Are Dreadlocks Unprofessional?

http://www.inc.com/news/article/2010/10/virginia-company-sued-for-refusing-to-hire-man-with-dreadlocks.html

by mjh8136 • 16 years ago

12 63 16 years ago

tptacek16• 16 years ago

This company is stupid x2 for wading into this: first, because it's easy to claim that refusing a dark-skinned candidate a job over dreads is a proxy for racial discrimination, and second because hair length is a genuine issue for major world religions, like Sikhs. Both are called out specifically by the Civil Rights Act.

We work in some of the most button-down corporate environments imaginable with people who wear dreads. It will not be hard for Woodson's lawyers to find examples of other companies dealing with this issue.

It's hard to even see a controversy here. Sorry, you don't get to not hire someone because they wear dreads.

gaius7• 16 years ago

It's not as simple as that. For example, religious freedom laws don't allow Rastas to smoke ganja, nor Sikhs to carry their swords onto planes.

cryptoz• 16 years ago

Smoking plants and carrying weapons represent health and safety concerns for the people surrounding them. Dreadlocks do not. There's a huge difference. Don't even pretend that carrying a weapon is similar to having a certain hair style.

run4yourlives3• 16 years ago

Actually, Sikhs can carry the Kirpan in most public places in both Canada and the US. You are correct though that an aircraft is not one of these places.

spot• 16 years ago

But they do allow you to do DMT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_B...

yummyfajitas2• 16 years ago

I think you are probably right, but I believe there is an exception for safety issues. For example, a machine shop can require you to get a crew cut and wear tight clothing regardless of your religion. Religious tolerance doesn't mean you have the right to wrap your dreads around a lathe.

That said, I don't think moving furniture falls into that category.

tptacek16• 16 years ago

Machine shops everywhere already have safety practices for long hair: you tie your hair, wear it up, and cover it with a helmet.

kaptainlange2• 16 years ago

Am I the only one who thinks this situation is a good example where discrimination laws are not serving their intended purpose?

A company should be able to set a policy regarding grooming and/or dress.

The part that I find shittiest about this situation is that the company would have been better just rejecting him outright. Instead they said they would hire him if he agreed to cut his hair to their wishes. Now there's a lawsuit.

How is that beneficial for anyone? Why can't two individuals have an honest negotiation about what it is they want from each other?

> Sorry, you don't get to not hire someone because they wear dreads.

Why not? Why is that something you shouldn't be able to do with your own business.

tptacek16• 16 years ago

Because having long hair in no way affects a candidate's ability to do this (or virtually any) job, and just the notion that dreadlocks project an unprofessional image is itself a form of discrimination: it's companies using job openings to subtly but overtly make it that much harder to practice a particular religion. Unlike you, I see this as a great example of Civil Rights law having its intended effect.

If you believe that businesses should simply be allowed to set their own standards, then maybe they should be allowed to require men to be clean-shaven; maybe they should be allowed to require women to wear skirts; maybe they should be allowed to prefer men for certain positions (security guards? shift supervisors?).

You can construct a business justification for nearly any form of discrimination, and, of course, you can construct a personal freedom justification for all discrimination.

Fortunately or not, this has been a settled issue in the US since 1964. If you have a policy that would prevent a Sikh from working for you (which this policy would), you're going to lose in court.

MrFlibble• 16 years ago

Totally situational. The guy is a mover, not a heart surgeon. I certainly think that as the "stuffy old guy" generation of management is slowly replaced with the "hip younger guy/girl" generation, more interesting/unusual styles will likely become more frequently acceptable. Still, it is situation and industry dependent.

When I worked in radio I had an orange mohawk for a while. Nobody cared. When I was an on-set medic however that would not have been ok.

It is sometimes a rather thin line between an individual's beliefs, style or values being impinged upon vs. a common professional expectation of conduct/appearance.

tptacek16• 16 years ago

It is probably not situational when the candidate offers to conceal his hair on the job, and you in effect respond by saying "cut your hair or no deal". Even police departments have had to back down and allow Sikhs to wear turbans.

tomafro• 16 years ago

The two ads I had to click to hide and the sharing toolbar on inc.com are all more objectionable than dreadlocks.

As tptacek has written, is there even a controversy here?

nlanier• 16 years ago

In all honestly I would think they might be an occupational hazard for someone working as a mover, no?

