By Natalie Tupta, Staff Writer
A recent decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has rekindled a national debate about the ability of the law to ensure equal employment opportunities to individuals of all races. The debate arises from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, a case where a federal appeals court found that there was no violation of federal employment discrimination law where an employer required a newly hired employee to cut her dreadlocks.[1]
The ruling was widely reported in the media, and many professional writers and social media users criticized the case outcome. Some of the articles written about the case include:
“U.S. Court Rules Dreadlock Ban During Hiring Process is Legal,”[2]
“Federal Court Rules It’s OK for Employers to Prohibit Dreadlocks,”[3]
“Appeals Court Rules Employers Can Ban Dreadlocks at Work: It Also Asserted that the ‘Hairstyle Can Be a Determinant of Racial Identity,’”[4]
“Court Rules It’s Okay to Discriminate Against Black Hairstyles: According to a Federal Appeals Court, Discrimination on the Basis of Black Hair Texture is Prohibited, But the Way in Which You Wear It Is Not.”[5]
In order to understand the implications of the Catastrophe Management Solutions decision, it is important to examine the reasons for the court’s holding. From that place of understanding, it may become more clear to critics of the decision what needs to change in the law, so that it may protect against discrimination.
Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS) is a company based in Mobile, Alabama, that offers customer service support to insurance companies.[6] Chastity Jones, an African American woman, filled out an online employment application for a customer service representative position at CMS in 2010.[7] CMS’ advertisement for the position indicated that qualified candidates should have basic computer knowledge and professional phone skills.[8] The customer service representatives hired would work at a call center in Mobile.[9]
A few days after Jones sent in her application, CMS called her to invite her for an in-person interview.[10] Jones attended the interview wearing in a blue business suit and short dreadlocks.[11] After her interview, Jones was informed, along with other applicants, that she had been hired and that she needed to complete pre-employment paperwork.[12] During a private meeting with the white female human resources manager, however, Jones learned that she would not be able to complete the hiring process unless she changed her hairstyle from dreadlocks to another style.[13] The manager told Jones that the reason for the rule is that dreadlocks “tend to get messy[.]”[14]
CMS had “race-neutral” grooming policy that was officially published as: “All personnel are expected to be dressed and groomed in a manner that projects a professional and businesslike image while adhering to company and industry standards and/or guidelines. . . . [H]airstyle should reflect a business/professional image. No excessive hairstyles or unusual colors are acceptable[.]”[15]
[pullquote][D]iscrimination on the basis of black hair texture (an immutable characteristic) is prohibited by Title VII, while adverse action on the basis of black hairstyle (a mutable choice) is not.[/pullquote]
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint on behalf of Jones in federal court; it alleged that CMS’ refusal to hire her because of her dreadlocks constituted a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it constituted discriminatory disparate treatment.[16] The EEOC argued that race is a socially constructed concept. Therefore, hairstyles and other traits may be so strongly associated with race that employers may discriminate on the basis of race based on that hairstyle.[17]
The EEOC explained that dreadlocks are a common hairstyle for black people, as they are particularly “‘suitable for black hair texture.’”[18] Furthermore, the EEOC demonstrated that even the term “dreadlock” is historically linked to black individuals’ hair: The term originated during the era of the slave trade, when slave traders referred to the African slaves’ hair as “dreadful” after it was “matted with blood, feces, urine, sweat, tears, and dirt.”[19]
The court did not accept the EEOC’s arguments, deciding instead that “discrimination on the basis of black hair texture (an immutable characteristic) is prohibited by Title VII, while adverse action on the basis of black hairstyle (a mutable choice) is not.”[20] Critics of the court’s decision were left wondering how the court could not identify racial discrimination in this case, when Jones lost a job opportunity because of a hairstyle that many other professional men and women wear — albeit usually black men and women.
The court wrote extensively about the arguments that race is a social construct and that discrimination may occur on the basis of some of traits associated with a particular race.[21] The court, however, refused to part from precedent and recognize discrimination based on racially-associated characteristics — particularly because the application of such a rule would be unclear and complex.[22] The court explained:
Even if courts prove sympathetic to the “race as culture” argument, and are somehow freed from current precedent, how are they to choose among competing definitions of “race”? How are they (and employers, for that matter) to know what cultural practices are associated with a particular “race”? And if cultural characteristics and practices are included as part of “race,” is there a principled way to figure out which ones can be excluded from Title VII’s protection?[23]
The court’s ruling is based on long-standing legal principles and binding precedent that says discrimination is only unlawful when it is based on “immutable” traits associated with a protected class, such as race. The court also called for these questions of defining “race” and unlawful discrimination to be answered by Congress “through the democratic process[.]”[24]
It is clear that the 11th Circuit did not wish to change existing law without guidance from Congress or the Supreme Court. Public response to the case demonstrates ongoing concerns about the adequacy of Title VII statutory language, judicial interpretation of Title VII in advancing equal opportunity for workers of all races, and in eradicating racial discrimination in the American workplace.
Sources
[1] EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Solutions, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16918 *, 837 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2016).
[2] Noel Gutierrez-Morfin, U.S. Court Rules Dreadlock Ban During Hiring Process Is Legal, NBCBLK (Sept. 21, 2016, 6:07 PM), http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/u-s-court-rules-dreadlock-ban-during-hiring-process-legal-n652211 (last visited Nov. 28, 2016).
[3] Sheryl Estrada, Federal Court Rules It’s OK for Employers to Prohibit Dreadlocks, DiversityInc (Sept. 22, 2016), http://www.diversityinc.com/news/federal-court-rules-ok-employers-prohibit-dreadlocks/ (last visited Nov. 28, 2016).
[4] Taryn Finley, Appeals Court Rules Employers Can Ban Dreadlocks at Work: It Also Asserted that the “Hairstyle Can Be a Determinant of Racial Identity,” The Huffington Post Black Voices (Sept. 20, 2016, 6:19 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/appeals-court-rules-dreadlocks-work_us_57e0252ae4b0071a6e08a7c3 (last visited Nov. 28, 2016).
[5] Pittsburgh Courier (Sept. 2016), http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/2016/09/25/court-rules-its-okay-to-discriminate-against-black-hairstyles/?fb_action_ids=549767478561872&fb_action_types=news.publishes&fb_ref=pub-standard (last visited Nov. 28, 2016).
[6] Catastrophe Mgmt. Solutions, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16918 at 3.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 3-4.
[12] Id. at 4.
[13] Id. at 4-5.
[14] Id.
[15] Id. at 5.
[16] Id. at 1-2.
[17] Id. at 6.
[18] Id. at 5, citing EEOC’s amended complaint.
[19] Id. at 5-6.
[20] Id. at 28.
[21] Id. at 17-40.
[22] Id. at 37-38.
[23] Id. at 38.
[24] Id. at 40.
