new thread
Hey everyone, again, it's been awhile since I've been here! I never forget about this wonderful place. =)
I recently landed a new job at an internet provider, but it'll be a few weeks until they place me into a position. So, in the meantime, I thought it would be a good idea to still apply at other places, to work somewhere temporarily and at least get a paycheck.
Unfortunately, I happen to have plenty fast food experience in my distant past, haha. So one of the first places to call me back on an application was that place with the Golden Arches that sells the double cheeseburger. Everyone knows what I'm talking about. I'd rather this not be googled so, I'll refer to them as MC. Here goes...
I showed up for an interview, and the manager asked me about my past experience and other things, and decided to hire me. So, I had an orientation set up. I go to the orientation, where there were other new-hires there to fill out paperwork, tax forms, etc. Within the first few minutes (didn't even complete one paper), the manager who was running the orientation pulled me aside into the office, privately.
She clearly told me that "at this point in time, our rules do not allow us to hire males with long hair."
My rebuttal was powerful and stern, but kind. I clearly stated that, although years ago, I had previously worked at MC with long hair and it wasn't an issue. I'm fully aware of laws concerning hair longer than shoulder length, and that it needs to be tied up and kept above the shoulders; I told her that as well. Even more so, that I had no problem doing such things and complying with such laws.
Her argument was horrible. All I got was "Well, we don't hire males with long hair."
So I flat out told her that that's sexist! What is the difference as long as both sexes can comply with food safety laws?
She didn't have an answer. After thinking awhile, she mentioned how girls can have their hair in a bun, or put it in a braid and tie it up or put it under the hat, etc.
I asked "Why can't I do that? That's how I've handled it when working at past restaurants."
She resorted back to the "We don't hire males with long hair" argument, and I realized I wasn't going to get anywhere with it. I was also told that it was a franchise MC; it MUST be their specific rule, I can't imagine corporate MC would get away with such a thing. Although, maybe things have changed, who knows.
Even though I have a much better and permanent job lined up for me in a few weeks, I was wondering what everyone thinks of this. Is this acceptable? How can I respond to this? Can I take legal action? Is this sue-worthy? Hah. I simply don't know much about legal matters, but it seems to me that it's purely sexist and that it would conflict with OSHA and discrimination laws; everyone's seen the posters that say "We don't discrimate against race, religion, age, sex, etc"...
What should I do?
And please, if you've had a similar situation in the past, I'm curious as to how YOU handled it!
Peg,
The way I see it, you have a couple options. You're absolutely right that this isn't an issue of policy but discrimination. I worked at McDonalds for three years on & off and there was always at least one guy who had long hair working there. One of them was a manager. Never was they asked to do anything more than restrain his hair - which women were also asked to do - in order to preserve the integrity of the food.
And I'm positive there is no policy against men & long hair in McDonalds. Its just absurd to think they'd make one in today's day & age.
So you could fight it, and possibly win.
However, it seems obvious to me that this lady has an issue with YOU. Whether it is something about you and she is using your hair as an excuse or that your hair represents something that she needs to deal with is really irrelevant. The point is that even if you did managed to get hired, through fighting or convincing her, you'd have to put up with whatever ridiculousness she flung at you. And I'm sure there would be plenty.
Given that you have a job lined up, that this isn't your only means of finding a job, I would not try to take this to court. But I would write letters, and many of them. Every McDonalds has the franchise owner's address in a public area (usually on the entrance doors or near the registers). If not, ask for their contact information. I would also write to the store owner (just address it to 'Store Owner' and send it to that store) and also to the corporate McDonald's office.
I would be very polite, try to keep it short and to the point, explaining that this is discrimination and unacceptable. I might mention that a lawsuit is a possibility - not from me, but from anyone in the future who they did this to, and that if only for their own self-preservation they should change this practice....or reprimand those who have taken matters into (t)he(i)r own hands.
Its sad to hear this. I loved my job at McDonalds and have often thought that if I ever needed to, I would return to work there in a heartbeat. It shameful to think that I or others with long hair might not be welcome for such a petty reason.
