new thread
I have recently finished university, gaining a 2:1 degree in Environmental Conservation. I also have eight years of voluntary experience in the countryside.
I recently applied for the position of ranger with my local city council. This was done through an agency and took me three weeks of interviewing and a criminal records bureau check being carried out.
In the final interview, which was actually with the council, I was told that my long hair could be a problem, but no apparent reason was given. After the interview, I contacted the agency to enquire whether I had got the position only to be told that if I had short hair, I would have got the job as they liked me, but due to my long hair, I had been turned down.
I enquired that if it had been due to my religon, would I still be turned down, to which they said that 'they would wear turbans'.
I would like to take this matter further, but could do with some direction. Advise please!!
Hrm well, find out if females working there are allowed to keep their hair long, if so you'd probally have a sexual discrimination suit, unless they have any proposed reasoning why you cannot have your hair long as it would 'interfere' with your work.
Either way, its deffinately worth a look, or hell even a free consultation with your local lawyer ;).
First of all, I assume you are located in the UK.
If so, in order to enforce a hair length policy, an employer has to have a clear, written policy which can be shown to be reasonable. That policy cannot be changed to your detriment after you are employed, and they are foolish to tel you that you were rejected for your hair.
I would get in touch, ask for a written copy of their hair length policy, and emphasise that you are keen to work for them, but are aware of current thinking on employee rights as regards hair and personal expression, etc. Be persistent: your 8 years experience and qualifications ought to get you into a good position.
If these people won't play ball, choose an organisation which is mores sensible about such things. Over-fussy employers are often a pain in the posterior anyway for many different reasons.
If you are indeed in the UK, as the class of degree implies, then the freedom of expression clause of the new European Human Rights Act applies. I think all the case law pre-dates this statute, so you would be blazing a trail legally (bad ranger pun not intended). You should have a good case, in theory.
You need a creative lawyer who is willing to press home the full ramifications of the new law. The way it's written, it should really bar all discrimination against long hair, green mohicans, tatoos, piercings et al, but the courts have a way of twisting things, and they like to try to follow old precedents as far as new statutes will let them. And while there are a handful of long-haired lawyers, I never heard of a long-haired judge...
Good Luck.
(I am not a lawyer, or even in the UK, although I'm from there)
I never heard of a long-haired judge...
No, neither have I, but a judge's wig is a symbol of the superiority conferred by long hair in times past.
Ironic, isn't it!
Seek an Attorney if at all possible and give them a run for their money! (Perhaps you may be able to bring a Lawsuit over something like this.)
Good luck Man, and "hang-in there."
I agree with the rest of you. If you feel you should take it further then you should. That is discrimination and I don't know why companies are like that? I think they should focus on how the person works and not their appearance. I think we've all been there. It's not fair!
So yeah, maybe consult with a lawyer and see if any action can be done, etc.:) Good Luck! Keep us posted!
Beth
I wish I had a good answer for you bud. I've been discriminated against on more than one occassion and thought that if that's the limited perspective of the company than they're not worth working for anyway. If I could've hired a good lawyer then that would have been a different story.
I've actually been told that I would be required to wear a wig to cover my longhair, not because of my sex but because of my race. It was from a casino on a Native American Reservation and only Native American men were allowed to have long hair. I've always admired their respect for a man's hair and that experience hasn't clouded my opinion for them because they helped inspired me to grow my hair out in the first place.
All I can say for now is that we don't live in a perfect world yet and choose your battles wisely. Good luck to you and may peace be on your side.
Bruin
Thanks for all your advise guys. Will look into it on Monday and keep you posted.
Mike
As I understand it, there has been a precedent under Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention: Paul Kara v United Kingdom. Although this is about transexual dress in the workplace, hair does get a brief mention in that it refers back to Smith v Safeway - hair length does not "express a particular opinion or idea", possibly meaning that it would not succeed under article 10. However, public opinion changes with time and the law (slow though it is) reacts to it - for instance, the Judy Owen case in 2000 completely overturned the original precedent of Schmit v Austicks in 1977.
First off - is there a written dress code specifically referring to hair length? If not, you have a reasonable case if that is the reason given for not appointing you. There is a precedent for this: Mark Pell v Wheatley Hotel (2000).
I go into more detail about this on my web page.
As others have said, choose your battle grounds wisely. While I might be inclined to fight the case on principle, I would not want to work for an employer that is so small minded - what other prejudices do they operate under?
I should have known the judges would find some way to murder the statute.
- hair length does not "express a particular opinion or idea"
I'm sure the framers of the statute intended it should mean you can look how you want, but under this interpretation about the only thing protected would be slogans. Truly sad.
