new thread
I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find it, I'm considering applying there and was curious as to where I could find it.
may be some info on this page
The Jespersen case cited here in turn cites the Blockbuster case as showing that employers can discriminate against male long hair, so presumably Blockbusters do.
What I find more interesting in that Jespersen itself says that sexual stereotyping is impermissible, and is a separate issue from having different community standards for males and females. I can see a little daylight there, where it may be possible in future to argue that male long hair meets broad community standards and discriminating against it is sexual stereotyping. Still, this is only a 9th circuit case, but it's a small ray of hope.
Wonder what Bill thinks?
Alun
Judges do not always follow the law, especially when they feel strongly about something and they don't think they will catch much flak for their deviance. The constitution says no involuntary servitude but courts have supported the draft. The constitution says we have a right to bear arms, but they've said that is merely a right of the government which is a silly interpretation. They okayed the hauling off of many thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry to concentration camps with no legal basis whatsoever. And they've said that allowing women to have long hair but not men is not sex discrimination, although anyone over the age of ten can clearly see that it is.
The only way to curtail renegade rulings such as those is to shift public opinion on the topic to a point where judges will be called on the carpet for such rulings. Public opinion of longhairs and their rights has been shifting slowly in the positive direction, but movement has been slow, primarily because longhairs have not been politically organized. That is a price we pay for mostly being independent thinkers who do our own thing. The public is mostly unaware of our plight and our concerns, and that translates into bad court rulings.
In California they have a law that employers cannot require that female workers wear a dress instead of pants. This is a trivial imposition compared to one's hair, since pants and dresses can be put on and taken off before and after work. And it is the outlawing of a sex-based distinction in how one looks, which is precisely what we ask for. However, women made noise about it, so they got noticed, and they got what they wanted.
Bill
Why are Men so willing to comply to short haircuts for a stupid job?
Most are afraid that no-one will hire them and they'll starve and get evicted, I guess. Incorrectly, as we all know, but it is scary for many, and many more just don't care about the issue.
This might be a good time to campaign on this issue. Back in the '70s nearly everyone had shoulder length or longer, and unfortunately no-one campaigned for the right to long hair, because we thought we had won.
Now, we are only about 2-3% of the population, and discrimination is way down IMHO (compared with, say, the '80s or '90s), but not gone altogether. This is probably as good a time as we'll get to pass laws that will see us through the next short hair trend without any of us getting fired.
Hey Caesar,
I know this isn't a definitive answer but at our local Blockbuster I've noticed a few guys working with long hair, not as long as yours but long enough for a ponytail, which was how one of them wore his hair everytime i saw him.
Hope this helps!
Gregg
Points that matter
Sex-differentiated grooming policies started provoking litigation long before Jespersen. That an employer does not violate Title VII by requiring male employees to wear their hair short, even though female employees may wear their hair either long or short, is settled beyond dispute, Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1000 (1998). While wondering whether Title VII reaches such mutable characteristics as hair length at all, courts have consistently held that an employer may impose sex-differentiated dress and grooming requirements which reflect community standards, Willingham v. Macon Tel. Publ'g Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975), as long as each sex is equally burdened, e.g., stricter weight limitations for female flight attendants than for male flight attendants violated Title VII, Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 914 (2001
Under the new policy, both men and women were required to wear a white shirt, black pants, black vest and black bow tie, with low-heeled black shoes. As for personal grooming, both men and women were required to be well-groomed and "appealing to the eye," i.e., attractive. Neither men nor women were allowed to wear "faddish" hairstyles
However, there were additional requirements applicable separately to each sex. Men were required to keep their hair and fingernails short; men specifically could not wear makeup.
Awwwwwww It states men are required to wear there hair short awwwww thats hardly fair in my opinion I would ask them if they would be allow me to keep my long hair even if I had have to wear a ponytail all the time while i was working there
Axel
I'm not too sure on what their dress code is exactly, but I know that I've seen a number of guys who worked at the one near my house (in Orlando, FL) who had long hair, and considerable amounts of facial hair too. I don't think places like Blockbuster, Barnes and Noble, Borders, Best Buy, etc, really care that much about hair length. You gotta watch out for Disney though - they're sticklers :p
Hello Everyone,
I think that Blockbuster has a grooming code that specifies that men's hair must be neatly groomed and shouldn't touch the collar. It is is the employee handbook. However, it seems, that it is not enforced, unless the franchise owner is a jerk.
In places where workers are hard to find, it seems that the dress code will not be enforced.
In some places, like college towns, bohemian neighbourhoods, enforcing the hair code would be bad for their image, locally, and could mean competition from a local independent video club which hires longhairs, and rents repertoire movies.
If any business you frequent decides to enforce a hair code, the best thing, is to rally people to write letters to the head office, saying how such codes are harmful to the morale of the workplace, and to the diversity of the community. This kind of campaign worked for a supermarket chain in California, where a new management wanted to enforce a hair code for male employees. Workers protested, and letters were sent to the head office and the code was revoked.
Long hair on men is a "classic" style, and not a "faddish" style, like tha fauxhawk.
Have a good day,
Georges in Montreal.
Excellent point, Georges. It's a great line to have in one's arsenal when arguing hair discrimination cases.
Bill
Ceaser i used to work there as a manager, having longhair was fine but it had to be tied back. I never enforced it tho probably cause i didnt care and spent most of the time smoking pot with with a few other employees in the back room. The employee book explains that having it tied back in a neat fashion presents a clean image and also doesnt obscure your face to a customer. Even the women were encourage to have it tied back, most did anyways because when putting shit away on the floor its annoying flipping it out of your hair when you are putting movies away on the bottom of the shelf.