All the best, and keep your chin up!
- Djm
You're totally right--I'm going to do exactly what you say. I plan on bringing the issue to the owner and seeing how far I can get with it. At least to pave the way for future employees, and to at least try to change a very small portion of the world for the community of, well, us longhairs!
This is the part that really irks me. I can't say I loved my job at McD previously, but at the time I sure didn't mind it much. It is nice to have the reassurance that even if O somehow lose a much better job than it, I can always resort to going back because of previous experience--sad that this may not be the case for us because of physical features!
": She clearly told me that "at this point in time, our rules do not allow us to hire males with long hair."
...
...
Her inability to retort you with equal argumentation clearly shows that YOU are right, yet most often the winners in debates aren't those who explain rationally but forcefully. A sad truth I keep experiencing as well.
Unfortunately I knew from the get-go that she wasn't the one making the rules, regardless--but I indeed made a point. I'm sure all the employees there heard what happened by now and I imagine at least some of them feel that it is wrong as well.
I remember my nephew worked for an "MC" at a service plaza on the Indiana Toll road. He was there for a few years grew his hair was a good dependable worker, they liked him and he always went in when they called. So one day he puts dreads in and looked good with them I thought, however this one female manager had issues and told him to cut them off or he was fired. He quit but later cut the dreads anyway (not a longhair for life).
I view MC as I do Walmart and some other big chains that they are all evil and should be destroyed. Ok maybe a little overstated, the point being we have a choice and I choose other establishments to patronize usually. I haven't had a Big M in so long I can't remember. I remember eating at a Rally's in Michigan City Indiana, the guy behind the counter had a tail to about mid back.
Eat at Rally's everyone (if you have one in your town)
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
I remember you telling me about that one. When will people over there get over it and get with it!
Cheers,
John.B
I'm the same way. I'll do whatever it takes to avoid stepping foot into Walmart or other such places. Trash!
Hi Peg,
This person obviously is unreasonable and sounded like a broken record.Obviously this is not a career job for you as I would have crumbled up the forms you were filling out and dropped them in her waist basket and just left after it was clear she wasn't going to budge.Certainly not worth cutting you hair for a burger flipping job.Maybe try applying at Walmat or some other big box store as you have nothing to loose since you are getting a real job anyway.
Yes, I ran into this once myself and it was for a career job.I simply refused to cut my hair and eventually landed the same kind of job with no issues with my hair.Good luck Peg and please don't cut your hair my friend!Cheers
Mark
Yeah, looking back, I could have been far more blunt about the situation. I totally should have ripped up the papers in front of her though, haha, I like that! =D
Hi Peg
Always nice to see a posting from you and I am very sorry to hear what you have just encountered. UNFAIR! And of the one you talked to? What a bitch on wheels!
I myself have never encountered this in my entire life, but I KNOW of other "arches" where guys with long hair DO have jobs. The closest one to me has someone probably in your age catagory presently in school, and when he works has his hair in a bun. No problem for him, so I suppose from arch to arch all depends on the intelligence, stupidy as well as personal likes as to who gets hired. I am sorry to hear that this wicked witch wasn't melted completely.
Luckily there ARE other places and good for you for not even thinking about cutting your hair and so glad you stood your grounds and told her the truth which she couldn't take.
And to think, right in this town in the US Post Office is hired a guy with hair more than 1/2 way down his back. No problem for them and he has been there for years!
Best of luck to you Peg and I am sure that you will find something. Besides, the witch doesn't exactly sound like the kind of person who one would want to have to be given orders from let alone have to work under. But I shall order from this arches place now via the board. 1. One broomstick medium-rare. 2. A small bag of french flys. 3. One tall green shake....."brewed" in a kettle,(Water-proof of course.) 4. And finally a yellow brick Pie with cement filling.
Take care-
Justin~
Funny how it's such a gray area--most restaurants indeed will hire a long haired male (assuming he's otherwise fit for the job), but somehow a situation like this just barely slips through the law. I don't think such things will always be this way though--therefore none of us longhairs should worry. =)
Bid them a fond farewell and never go back. Forget and forgive, you did your best to help open her mind.