So far the only case I have found is
Kara v London Borough Of Hackney [1996] UKEAT 325_95_2802 (28 February 1996)
This case is on BAILI under UK Employment Appeal Tribunal, but I can't find where hair is mentionned?? (except where quoting from Smith v Safeway)
Paul KARA against the United Kingdom and registered on 17 June 1997 under file No. 36528/97 - European Court of Human Rights.
Smith v Safeway is the only link. It is that it's being made that makes it significant. And I believe it will be used as a precedent in future cases under the Human Rights legislation. I think the link is probably tenuous, but that's a personal opinion. The legal profession will often come to judgements that make no real sense to the rest of us. They used Schmidt v Austicks in the Smith v Safeway case for example even though the Austicks case was by then outdated. The Smith case used the Kara case as a precedent. Now that the Kara case has been defeated at the ECHR, that will, I believe be used as a precedent - even though it had nothing to do with hair length.
Reasonable people will look at situations such as this and declare that it is gender discrimination. The law, unfortunately, will find a way to wriggle out of it.
I didn't look for a European case, I was only looking at English and UK cases, so that explains why I couldn't find it! Is there web site where you can find ECHR cases?
http://www.pfc.org.uk/legal/index.htm
This covers Human Rights issues for transgenders. It doesn't say anything that we don't already know. It just happens that there is sometimes an overlap such as Smith v Safeway.
I found that case there under ECHR cases heard only by the commission (the application was refused), but although it says re section 10 "it has not been established on the facts of this case that the applicant has been prevented from expressing a particular opinion or idea by means of his clothing.", I can't find where it mentions hair(?)
I can't find where it mentions hair(?)
It doesn't. The link is an inverse one. Smith v Safeway cited the Kara case (before it got to Europe). That Kara subsequently failed in Europe (specifically under article 10) means that similar cases (i.e. similar to Safeway for example where hair is a factor) are likely to fail as well.
I said I believe the link is tenuous, but a clever barrister would make it and use it as a precedent. Just watch and see ;)
So what you are actually saying is that because the Commission said that Paul Kara's clothing did not express any particular opinion and so could not be a cause of action under section 10, then neither could hair, because having long hair also isn't an expression of an opinion?
I thought what section 10 protected was freedom of 'self-expression', viz. :-
self-expression / n.
the expression of one's feelings, thoughts, etc., esp. in writing, painting, music, etc.
self-expressive adj.
(From the Oxford Concise Dictionary, pronounciation omitted due to non-ASCII characters)
I don't have the wording of the statute in front of me, so that would need to be checked.
Surely long hair is an expression of feelings or thoughts? To require it to express _a_particular_opinion is reading something into the statute that isn't there, AFAIK. That is what I would argue anyway. Of course, arguing that a precedent was wrongly reasonned is not the strongest line of argument.
As for Smith v Safeway citing the earlier stage of Kara v Hackney I don't see what bearing that has on anything.
Pretty much as I understand it - yes. I would expect that to be used as a precedent in future cases until such time as a judgement overrules it and sets a new one.
I would agree with you. However, I also believe that Mr Smith should have won at appeal, but he didn't. As the law stands, employers can discriminate aganst us pretty much with impunity. We only win cases where the employer slipped up by not having a written dress policy, or it was proven to be discrimatory. If they have one and it is similarly restrictive for men and women, then any action is generally a non-starter even if they insist on short back and sides for men.
Only because precedents keep going back to earlier cases until a judgement overturns them. In Smith, hair was not deemed to be an expression of opinion - neither was Paul Kara's clothing. If you like, both cases used the swings and roundabouts approach of Schmidt v Austicks and that had nothing to do with hair either.
To be absoultely sure of course, a long haired man will have to take a case to court under Article 10 - and win....
Picture Purged
Try the Citizen's Advice Bureau (CAB) first. I got first class free legal representation (not Legal Aid) for a claim against the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions and won my tribunal (nothing to do with hair).
If you get as far as the High Court I'd love to see one of these guys try to discriminate on the grounds of long hair !
Hi All,
Many thanks again for all of your advice. The Citizens Advice Bureau suggested that there was nothing I could do and it would be a lot of fuss.
Taking that, I rang the council's personnel department and requested a copy of their dress code, so that I know before I apply in future.....and the proverbial hit the fan!!
They rang me back within the hour and asked if I would still be interested in the job, to which I said that I would, and they are putting it back to the interview panel and i'm awaiting a reply.
Fingers crossed eh
Keep you posted!!
Mike
Well, now, isn't that intersting? I think you can deduce from that, that they didn't have one. I find it amazing that large organisations are often the ones who slip up in these areas.
Good luck anyway.
