04 AM

The same reason someone who arrives at an interview in a suit gets the job over an equally qualified person who arrives in patched jeans and a hoody.

12/2/2008 2:11:21 AM

Quote :

"I think there's probably a significant amount of latitude that can be granted towards things like, "professional appearance" that would make it not gender discrimination when it comes to things like hair length"

Quote :

"The same reason someone who arrives at an interview in a suit gets the job over an equally qualified person who arrives in patched jeans and a hoody."

I cannot emphasize enough that this is not the issue. (At least the way I'm seeing it.) The issue is over unequal treatment on the basis of sex, in regards to hiring. (Not over looks in general.) Again, the lawyer says, "It is sex discrimination to provide different....hiring ....criteria to women and men."

Let's say the suit is ear-length or shorter hair, while the patched jeans and hoody is the long hair. (Also, neither is unkempt or dirty, as that is a separate issue.) The issue isn't over an employer's decision to hire the suit and never the hoody, but rather it's over an employer's decision to have one set of rules (say, only hiring suits,) for men, and a different and unequal set of rules (say, hiring both suits and hoodies,) for women. Get it?

In other words, say an employer has 2 equal applicants. Both are male (or both are female.) One has a suit on, and the other wears a hoody. The employer hires the suit every time. This is ok. The same standard is being placed on applicants regardless of gender.

However, say an employer has 2 equal applicants of different gender. One has a suit on, and the other wears a hoody. If the employer hires the male, he is always in a suit, but if the employer hires the female, she is sometimes in a suit, sometimes not. The employer has placed an unequal standard based on gender. Their "suits only" policy is only placed on male applicants, but not on female applicants. This is clearly a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. (Or clearly should be.)

Quote :

"A standard of professional appearance for all applicants is allowable, and the discriminating application of that standard is legal because the standards for professional appearance differ by gender but are not set by the company. They are the product of a larger industry, and you can argue about the fairness of that all you want or work towards deconstructing their origins in the hope of eventually changing them, but as it stands right now, the disparity still exists and is something beyond the company's control or the law's jurisdiction to enforce."

I don't buy this. Are there any court rulings on this? That's like saying a white applicant can't wear dreadlocks, but a black applicant can. (Religious and hygiene issues aside...)

I tend to agree with theDuke866.
Title II and VII (and IX too?,) really need to be dropped completely, but who'd ever run for office on that?


[Edited on December 2, 2008 at 10:19 AM. Reason : ]

12/2/2008 10:16:54 AM

Quote :

"I cannot emphasize enough that this is not the issue. (At least the way I'm seeing it.) The issue is over unequal treatment on the basis of sex, in regards to hiring. (Not over looks in general.) Again, the lawyer says, "It is sex discrimination to provide different....hiring ....criteria to women and men.""

The hiring criteria is the same though, both need to have a professional appearance. What would you say if two men applied, equally qualified of course, and they were both wearing exactly the same size suit except one man weighs 400 lbs while the other weighs 120lbs? One of these men is going to have a suit that doesn't fit at all and it's going to look like crap on him. Is that discrimination based on weight or is it just that one man is incapable of accepting that proffessional appearance is not a one size fits all thing?

12/2/2008 10:37:27 AM

Quote :

"Is that discrimination based on weight "

as far as federal law is concerned, there is no such thing...unless established that the weight is a medical issue (disability).

again, its largely based on protected groups...i.e. it would be very hard for a white male to win a discrimination suit even if the employer outright says 'I highered another applicant b/c its a woman' b/c being a white male in itself does not qualify you as a protected group under the federal law.

12/2/2008 10:51:17 AM

12/2/2008 10:58:51 AM

^
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.", "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!", and so on...



^^^
Wearing clothes that don't fit is an issue of "unkemptness" or sloppiness of appearance. That is a separate issue. The type or style of outfit one wears is not the same as wearing it properly. Nothing about a man wearing long hair is an issue of him wearing it properly. Both he and long-haired females can wear their hair neatly and properly, or not. (like the moustache comb-over in that sierra mist commercial) The issue is about different and unequal standards for male and female applicants. It isn't about proffessional appearance not being a one size fits all thing.


[Edited on December 2, 2008 at 11:06 AM. Reason : ]

12/2/2008 11:05:36 AM

I think each business gets to set their own rules within reason here. You may think that a nice dress shirt and slacks are appropriate for a company while they determine that all men need to wear ties to fit in with their dress code. Now obviously most the women their won't be wearing ties even if they are wearing a woman's suit to work each day. Do you feel that this is sexual discrimination?

If a female is allowed to wear a nice skirt to work and fit into a dress code, would it be sexual discrimination of a male (straight for this scenario) was told he could not wear a skirt to work because it would look unprofessional to clients?

What about high heels? A woman can wear them and be considered to be in professional attire. A guy would probably be asked to not wear them and that it was not acceptable under the company dress code.

Same with places that dont want guys to have visible piercings but girls can.

Sure it is your hair and not an article of clothing that can be easily removed such as my previously listed examples, but each one is something a woman is allowed to do in a work place example that a man could not get away with. Do you consider each of these cases to be discrimination?

I could see an argument for it but I feel like its perfectly legal and acceptable for a company to hold to certain dress policies within reason and I think that piercings and hair length are one of these. It is their own fault if they miss out on a worthy employee because of their dress code.