Good advice, Quester. In fact, ever since the whole ordeal (with the events still fresh in my mind), I get the feeling that it'll be a long time until I ever eat at a chain restaurant again. Ban 'em all! Haha.
My response to such people is "hey! Do I really want to work for a bunch of bigots?". These days there are plenty of places you can work with long hair. Many people in the restaurant field are happy to hire a man with long hair. Even if you cut your hair to work for those jerks, you'd never be happy in that job. Move on, kid.
In fact, if you've got experience in the field, I'd suggest checking into the upscale restaurants in your area. You'll probably find more tolerant people and make more money. Never sell yourself short.
Naw... it wasn't supposed to be a long term job in the first place. I'm starting my new *real* job very soon, at an ISP... needless to say it's far different caliber than fast food, environment-wise and salary-wise. For that I am very grateful.
It's just a shame that they are far more close-minded than I expected in this day and age.
Like you said, this is probably a franchise rule, meaning there are other places you could probably work and still keep your long hair. So maybe you should just let it go.
On the other hand, every now and then it is good to make an "example" out of a company that employs discriminatory practices...*evil grin*
she mentioned how girls can have their hair in a bun
You might have replied:
"Hair in a bun? Like your burgers?"
Ouch.
Hi Peg
This is the point where I disagree with most everybody on this board. Here you have a prime opportunity to cause a stir and show these HAIR NAZIS it's time to back the f*** off.
Don't forget and forgive, fight it!
1: She said flat out the only reason she would not hire you is the length of your hair. Flat out discrimination.
2: You don't have to have this job to survive, you have a much better job coming up. Sue them and sit back with you new job and watch what happens from a secure position.
3: This fast food restaurant is always in the spot light, I can think of no better corporation to make a national spectacle than them. You could be the one to put this stupid prejudice in the papers and force all employers to change their "company policy".
This situation seems custom made for legal action. Promise me you will at least talk to a lawyer. I can see the papers now, "MC sued for denying employment based on hair style".
And to everybody who says don't fight... what the hell is wrong with you?
Paul
You are right on here! This really burned me up when I read this too. It is a shame that the world is such a petty place at times. Employers should be concerned with the quality of their employees, not how long ones hair is. If ones hair is kept neat, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
I totally agree, disgusting that this still goes on.
cheers Dave
Thanks for the extremely encouraging words. I don't disagree with such a plan of action. I have talked to a few lawyers in fact, just to see what I can do. Here are a few responses from them in emails...
"They can discriminate against long haired men. It is not illegal. Try Starbucks :-)"
Yeah that one wasn't too encouraging. Careful, the next one is an extremely long read. Basically from the looks of this, it may be hard to find a lawyer to take something like that--or should I say, even harder to win! Meh, I don't know much about this stuff.
Next:
"
Thank you for contacting ____. It had been some time since I had looked at grooming policies and whether they could violate sex discrmination laws. I found a Michigan Court of Appeals case that is on point. The relevant holding of the court is reproduced below. In light of the current state of the law, we don't see a way to help you.
The issue whether a male-only hair-length grooming requirement constitutes sex discrimination has never been determined by a Michigan court pursuant to Michigan's Civil Rights Act. However, the issue has been addressed by federal courts in regard to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Michigan's Civil Rights Act is substantially the same as title VII with regard to its sex discrimination provisions. This Court has held that federal civil rights cases interpreting title VII are persuasive authority for resolving cases brought pursuant to the Michigan act. Northville Public Schools v. Civil Rights Comm., 118 Mich.App. 573, 576, 325 N.W.2d 497 (1982). A review of the federal case law reveals that it is irrelevant whether a sex-neutral or sex-specific policy is in effect. Federal courts have held that sex-differentiated hair-length grooming requirements do not constitute sex discrimination under title VII. See Fagan v. National Cash Register Co., 157 U.S.App.D.C. 15, 481 F.2d 1115 (1973); Dodge v. Giant Food, Inc., 160 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 488 F.2d 1333 (1973); Willingham v. Macon Telegraph Publishing Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (C.A. 5, 1975); Longo v. Carlisle DeCoppet & Co., 537 F.2d 685 (C.A. 2, 1976). FN1 The courts, for the most part, found that title VII *729 protection does not encompass those characteristics not inherently immutable, such as different grooming standards for men and women. The courts reasoned that title VII was never intended to interfere with grooming policies that have no significant effect upon the employment opportunities afforded one sex in favor of the other. See cases cited above. See also 1 Larson, Employment Discrimination, § 41.11, pp. 8-112-8-127.FN2
FN1. These cases represent only a sampling of the numerous cases reaching this result.
