‘We’ll hire you if get a haircut’ — religious bias?
September 30, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In This Week's E-Newsletter, Interviewing, Latest News & Views, Law
Here’s a recent case that shows the importance of interview documentation.
A Rastafarian applied for a job as a security guard. During his interview, the hiring manager told him he’d have to cut his dreadlocks to comply with the company’s safety policy.
That’s where things got tricky. The applicant claims he said he could not cut his hair because of his religious beliefs. But according to the company, he simply said he would not cut his hair.
Either way, the applicant didn’t get the job, and he sued the company for religious discrimination.
The company asked the judge to throw out the case, arguing it didn’t know the man’s refusal to comply with the policy had anything to do with religion. But without a solid set of interview notes from the hiring manager, the court didn’t buy that side of the story.
The case sent to a jury to decide whether religion was discussed in the interview. You know what that means: a long, costly trial, or an expensive settlement.
Cite: Xodus v. The Wackenhut Corporation
Tags: policy, Rastafarian, religious discrimination, safety
October 1st, 2009 at 10:30 am
I find it interesting that “without a solid set of interview notes from the hiring manager, the court couldn’t believe that side of the story”. Why? Did the applicant have a solid set of interview notes which strengthened his story? I’m being factitious of course, but I think it certainly makes you consider who the court felt is the automatic liar; the employer of course. In most court cases, you need to be able to prove that someone is at fault but it seems in the world of HR, employers always need to be able to prove their innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
Being a Christian myself, I find the hypocrisy of tolerance toward everything except Christianity disgusting. However, if a company has a policy that does not comply with my religious beliefs, I simply will not work there. I do not consider it discrimination, but rather I would not want to work there anyway.
This company should not be in the wrong. This country is too damn sensitive. Get over yourselves and worry more about your own house!!
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Richard, is not Christmas a sacred observance for Christians? Is it not a Federal Holiday? Usually a paid holiday too. Are you prohibited from wearing a cross around your neck? What other ways does your employer not comply with your religious belief? If you chose to take Good Friday off, you can, citing religious observance, but you’ll have to take it as a vacation day or unpaid time off. Either way, they cannot reprimand you for it without consequences.
Do you realize that this country was built on the foundation of religious freedom? It was the reason why the forefathers of this country broke away from England and settled in America.
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Riddle me this. How does religious discrimination hold up against safety policy? What about dress code policies (ie. no earrings, visible tattoos, no hair below the collar, etc)? Am I aging myself or have basic business appearance standards completely eroded. It seems like pretty soon there will be no way to require personal hygene or cleanliness.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Due to the safety issues involved and the potential for the kind of litigation noted above, it would be most beneficial for the interviewer to have a specific list of dress code and personal appearance requirements that are absolutes for the job and incorporate a line-by-line review of those requirements with every potential employee. I would even design it as a form the potential employee signs at the end of the interview, specifying “In the event I am hired, I agree to comply with the requirements above,” or something to that effect. Regardless of religious beliefs, dreadlocks and long hair around high-speed equipment can be deadly. Unfortunately, the same court that found the company at fault would also hold them responsible if the guy got his hair pulled out enmasse if he did something stupid on the job.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 am
Again, an attitude of entitlement from a person not yet an employee. “You have to hire me, and I won’t cut my hair”. I’m all for protecting individual freedoms, whether religious, speech etc. I have freedom of speech, but that does not give me the right to drop the F bomb in my office and be protected. If there are job requirements you cannot meet, the employer is not always discriminating. It seems to me more and more companies are being forced to accomodate nonsense, while employees or prospective employees feel entitled to the jobs they apply for even if they don’t qualify or meet specific standards. I remember when I had to bend over backward to conform so I would be offered a job. The days of actual work ethic and having the best qualifications are gone. Just threaten to sue, seems to be working for a lot of people.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Remember that even policies that are written to specifically exclude certain people are discriminatory and is not allowable. For instance, because a certain majority race within a company that has authority doesn’t like the idea of people with long hair being employed — because it’s a personal bias — then just because they have a policy with a “dress code” including no long hair doesn’t make the policy the absolute authority. A policy has to comply with the law. And remember the reasons we have these discrimination laws? BECAUSE there is discrimination and it continues today. It’s a sad commentary on our society that we have to have laws that say discirmination is a “no no”.