12/2/2008 11:18:27 AM

Quote :

"If a female is allowed to wear a nice skirt to work and fit into a dress code, would it be sexual discrimination of a male (straight for this scenario) was told he could not wear a skirt to work because it would look unprofessional to clients?"

I was waiting for someone to ask this, and the answer is yes. I think that is a clear violation of Title VII. (Keep in mind that I don't agree with Title VII.) Private employers should be able to discriminate on any basis they want. However, as long as that's illegal, the law needs to be consistent and applied equally to all.

12/2/2008 11:32:40 AM

I'm going to wear a kilt tomorrow and report back what happens.

12/2/2008 12:03:09 PM

lol

12/2/2008 12:07:13 PM

^^






[Edited on December 2, 2008 at 12:17 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2008 12:09:05 PM

do you really care about this? i guess it isnt a big deal where i live... some guys wear skirts already.

http://www.utilikilts.com/?page_id=27

but i mean really. its not a sexual discrimination issue. it's a workplace professionalism vs. societal standard issue

12/2/2008 12:34:46 PM

yea nothing wrong with them, there is a guy here that wears them on fridays haha. And there are a few guys with pony tails that I work with. But at the same time I can totally understand a company who doesn't allow them.

12/2/2008 12:47:41 PM

I work at a big think tank, and I'm actually wearing an ankle-length skirt today. As I said before, good employers won't care.

Yes, Title VII is something that has been continuously examined and litigated against. There's an extensive literature you can search through, particularly if you're still a student and have access to the library's journal collections or archives like JSTOR. A lot of cases these days center around issues of effeminacy and transgendered appearance standards, but issues like long hair for males and disparities of dress codes were ruled on many years ago. A quick search turned up the article

Quote :

"Sex Discrimination and Hair-Length Requirements Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the Long and Short of It Labor Law Journal, 25, 6, 336-351, Jun 74 Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer's rights to establish dress and appearance standards for employees has been challenged with increasing frequency as a discriminatory employment practice based upon sex. The majority of such cases have concerned the right of male employees to wear their hair as long as that of their female counterparts. Discusses some of those cases. (Author/JF)"

If you have access to get the full article from some journal source, it sounds like it might be some useful reading for you. I'll respond some more later, got a meeting to get to now though.

12/2/2008 1:27:58 PM

Quote :

"the Long and Short of It"

:carlface:

12/2/2008 1:36:03 PM

Quote :

"Why, then, are there employers in Wake County that won't hire long-haired males, but employ long-haired females?"

Which ones? I've never had a problem with my long hair, in Wake County or anywhere else.

12/2/2008 10:03:22 PM

The man skirts won this thread.

Willy Nilly, can you be more specific about the employers? Depending on the size and nature of the organization there are many factors to consider that may influence the outcome before we even get to the law or protected classes.

12/6/2008 9:58:01 PM

^
Specific how? All that should matter is that they're an employer (non-government, non-native-american, non-religious.)
Everyone and everything should be equal under the law. Currently, that is not the case.

Quote :

"the law or protected classes"

The purpose of this thread isn't to simply ask what the law is -- I could research that. The purpose is to discuss what the law should be. (The mere existence of a law doesn't justify itself.) As for protected classes, what the god damn fuck? ALL classes should be protected. EQUALLY. Protecting one class, but not another is institutionalized classism. (READ: INEQUALITY UNDER THE LAW.)

Quote :

"Which ones? I've never had a problem with my long hair, in Wake County or anywhere else."

Personal experience is of no importance to the purpose of this thread. (It is, of course, important otherwise.) I'm not going to "name names", but if you actually think every [private, non-religious] employer in Wake County is totally cool with long-haired guys, you're crazy.

I guess the point I'm really trying to make is that this anti-discrimination bullshit should be all or nothing. Either let private property owners make whatever employment and customer policies they want, or have the law protect everyone equally, regardless of class. Right now, the law picks and chooses classes deemed "needy", while disregarding and denying equal legal treatment for others not deemed "needy". It's basically like a form of affirmative action, or as they more accurately call it in the UK, "positive discrimination."

Also, simply saying that employers shouldn't be forced to obey a law that would have them doing things that are "socially unacceptable," is bullshit. Saying, "Forcing us to hire a guy with long dreadlocks would be bad because our clients are prejudiced against that." is a lot like saying, "Forcing us to hire a guy with black skin would be bad because our clients are prejudiced against that." Social norms (a nice term for social prejudices,) should not be an excuse to allow unequal treatment under the law.

[Edited on December 7, 2008 at 8:54 AM. Reason : ]

12/7/2008 8:54:29 AM

yeah except the dude with dreadlocks can get a fucking haircut.

the black guy can't change that he's black.

12/7/2008 11:21:55 AM

you can change your religion too....

Quote :

"Saying, "Forcing us to hire a guy with long dreadlocks would be bad because our clients are prejudiced against that." is a lot like saying, "Forcing us to hire a Sikh would be bad because our clients are prejudiced against that." "

[Edited on December 7, 2008 at 6:48 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2008 6:39:38 PM

Can you change the fact that you're a fucking moron?


If so, I advise you do that. If not... well... good luck.

12/9/2008 10:56:59 AM

^
Nice contribution, asshole.

12/9/2008 11:00:22 AM