FN2. We note that in 1975, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights issued a policy statement on grooming requirements. The statement reflects recognition of the fact that virtually all courts are reaching a similar decision, that title VII was intended to protect against sex-based discrimination and was not intended to encompass different grooming standards for men and women. The department decided not to continue to accept or process charges of this nature.
Plaintiff misconstrues the disparate-treatment test in title VII cases. It is irrelevant whether defendants had a sex-specific grooming policy or a unisex grooming policy with an unwritten requirement that men wear their hair cut above the collar. Courts have held that such unwritten policies do not violate title VII. Miller v. Missouri P.R. Co., 410 F.Supp. 533 (W.D.Mo., 1976). Title VII may, however, be violated when the grooming code that applies to each sex is not equally burdensome or when the overall grooming code is not enforced in an evenhanded manner. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual, § 619, p. 3602,FN3 Dodge, supra, 160 U.S.App.D.C. at p. 13, 488 F.2d 1333, Willingham, supra, 507 F.2d at p. 1092, and Knott v. Missouri P.R. Co., 527 F.2d 1249, 1252 (C.A. 8, 1975). However, see contra Fountain v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 555 F.2d 753 (C.A. 9, 1977). An example of uneven enforcement of a grooming code would be if an employer has a dress and grooming policy for men and women but only enforces the male hair-length provision. Equal *730 Employment Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual, § 619, p. 3602.
FN3. We note that EEOC interpretations are entitled to great deference by the courts. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 434-435, 91 S.Ct. 849, 855-856, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971).
In this case, there is no allegation that each sex's individual grooming requirements were not enforced evenhandedly. Further, plaintiff does not contend that the overall grooming policy burdens one sex more than the other so as to favor the employment of one sex over the other.FN4 Accordingly, we find that because defendants' grooming standards would not violate title VII, they do not violate Michigan's Civil Rights Act. Therefore, we find that the trial court properly granted defendants summary disposition, albeit for the wrong reason. Portice v. Otsego Co. Sheriff's Dep't, 169 Mich.App. 563, 566, 426 N.W.2d 706 (1988). Plaintiff further argues that **278 the trial court erred in finding that defendants had a sex-specific grooming policy in effect at the time of plaintiff's termination. However, this issue becomes moot in light of our disposition of the first issue.
FN4. We note that defendants' policy requires females to secure their hair."
This is sex based discrimination not because you have long hair, but, you are a MALE with long hair. Their actions were based purely upon the sex of the individual and in this case that individual happened to be you. I say this reluctantly, but, men have allowed this to happen in our country. On the other hand, a woman can dress and groom herself as she pleases. This is because if a woman is discriminated against in such a way there will be hell to pay and corporations know it.
jeffrey
Time to do some letter writing; write the head of the franchise, and to the corporate CEO of MC. I would tell them exactly what you told us here, and ask them to confirm, in writing, if this is indeed their policy, and to state why. Once you have something in writing that states this policy, it's time to go lawyer shopping. You won't have a case based on hearsay, you must have something in writing.
I would have asked that lady to show me where that policy is in writing, and to give you a copy. In fact, you may want to go back there and do just that. And be sure to get her name as well. Put all that info in your letters as well. If you have witnesses who observed the event and conversation you had, perhaps they might write statements on your behalf. And even testify if you should sue.