The company being sued had the burden of proof & without the documentation, the court didn’t “buy” it as the article says, correctly so.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:22 am
OMG! How ridiculous is this? There are so many of us out of work who are “more than qualified” for a position that we feel so strongly about and we don’t carry on about not being hired, and yes, it could be because of our age, or our appearance, or just something about us that the employer did not feel would make us a good fit for the organization, but does this give us any basis to sue because this happenes? No, we just move on and find the next opportunity!
Why is our legal system allowing such stupidity! Why can’t they see that people will find anything that goes in their favor to get what they want. Maybe they just hate employers and pass on the blame!!! Why does HR need to get so involved in the religious aspect of running a business. I thought State was separate from Religion.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:54 am
I wonder if they require all women to have close cropped hair as well.
The court was right to refuse to dismiss the case. The company didn’t prove anything – it simply gave its (apparently undocumented) side of the story. So there is a legitimate dispute over the facts, which means a trial.
The company will have a difficult time prevailing. Which sounds more reasonable: he refused to cut his hair, which he knew would cost him the job, but didn’t bother to mention that it was due to his religion? Or that he told the manager that he can’t cut his hair because of his religion and the manager didn’t want to hire some guy with dreads? My guess is that the hiring manager felt the same way that Lilly and Joyce do, in which case settling the case is probably the best strategy.
The safety argument probably won’t fly either. It’s usually not difficult to accommodate long hair.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
@Myra I do not understand from where your questioning is deriving from?
“Richard, is not Christmas a sacred observance for Christians? Is it not a Federal Holiday? Usually a paid holiday too. Are you prohibited from wearing a cross around your neck? What other ways does your employer not comply with your religious belief? ”
I did not imply that *my* employer did not comply. Nor did I imply that it is *their* need to, but my decision as to where i work.
“If you chose to take Good Friday off, you can, citing religious observance, but you’ll have to take it as a vacation day or unpaid time off. Either way, they cannot reprimand you for it without consequences.”
And your point being?
“Do you realize that this country was built on the foundation of religious freedom? It was the reason why the forefathers of this country broke away from England and settled in America.”
YES, I am a HUGE advocate of religious freedoms and the Constitution!
Again, I am not sure what your inference is?
October 5th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
@ Richard
My replies were directed to your comments: “Being a Christian myself, I find the hypocrisy of tolerance toward everything except Christianity disgusting.” and “This company should not be in the wrong. This country is too damn sensitive. Get over yourselves and worry more about your own house!!”
As in regards to safety, I am sure that there are other ways to comply. For example, he might have been required to wear a net/wrap/hat or keep it in a high, tight bun. I take it that this job was not available to women (gender discrimination?) and if a woman had applied (and offered the position), would she be required to cut her hair too or would she be required to keep it up above her shoulders?
October 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
@Myra,
I do not know, as the information was not given, as to what other classifications were for the job, so I can not say if a woman was able to apply. With regards to the garb able to be worn, again, I do not know the circumstances beyond that which was provided here.
However, the argument is religious discrimination. If a job has a policy that goes against one religion, then the person of such religion should not want to work there. You CAN NOT protect against ALL religions as many conflict with each other. (say that I want to put a cross in my office by it offends atheist or Muslims. To which religion to you yield?)
A company (or organization) should not have to yield to a religion or group. The business owner (or board) should run the company as it deems. No company should have to hire anyone, nor should they change their policy or company mandate to try and fit any or all religions, or groups.
I am a Christian and when I apply for jobs I let it be well known. If there are any issues, then I will not be hired, which is great as I would not want to be unevenly yoked with an employer. (I have lost a few photography freelance jobs for just this reason) I would not suggest that being I am a Christian, a company has to comply with my beliefs, holidays, attire, or language. That is not what the Constitution says, which is all the courts should be ruling on. And if Congress has passed a law with regards to any one particular religion, it is then in violation of the Constitution.
And why would you want to discriminate against a company, or group, to not discriminate against an individual?
October 5th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
There is a freedom to pursue whatever religion you wish. Religion is personal though and no one’s business. However, we also have the Civil Rights Legislation(s) which ban(s) discrimination in employment decisions because of religion (as well as marital status, sex, race, etc.). If there is no strong business reason for an employer to say that only certain types of employees need apply, then discrimination might be the reason. What good business reason is there for an employer to say that only those who have a religious background like themselves need apply? There is none. The point of the antidiscrimination legislation is to ensure that all applicants stand on equal footing because of their qualifications — not because they wear their hair “different” from you or me because of their religious beliefs. Hair long or short, a person still can do the job and that’s the issue. At one time, women couldn’t be police officers or even security agents because it was considered a male’s only job. That barrier has long been down. It’s time to crush the other barriers as well. There is no argument that’s sound as to why a person with the right knowledge, skills and abilities but who has a “different” religious background still cannot do his/her job. And having a “different” religious background is only because we have a Christian-dominated society here. No one should be “different” in this country. Different from what?
