discrimination???
Posted by Brian on March 27, 2003 at 00:19:21: Previous Next
my issue concerns my place of work. i am employed at costco wholesale, i was hired there 6 years ago, and was hired with long hair which i was informed might need trimmed, i did so, and as i trimmed it shorter and shorter for 4 months had ultimately decided if i cant have it long i wouldnt have it at all. so i shaved it. well 2 years later i decided to start growing it long again, a fellow employee i noticed had also done the same thing (in the form of a mullet nonetheless) but it has been two years now and it is about to the middle of my back (no mullet though) anyhow about after a year of growing it we were told we could wear hats in my dept. then i was asked to compromise so i said i would pony tail it, it was accepted, then i was told 3 months ago it was an issue again and i compromised with a solution to put it in my hat, it was accepted. well now i have been forced to a department where i cannot wear the hat, and i have the fear they will force me to cut the hair... i have stayed strong in the issue because it is my individuallity (besides you cant headbang with short hair ) well suffice to say the other employee still has the mullet and has never once been asked to cut it or conceal it. on top of things... there are other costcos that have employees with long hair and the handbook does not say anything of length, only it needs to be neat. now to the handbook cause the managers have said that is a guideline only, but it has policies in it not ideas. they also say that people can have long hair in bigger cities (yeah sounds like a crock to me too) so my question per say is what are my rights if the policy does not seem to be for the entire company? and can they make me cut my hair even if another employee has long hair as well? i need answers and i am afraid to get any legal advice. i have checked on it in the state of oregon and it is not discrimination against a man with an issue on hair, but if one employee is singled out when anothers hair is long could that be considered discrimination? please if anyone has answers could you help me out, feel free to email me too if you want to contact me at dittohead0875@hotmail.com thanks again.
if this is a 'rule'...
Posted by LucksKind on March 27, 2003 at 09:33:46: Previous Next
In Reply to: discrimination??? posted by Brian on March 27, 2003 at 00:19:21:
Then it is not being evenly applied and should be looked into.
Wonder if they would ever consider telling a girl to cut HER hair
if it was, say, Vvery long...like halfway down her back???
I have a feeling they would NOT!
Re: if this is a 'rule'...
Posted by Nick on March 27, 2003 at 15:28:02: Previous Next
In Reply to: if this is a 'rule'... posted by LucksKind on March 27, 2003 at 09:33:46:
This person with the Mullet who hasn't beeen
spoken to my management. He wouldn't happen
to be the Manager's son would he?
Maybe it is time to find another job?
Re: discrimination???
Posted by FITMUS on March 27, 2003 at 12:17:41: Previous Next
In Reply to: discrimination??? posted by Brian on March 27, 2003 at 00:19:21:
Unfortunately, I looked into this issue a few months ago and found that Title VII covers this issue, which has been found by virtually all the U.S. Courts of Appeals that an employer can discriminate against a man for having long hair in the work place (yes, I know it's bull). In fact, if you read the text of Title VII, it seems (at least to me) to clearly not allow this type of discrimination. However, the current trend of the courts is to interpret it otherwise. Keep in mind, though, that interpretations can change as our society does.
Now, with your issue of telling you to cut and not another employee. I would think you need to really review the company policy. If there is no language in there regarding hair length, it would seem as though this would be some type of discrimination claim if you were told to cut, and not another employee with a similar hair style. But that's just my guess.
As far as consulting an attorney, you haven't really been injured yet since you haven't been told to cut. I would just wear your hair as neatly as possible and do your job. If you are told to cut, it wouldn't hurt to discuss things with attorney. Until then, don't worry...too much!
Re: discrimination???
Posted by Rokker on March 28, 2003 at 11:07:19: Previous Next
In Reply to: discrimination??? posted by Brian on March 27, 2003 at 00:19:21:
If there is no concrete, written policy that applies to all employees, you have a case.
First thing is to contact your state agency that handles this sort of matter. Use any all all free resources at your disposal, and there are plenty.
If CostCo says anything to you again, let them know you have already contacted state agencies and will, without hesitation, sue them for wrongful termination if they fire you and if hassled again at work file a complaint on them for a "workplace harassment".
Feel free to update us and let us know what happens. Without clear, unambigious regulations, CostCo has NO case....especially if others are allowed to have long hair.
I agree.
Posted by Sherri on March 28, 2003 at 20:01:01: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: discrimination??? posted by Rokker on March 28, 2003 at 11:07:19:
I would have the next discussion with the company "rulebook" in hand. It says NOTHING about a man NOT being able to have long hair, instead it says it should be "neat." "NEAT" hair has nothing to do with length. As long as your hair is neat...possibly ponytailed to keep out of your way...
As long as your hair is clean and not interferring with your job, I don't understand WHAT their problem is.
I would consult some lawyers. "They" or "He" is trying to conform you to his own thoughts and beliefs. It isn't a company-wide rule. You gave in before, so they assume you will do so again.
Re: discrimination???
Posted by Mark Ellott on March 30, 2003 at 03:37:20: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: discrimination??? posted by Rokker on March 28, 2003 at 11:07:19:
This is probably the best approach. Unfortunately you don't have the same precedents in the US as we have in the UK - not to mention the Human Rights Act. However, if people are imposing their prejudices in an ad-hoc fashion and there is no clear written policy then you have a case for bullying - and as that could result in their dismissal (presuming it follows the same pattern as over here) then it should prve a powerful motivator.
Re: discrimination???
Posted by CaTiger on March 29, 2003 at 01:37:27: Previous Next
In Reply to: discrimination??? posted by Brian on March 27, 2003 at 00:19:21:
I know, it's a pain. Check Costco's job description. My new job's description says "Hair- neat in appearance". What's "neat"? Maybe if you put it in a tail and gelled it to calm it way down you might get away with it. I was under the impression that here in CA an employer couldn't require certain things of males and/or females only. (It's how Disneyland got away with a no mustache policy-they could require it of both sexes; and companies had to retract the skirt-only policy for women too). Check it out. Good luck.
Re: discrimination???
Posted by Budgynated on April 02, 2003 at 15:34:53: Previous Next
In Reply to: discrimination??? posted by Brian on March 27, 2003 at 00:19:21:
They should not judge you on your hair but on your workmanship. Some companies are rediculous on this issue
Re: discrimination???
Posted by Bill on April 09, 2003 at 01:25:36: Previous Next
In Reply to: discrimination??? posted by Brian on March 27, 2003 at 00:19:21:
You might find this of interest - it made the news when Costco came into San Francisco a few years ago....
When Costco built their store in San Francisco they needed some planning department concessions because a Costco store takes up more area than the city allowed. Part of the deal was that they would hire local youth - the store was going into a neighborhood where a lot of the kids had trouble finding work.
When they opened the store, they planned to do so with a dress code requiring looks that no local kid would be caught dead in. It was so out of touch with what local kids wore in the neighborhood and at school that a kid to adopt it would have been an outcast. The city asserted that the effect of the dress code was to breach the planning agreement because so many kids refused to apply for the positions, and the store relented. As a result, the kids who work in the San Francisco Costco look like all the other kids in town.