If you are willing to put the time and effort into this, there are several excellent on line law library's that you can research case histories. See if you can find similar cases, and how they panned out. Those cases can be cited in building your own. I put the link for Cornell's law library below. You can also c&p http://www.pnc.edu/ls/legal.html to access the Purdue University law pages. I have used both extensively, and they allow one to research all online content that both Universities have made available. Cornell Law has been around since the mid '90's, and Find Law is one of the most used by lawyers, legal aides, clerks and students.
You certainly have nothing to lose, so why not take a go at it?
Wex LII
I had the same experience with Dominos's Pizza. I worked there a few years ago no problem, but recently was told that they wouldn't hire me with long hair. I got a better job somewhere else and can keep my hair.
And that is a major reason why longhair discrimination continues - it is not so ubiquitous that men can't usually just go somewhere else. That often is the wisest choice. Who wants to work where they are disliked, anyway? Work is obnoxious enough as it is.
As Elektros said, federal court cases vary from one circuit (group of several states) to another when it comes to students. The circuits are about evenly split between allowing discrimination, not allowing it, and not addressing the issue at all. Most of them date to the 1970s. When it comes to employment, no state prohibits longhair discrimination.
This situation has not changed much since the 1970s, a time when long hair was heavily in fashion and motivation to litigate (more activism) was greater. Two generations were more starkly pitted against each other then, as well. Today, discrimination is spotty so most longhairs just navigate around it. Toughest are cases where a man is vested in a pension or is in a career where discrimination is heavily practiced, but these cases don't come up much.
Students have less mobility in avoiding discrimination so we've seen more sympathy from courts when those cases have come up, but they have not come up often, as I've said. Also, some states don't allow the discrimination, so cases never land in the federal court system from those states.
Another factor with students is that courts are so slow that often the student has graduated from the school before the case ever rises high enough to establish any precedent (i.e., a record recognized by other courts). Work discrimination cases often also drag on so long that the victim of the discrimination has by then found other work. Knowing this is down the pike, few cases go to court in the first place.
At the moment the topic is discrimination from a fast food individual restaurant. There are zillions of those and most don't discriminate. You don't see court cases because victims of discrimination at such places just go down the street and get a job there.
I know you don't like Walmart, and a lot of people don't, for a lot of reasons, but they do hire longhairs, so they aren't 100% all bad. If you want a job for only a few weeks while you are waiting, you could do worse than apply there.
Now, this whole situation was intriguing to me. I have long been under the impression that average Joe US Employee has little or no employment rights and if the company says "No long hair" that's it. You want the job with us; you conform - fair or unfair. Now I know Kevin C has proved otherwise; has anyone else had this experience...?
Sometimes, I don't think we Brits know how good we've got it in some ways (and not in others - swings and roundabouts etc. etc.)
Enough of my waffle - I've obviously got too much time on my hands right now... ;)
Indeed!
OK. I'm kinda steamed after reading the lawyer's letter. I'm almost certain that if somebody really wished to take on such a discrimination rule it could be won. For a reason not immediately apparent. If an employer is going to have different requirements of male and female employees, this employer is taking it upon himself to make a clear definition of gender-- the distinction between "man" and "woman". There is a condition that occurs in about 1 in 5000 people called AIS. It causes a male fetus to develop and grow up with the complete outward appearance of a female. These people live their entire lives as women, but are genetically male. I doubt that a fast food restaurant would be willing to require a chromosome test of every employee before enforcing their gender separating grooming rules. But when you discriminate between "men" and "women" that is the only way it could really be done. If a lawyer took that angle to court, I bet he'd win.
It think it's time our society stopped trying to obliterate mankind's diversity and learned to appreciate the advantages of individuality.
I totally agree with what you're saying--and I'm really tempted to try to take this further. But what could be won out of it? I clearly don't want to "win" employment, lol! Even if I did win a case like this, what would I profit?
