Federal cases supporing longhaired men
Posted by Bill on November 20, 2000 at 00:38:51: Previous Next
In recent years, federal courts have refused to give job discrimination protection to longhairs, saying employers could require men to behave and appear differently than women. Today I ran across a newspaper article by an attorney, linked below, that reports on some cases that indicate a trend in the other direction. Anyone involved in legal wrangling to protect their right to their hair should take note of these cases! (One that involves Price Waterhouse is from the U.S. Supreme Court!)
The article talks of transgenders and gay people, but the thrust of the cases is that employers cannot insist that you look a particular way on the "feminine-to-macho" scale. Though many of us do not see our long hair as a female trait, a lot of employers and court judges have seen it as a societal norm for females, and "men who might want to look a bit more female" are the people these cases are standing up for!
Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men
Posted by Jazbrd on November 21, 2000 at 03:29:52:
In Reply to: Federal cases supporing longhaired men posted by Bill on November 20, 2000 at 00:38:51:
Here are a couple of stories involving Blockbuster movie rental, and firefighters. The courts are clearly allowing sexual discrimination between men and women in the workplace.
I don't see the difference whether your skin is black or white, whether you are handicapped, or you are a man with longhair that unquestionably reflects your identity, which is a part of your emotional health and well being. Are they going to tell an African American person to change his skin color, or a handicapped person to stop being a quadriplegic? Of course not. Well, I know as a fact, that my having longhair is a part of who I am as a member of society. If I was forced to cut it off, I know I would be so emotionally distraught, that I would probably become disillusioned and suffer depression. Then I would be of no use to myself or anybody else.
Who the hell are the courts to say what is right or wrong for men as far as how they identify with themselves? Clearly, if a man is neat and presentable, so what if he has Here are the stories: November/December 1998 Court Snips Hair Raising Issue Can an employer implement a policy that prohibits only male employees from having long hair, while permitting females to wear long hair? The courts have uniformly allowed such policies, and even the EEOC has caved in and recognized that it does not violate the employment discrimination laws to prohibit long hair by males only. Recently, however, some employees at a Blockbuster video store in Florida challenged their employer’s policy, and it was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, Blockbuster implemented a new grooming policy that prohibited men, but not women, from wearing long hair. Four male employees -- all with long hair -- refused to comply with the policy. They protested the policy as discriminatory and voiced this to their supervisors. Two of the employees took their stories to the news, and all four were eventually terminated for refusing to cut their hair in compliance with the policy. The four males filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC and subsequently filed suit in federal court. The employer asked the court to dismiss the case, since caselaw established that different grooming standards for men and women did not discriminate against employees. The court agreed, and the employees appealed. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and dismissed their case. According to the court, it has been established law that differing hair length standards do not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the court was unwilling to reexamine that law to create such a cause of action in this case. See Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corporation, 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. Apr. 29, 1998). Still unsatisfied, the employees appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, and the high court rejected that appeal on November 16, 1998. The lesson to be learned from this case is that employers have the right to establish legitimate, business related grooming standards, even if those standards appear to be different for male and female employees. Certainly hair length standards are acceptable, but what about dress and other grooming matters, like body piercing? Consult your labor counsel for how to deal with such related matters in your workplace. Hair-length and grooming standards for fire service personnel have been problematic ever since the first woman firefighter came up against standards that had been created for men but become etched in the stone of fire department tradition. One of the problems in getting fire departments to become more flexible on this issue was the coincidence that at the time women were beginning to enter the career fire service the late 1970's long hair was fashionable on men. Male firefighters had been agitating for some time to be allowed to wear their hair longer, usually to little avail. When women came forward with the same request, the answer was often a pre-scripted "No." As the fire service finally begins to break away from its traditional, authoritarian approach to its employees, fire service managers have been adopting more flexible approaches to employee grooming standards. A fire chief who takes an extreme approach, such as requiring all employees to have military-style short hair based on male norms, is demonstrating the department's hostility to the presence of women and will find recruitment and other diversification efforts difficult. Sample language from fire department hair-length and grooming policies: Following are excerpts from fire department policies regulating employee hair length and the wearing of jewelry. They cover a range of options available to fire service employers for dealing with these questions. No such policy should be implemented without considering your own department's specific needs or seeking qualified legal advice. "Hair shall be neatly groomed and the length or bulk of the hair shall not be excessive or present a ragged, unkempt or extreme appearance. (Men:) Hair may cover one half of the ear but shall not cover the entire ear. (Women:) Hair may not extend beyond the lower part of the shoulder blades. "Members are discouraged from wearing rings or other jewelry on the fire or training ground. Female members may wear earrings providing they do not extend below the bottom of the ear." (Women:) "Hair must be clean and neatly arranged. When in uniform, back hair must not fall