new thread
In recent years, federal courts have refused to give job discrimination protection to longhairs, saying employers could require men to behave and appear differently than women. Today I ran across a newspaper article by an attorney, linked below, that reports on some cases that indicate a trend in the other direction. Anyone involved in legal wrangling to protect their right to their hair should take note of these cases! (One that involves Price Waterhouse is from the U.S. Supreme Court!)
The article talks of transgenders and gay people, but the thrust of the cases is that employers cannot insist that you look a particular way on the "feminine-to-macho" scale. Though many of us do not see our long hair as a female trait, a lot of employers and court judges have seen it as a societal norm for females, and "men who might want to look a bit more female" are the people these cases are standing up for!
Here are a couple of stories involving Blockbuster movie rental, and firefighters. The courts are clearly allowing sexual discrimination between men and women in the workplace.
I don't see the difference whether your skin is black or white, whether you are handicapped, or you are a man with longhair that unquestionably reflects your identity, which is a part of your emotional health and well being. Are they going to tell an African American person to change his skin color, or a handicapped person to stop being a quadriplegic? Of course not. Well, I know as a fact, that my having longhair is a part of who I am as a member of society. If I was forced to cut it off, I know I would be so emotionally distraught, that I would probably become disillusioned and suffer depression. Then I would be of no use to myself or anybody else.
Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men
Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men
Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men
Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men
Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men
Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men
Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men
Re: Federal cases supporing longhaired men
Actually, I'm pretty familiar with this case, and I don't think it will apply towards the longhair cause. It's a question of whether a company can fire someone for crossdressing OFF the job. You can't "take off" long hair. Pinning it up looks different than short hair, and violates "community standards".
Gender-specific dress codes are allowed on the job. This case would never hold water if the truck driver was wearing women's clothes on the job.
Some of the discussion in the article gets into mannerisms. These show up at work and cannot be turned off. Since hair is not readily removed and installed, and since courts are beginning to address the situation than men MAY look female at work when it comes to mannerisms, my feeling is that these cases may show promise down the pike.
That indeed would be the last bridge crossed, since as you say, it's an easy thing to put on and take off. The strongest line of cases at the moment indeed allows different standards for men and women. Jazbrd mentions some of them in a post below this one, and you can dig them up ad nauseum on the Internet. What's important is that when we do see a thread of hope, we should not let it pass unnoticed. It is from such threads that, when pointed out, courts have taken hold of them to justify overturning bad law.
It comes down to how activist the judges get, really.
If they want to try to blow open the whole issue, there is some legroom to do so. The case is constructed that it is much easier just to use the fact that the behavior off the job is the primary complaint to rule for the person who got fired, without taking the steps that would benefit longhairs. I do hope the final decision is a lot more sweeping.
I don't worry too much along these lines, as I'm going into computer programming, and the field is such that I might have the luxury of just finding a different job that will let me have whatever length of hair I want. Of course that's only worrying about the hair length element. I'm keenly interested in the main thrust of the case. I'm a crossdresser, and really don't think anyone has the right to fire me for that unless it actually interferes with the work.