Total Articles: 5
Ogletree Deakins • October 14, 2016
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an employer’s policy banning dreadlocks did not constitute racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In doing so, the court rejected the argument that hairstyle can be a determinant of racial identity for purposes of Title VII. The court reasoned that Title VII protection extends to immutable characteristics but not cultural practices and that hairstyles are not immutable characteristics.
XpertHR • September 29, 2016
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an employer's refusal to hire an African-American job applicant because she refused to cut her dreadlocks is not illegal. The federal appellate court reasoned that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects covered persons with respect to their immutable characteristics, but not their hairstyle.
Fisher Phillips • September 27, 2016
A federal appeals court recently ruled that a woman rejected from a job because she refused to cut her dreadlocks could not proceed with a race discrimination claim against the employer. The decision highlights the distinction between individual expression and inherently racial characteristics in the context of race discrimination claims under Title VII.
Phelps Dunbar LLP • September 23, 2016
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a company’s race-neutral grooming policy did not constitute intentional race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rejecting EEOC’s theory, and providing important guidance on the difference between racial and cultural characteristics.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 22, 2016
An employer’s ban on dreadlocks and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s willingness to file a lawsuit to vindicate an employee’s rights has opened a legal debate on the meaning of “race” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.