October 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Let me qualify further: it makes perfect sense in some cases that only certain types of people could apply for gender specific jobs (restroom attendants) or religious specific jobs (like pastors) but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
@Michelle,
There is perfectly sound reasoning. If we assume the reason was bias against ones religion, then you are (as is the Civil Rights Legislation) forcing one entity to yield rather than another, which is putting the wrong on the other side. You have NOT fixed anything. If a company does not want to hire be due to my religion or politics, they I believe it should be their choice. Where does the right to take one entitie’s rights away for the protection of another come from? The Constitution?
And EVERYONE discriminates. EVERYONE! As soon as you look at someone, a judgment has been made. That judgment will turn to bias, and in many cases discrimination. But what is wrong with that? Even if I am qualified, why would they want to hire me, a very conservative Christian if they are a group of very left leaning people? It would not make sense, and it would NOT make the news!! Conversely, why would I want to hire someone not fitting into the company profile or demographic?
Tolerance and non-discrimination, I see as only ever going one way. Just more Social justice. People need to get over themselves!
Let me ask this. I was recently volunteering my website design efforts for a local .org. They then gave it to a local ad agency that was more in line with their political beliefs. (The quality of the website did not change, so it was not for improvements nor cost savings as I was not charging) Should I take them to court? No! I am conservative, they were Liberals, and they wanted their “own” people working with them. What is wrong with that?
October 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Unfortunately, we have to abide by the laws of the country, and not what we “believe” to be true. So even though you or I might think a company should be able to hire whoever they want based on religious beliefs, the law (generally) says that it’s discrimination if you deliberately exclude someone who is otherwise qualified based on personal bias. The Civil Rights Legislation has been very successfully in “fixing” a great deal of inequities in employment situations in this country, along with cultural pressures to do so. If it weren’t for the ability for injured parties to sue because of discrimination and the huge, vast amounts of money that companies had to spend because of their discriminatory practices, yes, discrimination would still exist, and there would be plenty of people in this country suffering still because of it. Because as you pointed out, we all discriminates and that obviously has and would continue to spill over into the employment sector. And as your mother most likely has pointed out when you’re a child, “just because everyone discriminates, doesn’t mean you should.”
Political affiliation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act so you wouldn’t be able to sue. Neither is sexual orientation. But that’s not to say that someday that may change. Now, because they’re not covered, does it mean that people should be discriminated against if they can still do the job? Again, that’s the main issue, not what one’s skin color, religion, sex, etc. is.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
@Michelle,
Yes, unfortunately there are laws for just the purpose of Social Justice. What has Civil Rights fixed? It has pushed discrimination upon a different sect of people, business owers and managers. We now discriminate against their beliefs.
Once again, if anyone really wants to fix these problems, quality education and a level playing field is the best solution. Level playing field being everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Even if one company would not hire me due to my Christianity, another will based on my ability to do the job.
Everyone does discriminate and you can not change the nature of humans. Just few get brought into court over it. You can however, give everyone the framework for achieving whatever goals they are willing to put their hard work into. The Constitution frames that out, however, we have retarded the Constitutions ability to make this country even greater.
Correct, political affiliation is not covered yet, but I am sure it will be soon enough unfortunately.
We have gone a bit off topic
and to conclude the topic, I do not see any good reason for this man to take this to court, let alone win.
Great talk, thank you!
Richard Getz
October 5th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
In the US military, there are dress code requirements like I mentioned before. Long hair could not touch or hang below the collar. It must be cut short (within military guidelines) or pulled tight & secured on your head. The ‘bill’ of your hat must be worn perpendicular to the ground & hair could not impede the hat from being worn as required (ie perched precariously on top of a mass of hair).
1. However ‘cool’ he may look outside of his uniform, would you take a security guard seriously if he had long scraggly dreads hanging over his name badge? Say he can comply by pulling his hair up. How professional would he look with a hat wobbling on top of all that mess?
2. Has anyone thought about the other religious implication regarding ‘ras tafari’? You know, the pot smoking? Would it then be religious discrimination when this guy failed his drug test? What good would a loaded security guard be anyway?
