In May 2010, Chastity C. Jones applied to become a customer service representative at Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS), an Alabama-based company. Jones wore short dreadlocks throughout the interview process and CMS hired them immediately. However, after Ms. Jones turned down CMS Human Resource Manager`s request to cut her dreadlocks, CMS withdrew her job offer. In 2013, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against CMS on Ms. Jones` behalf. WASHINGTON, March 18 (Reuters) – The U.S.
House of Representatives passed a bill on Friday banning racial discrimination against hair, especially textures or styles associated with a particular race or national origin, such as dreadlocks, afros and braids. At a hiring meeting, Jones was told that dreadlocks “tend to get messy” and that she wouldn`t be hired unless she changed her hairstyle. The EEOC argued that dreadlocks were a “racial characteristic” and that the decision to exclude employees because of this hairstyle was a form of racial discrimination. Like many other black men and women, dreadlocks are at the heart of Ms. Jones` image. CMS forced Ms. Jones to choose between employment and loyalty to her racial identity. Our amicus curiae brief argued that, in order to fulfill their mandate, courts should interpret Title VII broadly to address all dimensions of a person`s racial identity. While it is true that dreadlocks are associated with African-American culture, the court ruled that because a hairstyle is not an “immutable characteristic” of an individual, it cannot be considered a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Most people associate dreadlocks with Rastafarians, but that`s completely different. Rastafarianism emerged in the 1930s when Ethiopia`s emperor, Ras Tafari, was crowned. Later, there was an invasion, and when he was forced into exile, the warriors vowed not to cut their hair until Ras Tafari was restored. But even though Rastafarians are best known for this hairstyle, it has now spread its roots around the world. The EEOC asserted in its case that the ban on dreadlocks was racial discrimination: “The ban on dreadlocks in the workplace constitutes racial discrimination because dreadlocks are a way of wearing hair that is physiologically and culturally associated with people of African descent.” The EEOC said the argument is based on an understanding of race as “a social construct” that “has no biological definition.” It`s been seven months since the story of Texas high school student DeAndre Arnold made headlines and invaded all of our social media feeds. Arnold, a former student at Barbers Hill High School in Mount Belvieu, Texas, went viral in January after a change to his school`s dress code forced him to cut his dreadlocks to finish his class. Restrictions on dreadlocks have also been introduced in schools. Last July, Attica Scott, whose daughter is a student at Butler Traditional High School in Louisville, Kentucky, tweeted the dress code distributed by the school, which specifically prohibits “dreadlocks, cornrows and twists.” The Bible also has an account of dreadlocks in the story of Samson and Delilah, where the “seven strands on a man`s head” determined his power. The Romans also described the Celts with hair that looked like snakes. Vikings and Greeks were also known to carry padlocks. Even in ancient times, locs were worn in parts of Asia, Australia, South America and, more recently, the United States. For example, Rastafarians wear dreadlocks as part of their religious practice.
In a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by the EEOC on behalf of Courtney Joseph against a recruitment agency that serves Walt Disney World, the court ordered the company to pay $30,000 for religious discrimination. Joseph worked as a cook. In a 2017 case against Catastrophe Management Solutions, the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when it found that the defendant “. Banning dreadlocks in the workplace as part of a racially neutral care policy — nothing more — does not constitute deliberate discrimination on the basis of race. “The court effectively ruled that refusing to hire someone because of their dreadlocks is legal. However, it is now illegal in three states. The CROWN Coalition is an alliance of organizations, including Dove, National Urban League, Color of Change and Western Center on Law and Poverty, dedicated to advancing anti-discrimination legislation. “CROWN” stands for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair and is a law that prohibits discrimination based on hairstyle and hair structure.
The KEX Act, which stands for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair, makes it illegal to discriminate against someone because of their hair. Camille Hamilton Pating, an attorney at Meyers Nave in Oakland, California, explained that employers can implement human resources policies that highlight acceptable standards of care and appearance for employees. “However, employers must be cautious when designing, revising and implementing such policies, as they must be non-discriminatory and should not have a disproportionate impact on workers in a legally protected class.” Hair discrimination is rooted in systemic racism and its purpose is to preserve white space. Guidelines banning natural hairstyles such as afros, braids, Bantu knots and locs have been used to justify removing black children from classrooms and black adults from their jobs. Without national legal protection against hair discrimination, blacks often risk consequences at school or work for their natural hair, or invest time and money to meet Eurocentric standards of professionalism and beauty. The company argued that there is no religious law that requires Rastafarians to wear dreadlocks, and that those who choose to wear dreadlocks are not required to wear them for long. People who wear dreadlocks are considered “dirty” or “dirty” by this employer. Employers say such policies are essential to maintaining a professional work environment. But is this really the case? Over the past decade, these policies (such as banning certain hairstyles, requiring clean-shaven faces, and banning braids, cornrows, and dreadlocks) have received backlash because of their discriminatory effect on black staff. Despite the legal classification, natural hair discrimination is not a distortion of appearance, but a channel of racial discrimination. The CROWN Act aims to fill the gaps in current anti-discrimination legislation.
Now back to dreadlocks and the work environment. The 11th U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled against a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Catastrophe Management Solutions, ruling that refusing to hire someone because of their dreadlocks is legal. According to 11the Circuit, the EEOC stated at the hearing that “if a white person chooses to wear dreadlocks as a sign of racial support for their black counterparts, and the employer enforces its ban on dreadlocks on that person, they could also claim differential treatment based on race.” “I want my two daughters to grow up in a world where they know they will not be discriminated against because of their hair or appearance,” Omar said in a press release Friday after the vote. Editor`s note: This is the latest in a series of articles on motherhood in the legal profession, in collaboration with our friends at MothersEsquire. Welcome Joseline Jean-Louis Hardrick back to our pages. Click here if you would like to donate to MothersEsquire. Black adults, schoolchildren and military personnel have long been discriminated against because of their natural hairstyles such as afros, twists, locs and braids. By punishing hairstyles that do not fall under Eurocentric beauty standards, discriminatory care policies in schools and workplaces are directly linked to institutional racism.
The lawsuit was filed by the EEOC on behalf of Chastity Jones, whose job offer was withdrawn by Mobile, Alabama-based Catastrophe Management Solutions. According to the filing, Jeannie Wilson, head of human resources for CMS, commented on Jones` dreadlocks at a private hiring meeting to discuss scheduling conflicts, telling Jones, “You tend to get messy, although I`m not saying yours are, but you know what I`m talking about.” Wilson told Jones that CMS would not hire Jones with dreadlocks and left the job offer. Policies that may seem racially neutral can sometimes have a disproportionate impact on black hair. For example, a policy banning dreadlocks could apply to all employees, but would disproportionately affect Black employees or students. Companies should also educate employees and managers about cultural sensitivity regarding natural hair. In its lawsuit, the EEOC claimed it was a violation of the 1964 Title VII Civil Rights Act, arguing that dreadlocks were a “racial characteristic” historically used to stereotype African Americans as “non-team players” and unfit for work. Therefore, the claim that dreadlocks do not fit into a policy of care is based on these stereotypes and is inherently discriminatory, as dreadlocks are a hairstyle “physiologically and culturally” associated with African Americans. Discrimination is not only unjust, but also illegal. Missouri law protects employees who are approved for promotions based on color, gender, nation of origin, religion, age, or disability.
Comments are closed.