VladRussian13• 16 years ago

there are couple of situation where long hair would be funny, not for long though - in a machine shop or inside moving tank with main caliber gun auto-stabilizing targeting system on - even untied headphone wires would on several occassions pull the head in

tptacek16• 16 years ago

Tons of people with long hair work in machine shops. In fact, it's possible that more people with long hair work in machine shops than other professions, statistically, because of the socioeconomic signifiers of long hair on caucasian men (there are far more long-haired white men than there are rastas and sikhs).

robotron• 16 years ago

I have fairly long dreadlocks. My job is at a desk but I have done my share of moving, carpentry, welding etc outside of my job. He just needs to keep his dreadlocks tied back, covered or whatever to keep them out of the way and from getting snagged. They are no more or less dangerous than anyone else with long hair - except they get caught on velcro a little easier.

VladRussian13• 16 years ago

what is bothering me in all such cases is the emphasis of the religious grounds for the things like long hair. It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair because of religion would have more "right" for it than one who'd just happen to prefer his hair long. Why such preferential treatment of religion?

tptacek16• 16 years ago

Because it is a violation of federal law to discriminate against a candidate for employment over race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

That this suggests hairstyle requirements in dress codes are a complete waste of time is a valid but orthogonal point.

VladRussian13• 16 years ago

in this case the guy was clearly discriminated over his long hairs, not over his religion. The employer would presumably do the same to any long haired guy.

joshuacc8• 16 years ago

"It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair because of religion would have more "right" for it than one who'd just happen to prefer his hair long."

That is correct. For instance, during Prohibition in the United States, use of wine in communion services was permitted, despite its illegality elsewhere.

Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences.

VladRussian13• 16 years ago

>Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences.

Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA.

Of course there are successful cases of lobbying for a privilege like the one you mentioned - an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves.

cullenking2• 16 years ago

It depends on how smelly they are. Hopefully this is not considered a trolling comment, but, in all seriousness some dreadlocks reek and some don't. It depends on how long they have been in, how they were formed and the persons individual preference on how they maintain them.

It also depends on the job - a company hiring in house legal representation who may end up in court eventually shouldn't be criticized for wanting a "cleaner image" in the court room. Someone hiring a programmer? Who cares...

tptacek16• 16 years ago

You see how "wanting a cleaner image in the court room" here has a societal impact on Sikhs and Muslims, right? A well cared-for beard or hairstyle is not "unclean" simply because it doesn't match how Europeans wear their hair.

This is almost case-in-point for why you don't want employers having the right to dictate hairstyles.

cullenking2• 16 years ago

I agree with your point, and don't personally accept the given definition of a "clean image", which is why I quoted it. I am just addressing the fact that decisions can easily ride on the appearance of an individual. To extend the lawyer analogy, imagine you are in court defending yourself from some criminal accusation. If you had to pick your lawyer between two identically skilled individuals, and one had dreads to his waste and the other was a "clean cut" individual, which would you choose?

I have no desire for a corporation able to define anything about my style or individuality, however, it happens regularly. It's one of the many reasons I work for myself.

haasted• 16 years ago

Is this really an issue? The applicant seems to be "in violation" of an established, company policy of stating "that hair, facial hair, beards and general grooming must be neat, clean and trimmed".

He was obviously not rejected due to his religion, but due to not adhering (or wanting to adhere to) a policy that was in place prior to his application.

Note: I have absolutely no objection people having dreads, and would have no trouble with colleagues having it. I merely believe that a company should have a freedom to say "no thanks" to applicants not wanting to fit in the existing rule framework.

Also, it ticks me off slightly that he uses religion as a way to gain sympathy for his complaint.

tptacek16• 16 years ago

Require his dreads to be neat and clean, then move on. You can no more dictate hairstyle than you can dictate that men be clean-shaven; whether or not it's your established "rule framework", it's going to get you sued by the first litigious Muslim candidate you reject, and rightly so: modulo hygiene, employee hairstyles are none of your business.

dbrannan• 16 years ago

I would say going through the process of building up your dreadlocks is what makes them appear unprofessional.

http://www.dreadlocks.us/dreadlocks-faq.html

chegra• 16 years ago

Ok, Did their lawyers tell them to write that. First of all a Rasta can't cut his hear, Nazarite vow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite

This is something that some Rastafarian take very seriously. If you did cut your hair depending on where you live and what the Rastafarian believe there, it could result in a leg or hand being forcefully amputated.

So seeing that statement by the employer makes it seem they are ignorant of the religion. And, somehow they think a little hair off the head wouldn't hurt. At this point if I was the lawyer, I would look to settle.

Are Dreadlocks Unprofessional?

Related Stories