3. We’ve all had to deal with rejection. Get over it. You move on to the next application or interview. It sucks when you’re out of work & you hope to find a job where you’re happy & make a good fit. What kind of person would think about suing the company that didn’t hire him instead of continuing the search for honest employment? What kind of person dwells on the rejection & their own vindictiveness rather than finding the employer where he would fit and be happy.
4. If he’s a smart guy, he could have any number of jobs that don’t have a haircut requirement. He’s not limited to being a security guard. Say this guy isn’t so smart. There are many funky retail shops or businesses that would love to exploit his style (regardless of his religion). Then again, the military is always hiring, but they’d make him cut his hair, too.
Either he’s not so smart or he was looking to make trouble.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
@ Michelle.
I agree with you completely. You’ve made the most sense on this issue thusfar. In my state of California, discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation is also covered.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I think someday sexual orientation will be a right, hopefully anyway; I’d like to live in a country where rights are applied to everyone without discrimination. Just think: at one time “they” thought that women & black people shouldn’t vote and many people lost their lives fighting to get that changed because “they” believed passionately that these people weren’t deserving;and only they were deserving. Because the majority of people in a country “believes” that some segments of society are lesser than they are (or rather that they fantacize they are better than) & therefore not eligible for full human and civil rights doesn’t make it right, as has been proven time again by our own history. But . . .that’s another topic for another forum, I guess; as Richard said we kinda got off topic.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:26 am
@Myra: it is probably not wise to associate policy with a State that has the highest debt, and in the top 5 probably in corruption. It gives you not the proof of a working concept. BTW, I just go back from San Diego, what’s with the 90 degree temps????
My brother exclaims the 75 degree all year. I think he is just rubbing it in as I am on the East cost.
@Michelle: There is a huge difference between justifying someone’s voting rights if they are a citizen and mandating someone hire someone else because they are different. I believe all (legal) citizens have the right to vote, but I DO NOT believe companies should fear not hiring someone. If a company owned by blacks do not want to hire me because i am white, then so be it. Why is that wrong?
It is odd that you never find a white man complaining he can’t get into a black company or any such cases with ohter races. Nor do you find Christians in court because they can’t get into non-Christian work places. So either ONLY white Christians are racist or we are the only ones that don’t cry about what is human nature???
Think about it! It is only social engineering going on. Men do not try to get into woman’s clubs, straights do not try to get into gay companies or orgs (like gays try to get into the Boy Scouts) You only hear those that have been told they are a ‘minority’ and that they have rights exceeding those of others.
Example. I work for many years in a down town store. As THEY put it, i was the only ’salt in the pepper shaker’. Most affectionately referred to me as their ‘white brother’ or ‘the crazy white boy’. I would walk into the local deli to get dinner and was made to feel uncomfortable at times. I was threatened on many occasions, and even told i was going to be shot. (hence the crazy white boy for staying).
Now did i run and cry racism? No. Would anyone listen to me anyway? NO!! Conversely if I were black in a white neighborhood, it would be all over the news. Crys of outrage would be heard.
See how the civil rights movement has been perverted? I have no preconceived thoughts on anyone, but judge everyone according to their actions, and they me. But to tell me i have to hire someone even if I do not believe they will fit into my company or group is NOT what this country was founded on.
Like every great leader of this country, black or white, has told us. We need to educate and work hard. That is how we get ahead. And many black have after slavery ended. Well, at least ended in this country, it is still widely used in Africa and other countries. But we do not seem to care about them do we? So I say we do not care about slavery, but rather the social justice we can leverage from a crisis.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:05 am
taking a que from Richard. Years ago my eldest son worked at a local resort as activities director. All winter he wore dreadlocks. Then came spring and the general manager saw his hair. he told my son “cut them off or leave”. My son, who is one of the most tolerant people I have ever met, got back in the car, left.
BUT had he not been white, we strongly believe it would never have been an issue. Even though he had an excellent attendance record and had many compliments from guests at the resort, it didn’t matter.
He didn’t think of suing. He just went and got another job.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:00 am
I was a manager for Ruby Tuesday here on the east coast in my early twenties. I am white and I had very long dreads. I worked my way up from a server to the general manager in less than a year. Another shift leader in my same store was black and had dreads almost the same length as mine. Our job duties were the same and we had been there the same length of time. I was asked to cut mine out once entering the manager in training program. She was not. You are all right, we all discriminate. We all have biases. Most of us have been the target of some discrimination or judgement FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE. I cut my hair and gained the experience I needed because in the end…..it’s just hair.