more than one-quarter inch below the lower edge of the collar. No hair must show under the front brim of fire service headgear. Afro, natural, bouffant, and other similar hairstyles are permitted, but... bulk of hair must not exceed two inches. In no case is the bulk of the hair permitted interference with the proper wearing of fire service headgear. "Only pins, combs or barrettes that are similar in color to the individual's hair color may be worn to meet the requirements of the regulation. Jewelry which extends beyond the ear lobe or... is loose or protrudes and may catch in machinery or equipment may not be worn while on duty." "It is recognized that traditionally acceptable standards for female hairstyles differ considerably from those of males. Female hairstyles that would normally not conform to the standards outlined in this S.O.P. may be pinned up or secured in order to comply while on duty. In these instances, the hair must be pinned up or secured at all times while on duty, and shall not interfere with the proper wearing of uniform hats or protective equipment, or in any way create a safety hazard." (Men and women:) "There are many hair styles that are acceptable. So long as the person's hair is kept in a neat, clean manner, the acceptability of the style will be judged by these criteria: Hair styles that preclude the proper wearing (of SCBA) are not permitted... Hair will be worn so that it does not extend below the bottom of the uniform shirt collar while standing in an erect position. Hair may be pinned or worn in a way to keep hair above the bottom of the collar..." "To facilitate a professional appearance, hair and grooming standards must be followed. These standards have been modified to meet contemporary styles without jeopardizing the safety of firefighters involved in the hazardous activities associated with firefighting. "When in a normal standing position, the hair can extend to the top of the collar area. Hair will not extend beyond the bottom of the earlobe. Longer hair is acceptable if it is pinned up in a neat manner and does not interfere with the wearing of departmental headgear. No ribbons or ornaments shall be worn in the hair except for neat inconspicuous bobby pins or conservative barrettes, which blend with the hair color. Hair... will not exceed two inches in height." The legal background Unfortunately for those who would like legal support for their attempts to change fire department hair policies, the courts have generally allowed employers to establish and enforce work rules for hair length. Constitutional protections afforded to employees in this area are clearly limited. Numerous cases have been brought on constitutional grounds, with employees arguing that appearance is an aspect of personal liberty, so that any interference with that "right" must be justified by a legitimate state interest. The courts, in response, have generally upheld a public safety employer's right to impose grooming regulations that can be justified by the need for discipline, uniformity and esprit de corps, even where no safety considerations exist. (1) A 1992 case filed under Louisiana constitutional law, however, resulted in a ruling against a public employer. At issue was the city's recent attempt to restrict firefighters' hair to shoulder-length or shorter. (Women had been on the fire department for eleven years and had previously been permitted to pin their hair up to conform with the hair standard.) In issuing an injunction against the city, the judge found that "the regulation (was) not gender neutral" because it affected women differently from men and "had the effect of classification of individuals on the basis of sex." The ruling continued: Similarity of appearance can be and was in fact achieved by requiring fire personnel on duty or in uniform to have their hair, if longer than regulation length, pinned to meet a length requirement established by their employer. The esprit de corps and equal treatment as to grooming standards are easily achieved by uniform enforcement of hair length while on duty or in uniform with a recognition of an individual's right to have whatever length of hair he or she desires as long as while on duty or in uniform it is kept to a level set forth in the employer's regulation... While similarity of appearance has been recognized as an appropriate and rational goal in a "paramilitary" civilian service, commonality may not and should not be required at the expense of reason and purpose. (2) Because Louisiana constitutional law differs significantly in this area from that of other states, the ruling is not likely to have a major impact outside Louisiana. Many early hair-length cases brought by men, including police officers and firefighters, challenged standards that prohibited long hair on men but allowed it on women, alleging sex discrimination. Some fire departments continue to insist that they can not have two separate standards for men's and women's hair. Since the mid-1970's, however, the courts have consistently held that prohibiting long hair for male employees is not sex discrimination if the employer's grooming standards for both sexes are related to community standards and are applied in an even-handed manner. (3) The courts have made a distinction between hair standards and issues where discrimination affects "fundamental rights" or is based on immutable (unchangeable) characteristics. (4) The judicial and administrative branches of the government disagree on a basic point of sex discrimination law as it affects hair and appearance standards on the job. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has consistently treated different appearance rules for men and women as constituting sex discrimination under Title VII. (5) The courts, however, have decided that anti-discrimination law was not intended to interfere with employers who wish to set reasonable appearance standards required by their business. Safety vs. grooming Apart from the legal aspects, hair-length issues are also confusing because fire departments have, in the past, required firefighters to have short hair for two different reasons: because, given the protective gear then in use, it was safer during firefighting operations, and because it looked neater, more professional, or more uniform. Where these two reasons have become intertwined into one policy, it is necessary to sort them out in order to create a new policy that addresses current needs. A safety standard is gender-neutral: fire will burn exposed hair regardless of the sex of the person whose head it's on. Advances in protective equipment in recent years have made it possible for firefighters to have much longer hair than