IS AN EMPLOYER WHO OBJECTS TO EMPLOYEE DREADLOCKS LIABLE FOR RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION?

A UPS driver, Charles Eatman, began wearing dreadlocks in 1995. UPS had an appearance guideline for employees who dealt with customers: employees must wear their hair in a "business-like manner." UPS enforced the requirement against drivers with ponytails, mohawks, green hair, etc. by requiring them to wear caps. Eatman objected - he claimed a hat was uncomfortable, unhealthy and damaging to his hair. In addition, Eatman contended that regulating dreadlocks affected African-Americans more than other racial groups, and that dreadlocks were an outward expression of his religious faith, making the UPS rule unlawfully discriminatory.

The case went to trial, and the court ruled in favor of UPS. The court noted that under the law, in order to prevail, Eatman would have to prove that UPS intended to discriminate against African-Americans. However, even if the regulation happened to affect African-Americans more than other groups, UPS had produced evidence proving that there was a legitimate business reason for reasonable grooming requirements and, therefore, Eatman could not establish that UPS had the required discriminatory intent. In addition, Eatman admitted that the dreadlocks were not mandated by his religion, but rather that he wore the dreadlocks as a personal choice. The policy, therefore, did not compromise his fundamental religious beliefs.

Here is the message: employers can impose reasonable appearance guidelines that serve legitimate business interests, even if the guidelines affect one racial or religious group more than another. However, this general principle might not apply to grooming requirements that prohibit bona fide religious practices, as opposed to personal choices made by employees. And grooming requirements that may be legitimately applied to one segment of employees - such as those who deal with customers - may not necessarily be applied to other employees - such as those who have no contact with customers.

Like it or not, this area remains a legal minefield - employers need to remain cautious not only in drafting appearance guidelines, but also in applying the guidelines to individual situations.

Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle & Lombardo, P.C. is a full service law firm with offices in suburban Philadelphia, PA, Harrisburg, PA and Cherry Hill, NJ. Powell Trachtman represents a variety of commercial enterprises, entrepreneurs and business executives in respect to their litigation, litigation avoidance planning, business formation, business transactions, estate and tax planning, and other needs. We are also approved defense counsel for numerous insurance carriers in matters pertaining to professional malpractice, products liability, employment practices, directors and officers liability, and many other fields. For more information, contact us at info@powelltrachtman.com and visit our website at www.powelltrachtman.com.

©Copyright 2003 CCG Properties LLC. All rights reserved, except that recipients hereof are permitted, for noncommercial purposes, to provide copies or excerpts, with full attribution to us, to other interested persons for their personal use. Avoiding Lawsuits is distributed for general informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for personalized legal advice from a competent attorney.