I just read through everyones’ entries. Richard, we all know you are Christian. Shout it from the rooftops. It doesn’t make you right. Your last entry is absolutely absurd. Go rant somewhere else about how the White Christian male is superior and smarter.
In regards to the article, I am wondering how the other aspects of being a rastafari will play into this. There are several sects in the rastafarian lifestyle. Most do not cut or shave their beards as well as their hair. More importantly, many/most take part in the spiritual ritual of smoking cannibus. If the court protects his hair choice based on religion, will they protect his right to smoke marijuana? If a rastafarian is told they must pass a drug test in order to comply with safety regulations, can they sue?
October 9th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Why is everyone presuming the Rastafarian plaintiff is black? There are non-black Rastas out there too. How does long hair impede performing security duty? I understand policy is policy but, to be honest, I think EVERYONE knows that once you set qualifications aside getting hired is all about human factors (judgements) made by individuals responsible for hiring and as such, getting hired by them is mostly a matter of how much they like your personality, appearance and impression that you present to them.
I agree 100% that we are far too sue-happy in this country. On the other hand, the company in question should have maybe HIRED better lawyers! LOL
October 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Wow…this topic is so hot that I wont’ touch it. But, I wanted to see what else is said about the matter.
October 9th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Richard – I can very easily make the correlation between denying a group of people their rights vis a vis voting rights, to any other discrminatory practices. There is no large or small difference when it comes to deliberate, intentional discrimination that doesn’t allow people to exercise their rights. Again, companies can hire whomever they want, but if it results in intentional disparate impact of employment, pay, etc. of a person or a group of people that are of a protected class and therefore “aren’t like them”, then the company will have to prepare to deal with the consequences. It’s a very simple choice. By the way, I didn’t know there were such things a “black” companies, which therefore presumes there are “white” and “yellow” and “red” companies.
October 9th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
@melissa you are correct, being Christian does not make me right, nor does it make me wrong. “Go rant somewhere else about how the White Christian male is superior and smarter. ”
Please show me where I said, or implied, any of this?? To be clear, I think all races of people have failed. There are none that are above any other. Therefore I do not see why any need protection over another. That in and of itself is unfair to the other.
@Michelle, people are in the wrong ONLY when it is against people under protection? And who are those people that are protected? In your argument, should not everyone be protected? Why just some? And NO law will stop people from hiring based upon their biases. EVERYONE brings their bias into an interview. And there is nothing wrong with that, it is human nature. People hire those they feel comfortable with.
“By the way, I didn’t know there were such things a “black” companies, which therefore presumes there are “white” and “yellow” and “red” companies.”
Really? So you do not know of any companies owned by American Indians? All white companies? All black companies? Companies own by Chinese? Companies owned by Italians? Then you would not know that people, in general, hire people like them? Out in CA, many casinos are owned by American Indians, and I did not see many whites working in them. I worked down town for many years where most businesses where owned by blacks, and good luck being white and getting a job in any of them.
Now you use the word ‘intentional’ in which i VERY much agree that when someone makes a conscience decision not to hire someone just because they are black, white, or whatever, then that is wrong. But I still think it should not be protected under law. But unfortunately we have laws that uneven the playing field.
October 9th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I assume that the people on this board were experienced HR professionals involved with talent management and were therefore familiar with the employment laws. But perhaps not. The protected classes are those that the government has identified and indicated in the Civil Rights legislations: race, age, religion/creed, sex, ethnicity, color, national origin, familial status, disability, veteran status. Why is a company which is owned by a minority considered a “black” company, red, yellow, etc.? There are also plenty of companies which are headed by minorities — are those companies therefore also designated by the religion or race or sex of the person heading it? To designate certain companies as black, red, etc. is segregationist. Understanding the discriminatory practices (conscious and unconscious) that minority people have endured for a very long time is very important to understanding the reasons there have to be laws to protect employment practices, and why certain actions are discriminatory and against the law.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:09 am
@Michelle
This thread has morphed into personal opinions, which is the direction I took. Yes your point on the law was never in question, and only that some of us do not believe a) the law is right b) that people, in which this thread discussed, should be crying about discrimination as if winning in court is the only way this person can get income.
Work harder, educate yourself, and keep your nose clean is how most people do it. I hate the excuses as to why someone can not achieve or can not get a job. We have unfortunately given more credence to this *minority* then we should. This country allows and encourages this behavior and it needs to stop!
Call it what you may and be as politically correct as you may; it does not change the fact this country was built on the hard work of the people, not the complaining, and self entitled attitudes.
Thanks to everyone that has weighed in.