Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/45/d539607703/htdocs/JacksonAssociates/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 1121

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/45/d539607703/htdocs/JacksonAssociates/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 1158

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/45/d539607703/htdocs/JacksonAssociates/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 1162

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/45/d539607703/htdocs/JacksonAssociates/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 1186

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/45/d539607703/htdocs/JacksonAssociates/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 2855

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/45/d539607703/htdocs/JacksonAssociates/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 2862

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/45/d539607703/htdocs/JacksonAssociates/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/common.php on line 2875

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/45/d539607703/htdocs/JacksonAssociates/wp-content/plugins/revslider/includes/operations.class.php on line 2339

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/45/d539607703/htdocs/JacksonAssociates/wp-content/plugins/revslider/includes/operations.class.php on line 2343

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/45/d539607703/htdocs/JacksonAssociates/wp-content/plugins/revslider/includes/output.class.php on line 3165

Warning: Declaration of My_Walker_Nav_Menu::start_lvl(&$output, $depth) should be compatible with Walker_Nav_Menu::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /homepages/45/d539607703/htdocs/JacksonAssociates/wp-content/themes/jacksonandassociates/functions.php on line 19
Judge Rules Banning Dreadlocks In The Workplace Is Not Discrimination | San Diego, CA | San Diego County
(619) 335 - 1168

Judge Rules Banning Dreadlocks In The Workplace Is Not Discrimination

pic-post_9-22-16A federal appeals court has ruled that banning an employee from wearing their hair in locs is not racial discrimination.

In a 3-0 decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a cased brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a company that refused a hire a woman because she wouldn’t cut off her locs.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Chastity Jones applied to work at Catastrophe Management Solutions in 2010 and was initially hired, but the role came with one condition. Jones was told that she’d have to cut off her locs in order to comply with the company’s grooming policy. She refused to do so and the job offer was rescinded.

The EEOC alleged in its case that banning dreadlocks was racial discrimination, “prohibition of dreadlocks in the workplace constitutes race discrimination because dreadlocks are a manner of wearing the hair that is physiologically and culturally associated with people of African descent.” The EEOC said that the argument was based on an understanding of race as “a social construct” that “has no biological definition.”

According to the 11the Circuit, during oral argument the EEOC “asserted that if a white person chose to wear dreadlocks as a sign of racial support for her black colleagues, and the employer applied its dreadlocks ban to that person, she too could assert a race-based disparate treatment claim.”

Similar cases have been presented before and while federal law bans employment discrimination based on race, courts have interpreted race as skin color and fixed traits. This is the definition the court used to decide the case.

Read more about it here: http://bit.ly/2d6dUMY

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get Posts In Your Email


California Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Attorneys Disclaimer:
The California employment law, trial information, mediation or other legal information presented at this site should not be construed to be legal advice, nor the formation of an attorney-client relationship. Any results set forth herein are based upon the facts of a particular case and do not represent a promise or guarantee with respect to your case.

619-335-1168 | P.O.BOX 191426 SAN DIEGO, CA 92159
© 2015 Jackson & Associates All rights reserved. | Sitemap