EEOC Sues Company over Hair Policy

     The EEOC is suing an Alabama based insurance company for discriminating against black job applicants.  The EEOC alleges that the company's grooming policy prohibiting dreadlocks is discriminatory towards African Americans and therefore violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

     In 2010, Chastity Jones applied for a position with the Alabama based insurance company.  Ms. Jones is African American.  During the interview, Ms. Jones wore her hair in "curllocks," which is another name for dreadlocks.  Ms. Jones was offered a position as a customer service representative.  However, when Ms. Jones met with Human Resources later day, she was informed that the company banned dreadlocks and that she would need to cut them off in order to obtain employment.  When Ms. Jones refused to cut her hair, the offer was rescinded.

     The EEOC argues that the hair policy discriminates against African Americans based on physical and cultural characteristics in violation of Title VII.  According to the EEOC's attorney, the "litigation is not about policies that require employees to maintain their hair in a professional, neat, clean or conservative manner," but "focuses on the racial bias that may occur when specific hair constructs and styles are singled out for different treatment because they do not conform to normative standards for other races."

     According to the District Director for the EEOC's Birmingham office, "[h]air grooming decisions and policies (and their implementation) have to take into consideration differing racial traits, and cannot penalize blacks for grooming their hair in a manner that does not meet normative standards for other races."

     This is the first time that the EEOC has brought a suit on behalf of an individual for dreadlocks.

If you are the victim of discrimination in the workplace, contact Ambuter Law for your free case evaluation.