Hey Peg,
You could start the fire to burn this outdated prejudice to the ground. The time for bitching and moaning is over. It's time for someone to step up and be the "Rosa Parks" of our little group. A better chance than this, considering the restaurant involved, may not come along again for some time.
We are apparently on the list of "those whom it's ok to discriminate against". Since this list has gotten shorter, dislike against us has become more focused.
I won't compare this thing to the civil rights movement but if we continue to put up with it, it will not change. Did 60's America finally decide on it's own that it was time to change the rules? Hell no, they had to be shown.
I believe violence usually makes it worse and should be used as a last resort, pacifism when it finally takes a stand can make a difference, apathy however achieves nothing.
Those attorneys who refused you did so because they probably hate longhair on guys as well. Don't let them shut you down, keep trying, I might suggest females or black attorneys. Civil rights issues might be a little more important to them than some middle class white guy with conservative upbringing. (no offense to those present, you obviously are excluded.)
If you have any longhaired friends you could get them to apply there as well. Not to actually get a "job" just to make your cause bigger. When they are also refused employment then you will not be alone.
On last thing, we could start a fund here, on this board to help finance it. Or is that too bold a suggestion?
Paul
He is a well-known civil rights attorney, has been featured on Court/TRU TV and elsewhere. Very high-profile. I mentioned him here before as a possible resource. Why? Wellll... just look at the various pics of him? He has worn that trademark long-hair-pulled-back-into-a-ponytail look for his entire law career. Kuby loves to buck the current laws that he sees as discriminatory. However, you need documentation per my previous post below. So, what do you get? Newfound freedoms for you and your brother longhairs. Isn't that the best reward of all. And you might just make case history. Peg vs The Golden Arches. ;)
Rony Kuby Website
Sadly, court precedents have gutted the letter of the equal rights legislation. To win you would have to show that every previous case was wrongly decided. They were, because they render the words of the statute void, but convincing the courts of that would be as big a sea change as Brown v Board of Education. You would certainly have to take it all the way to the US Supreme Court, and a big problem with that is that they only take cases on a discretionary basis, i.e. you write them a Petition of Certiorari and they act on that just to decide whether they will even hear the case, and that's after you have appealed through all the other levels of court.
I am not a lawyer, but Bill is, and I am pretty sure he will confirm the above.
One ray of sunshine is the DC Human Rights Act, which gives a cause of action for discrimination on grounds of "hair style", but that's just if you work in Washington DC (which I do).
If Bill does chime in on this thread, he will surely mention the Unruh Act, which states that longhairs must be served as customers in stores ... but only in California.
There is also some protection from religious discrimination if long hair is part of your religion, not just in employment cases, but in other situations too.
On top of that, there are many precedents that publicly funded schools can't discriminate against long hair, and yet it still goes on all the time in Texas, possibly because they are in the wrong 'circuit', that is the precedents are at the level of the circuit court of appeals, and not for the circuit that Texas is in. The recent cases that succeeded in Texas played the religion card for native American kids so they could keep their hair. Apparently though, in Texas it is possible to voluntarily transfer to another school district without moving house (couldn't do that here) so that's a solution that has been used by some, though going to school in the next town is hardly convenient. Yeah, I know I'm wandering away from employment cases.
As to the UK, in the past it hasn't been a lot better, but now they have signed on to the European Human Rights Act, and section 10 guarantees Freedom of Self Expression, which offers hope of better court decisions in future.
After reading many well-put responses regarding the legal aspects of the matter (thanks guys), I've decided to let it go--on the legal side of it.
Paul KMF, I really do see where you're coming from and I'd like to see things you mentioned happen, but I just don't think it's legally possible right now--at least not with a situation as small as mine.
I do, however, plan on sending them letters and bugging them about it, as others suggested. Maybe I can't overcome the big picture of the situation, but I can free the minds of a few stores in my town. ;)
I did, however, end up getting the new job everyone, all the interviews went well, and I start in less than a week. It's plenty more than I was making at any of my previous jobs, so I'm extremely thankful for that...
So, cheers! Here's to paying more bills and catching up... ;) =D