in the past and still be much safer than ever. SCBA facepieces and flame-resistant hoods and helmet liners insure that all surfaces on the head are protected. For this reason, many fire departments have adopted a safety-based hair standard that simply states that "No hair shall be exposed during firefighting activities." This approach avoids the need to regulate the actual length of the hair, and bases its restriction simply on the justifiable need for firefighter safety. Establishing a policy based solely on grooming and appearance concerns has a more favorable impact on women, for while a safety standard must be gender-neutral, a grooming standard need not be. Even though the EEOC disagrees, the courts have consistently held that employers can legally require male employees to wear their hair shorter than female employees and that such policies do not constitute illegal sex discrimination. Most fire departments that employ women firefighters allow at least women, and in some cases all employees, to have long hair. Most policies specify that hair longer than a certain length must be restrained or pinned up during all duty hours, or during emergency operations. Policies of this sort are usually achieved through formal or informal negotiations with fire department management, not through legal action. Notes: 1 Quinn v. Muscare, 425 U.S. 560, reh'g denied, 426 U.S. 954 (1976) [male firefighter challenge to hair standard]; Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238 (1976) [male police officer]. 2Sellers v. City of Shreveport, et al., 1992. The employer defended the policy as a grooming standard, stipulating that the safety of firefighters was not at issue. 3 Dodge v. Giant Food, Inc., 488 F.2d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Baker v. Calif. Land Title Co., 507 F.2d 895 (9th Cir. 1974) cert denied, 422 U.S. 1046 (1975); Longo v. Carlisle DeCoppet & Co., 537 F.2d 685 (2d Cir. 1976); Earwood v. Continental Southeastern Lines, Inc., 539 F.2d 1349 (4th Cir. 1976); Barker v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 549 F.2d 400 (6th Cir. 1977); Knott v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 527 F.2d 1249 (8th Cir. 1975). 4 E.g., an employer's refusal to hire women with small children [Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971)] or the firing of women who marry [Sprogis v. United Airlines, 444 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir. 1971)]. 5 E.g., EEOC Dec. No. 71-1529, 3 F.E.P. 952 (5/9/71). This article is adapted from material developed by WFS under contract to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's U.S. Fire Administration, and published by FEMA/USFA as Many Faces, One Purpose: A Manager's Handbook on Women in Firerfighting and Many Women Strong: A Handbook for Women Firefighters. Both may be ordered free of charge from the USFA's Web site. Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men In Reply to: Federal cases supporing longhaired men posted by Bill on November 20, 2000 at 00:38:51: : The article talks of transgenders and gay people, but the thrust of the cases is that employers cannot insist that you look a particular way on the "feminine-to-macho" scale. Though many of us do not see our long hair as a female trait, a lot of employers and court judges have seen it as a societal norm for females, and "men who might want to look a bit more female" are the people these cases are standing up for! Actually, I'm pretty familiar with this case, and I don't think it will apply towards the longhair cause. It's a question of whether a company can fire someone for crossdressing OFF the job. You can't "take off" long hair. Pinning it up looks different than short hair, and violates "community standards". Gender-specific dress codes are allowed on the job. This case would never hold water if the truck driver was wearing women's clothes on the job. Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men In Reply to: Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men posted by Happy Scrappy Hero Pup on November 23, 2000 at 00:33:44: : Actually, I'm pretty familiar with this case, and I don't think it will apply towards the longhair cause. It's a question of whether a company can fire someone for crossdressing OFF the job. You can't "take off" long hair. Pinning it up looks different than short hair, and violates "community standards". Some of the discussion in the article gets into mannerisms. These show up at work and cannot be turned off. Since hair is not readily removed and installed, and since courts are beginning to address the situation than men MAY look female at work when it comes to mannerisms, my feeling is that these cases may show promise down the pike. : Gender-specific dress codes are allowed on the job. This case would never hold water if the truck driver was wearing women's clothes on the job. That indeed would be the last bridge crossed, since as you say, it's an easy thing to put on and take off. The strongest line of cases at the moment indeed allows different standards for men and women. Jazbrd mentions some of them in a post below this one, and you can dig them up ad nauseum on the Internet. What's important is that when we do see a thread of hope, we should not let it pass unnoticed. It is from such threads that, when pointed out, courts have taken hold of them to justify overturning bad law. Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men In Reply to: Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men posted by Bill on November 23, 2000 at 03:12:01: It comes down to how activist the judges get, really. If they want to try to blow open the whole issue, there is some legroom to do so. The case is constructed that it is much easier just to use the fact that the behavior off the job is the primary complaint to rule for the person who got fired, without taking the steps that would benefit longhairs. I do hope the final decision is a lot more sweeping. I don't worry too much along these lines, as I'm going into computer programming, and the field is such that I might have the luxury of just finding a different job that will let me have whatever length of hair I want. Of course that's only worrying about the hair length element. I'm keenly interested in the main thrust of the case. I'm a crossdresser, and really don't think anyone has the right to fire me for that unless it actually interferes with the work.
Hair and grooming standards for firefighters
Posted by Happy Scrappy Hero Pup on November 23, 2000 at 00:33:44: Previous Next
Posted by Bill on November 23, 2000 at 03:12:01: Previous Next
Posted by Happy Scrappy Hero Pup on November 24, 2000 at 12:07:51: Previous Next