Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 105 of 105

Thread: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

  1. #101
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Okay, show me the case.
    Looking for a specific case.

    So far, I've found the following statements

    For example, courts have held that employers cannot require only women to wear contact lenses, prohibit tattoos on women but not men, or have different weight requirements for men and women, with one being more burdensome than the other.
    Appearance Policies and Sex Discrimination: More Than Meets the Eye? ? Martindale.com

    I'm looking for specific court cases to coincide with the claims that the courts have ruled this way.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #102
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Ponytails on men violate "customary modes of grooming", as do earings. These are traditionally female.

    Cornrows, however, are not viewed as "gender-specific" or normally associated with one gender.
    I have not found anything in any case backing up your unisex hairstyle claim. The closest is the ponytail, and the courts have stated that having different hair requirements for men and women is absolutely legal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Looking for a specific case.

    So far, I've found the following statements



    Appearance Policies and Sex Discrimination: More Than Meets the Eye? ? Martindale.com

    I'm looking for specific court cases to coincide with the claims that the courts have ruled this way.

    From your link:

    "Because hair restrictions for men were part of a comprehensive personal grooming code applicable to all employees, courts have found that any differences in the appearance requirements for males and females were permissible because they had a negligible effect on employment opportunities."



    Not seeing anything in there that would bar banning a hairstyle for men if it was considered a unisex hairstyle.



    Re: the tatoos and eyeglasses, that aligns with other general findings in grooming cases, in that you must have policies for both sexes but not for just one sex. However, the makeup case seems to go against this, so I wonder why they upheld makeup requirements for women?

  3. #103
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    However, the makeup case seems to go against this, so I wonder why they upheld makeup requirements for women?
    Because in that case men were barred from wearing makeup and required to have short hair. It meant that there was a burden on both parties not only on one.

    That's the major difference here regarding the unisex hairstyle. If the burdens are not equal, it is discriminatory. All of the cases with hair related to length, not style. For example, it doesn't appear that shaved heads can be banned for women while being allowed for men IF short hair is allowed for women.

    But if short hair is not allowed for women, this distinction can be made as a byproduct of the length rule.

    The case here is that there is burden placed on men that does not apply to women regarding the way they style their hair and it is not based on customary grooming norms. Thus, the case would at least be hearable and arguable.

    This kind of case would be precedent setting, regardless of how it would be ruled. Prior cases do not apply.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #104
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Because in that case men were barred from wearing makeup and required to have short hair. It meant that there was a burden on both parties not only on one.

    That's the major difference here regarding the unisex hairstyle. If the burdens are not equal, it is discriminatory. All of the cases with hair related to length, not style. For example, it doesn't appear that shaved heads can be banned for women while being allowed for men IF short hair is allowed for women.

    But if short hair is not allowed for women, this distinction can be made as a byproduct of the length rule.

    The case here is that there is burden placed on men that does not apply to women regarding the way they style their hair and it is not based on customary grooming norms. Thus, the case would at least be hearable and arguable.

    This kind of case would be precedent setting, regardless of how it would be ruled. Prior cases do not apply.

    Sorry, telling the man to cut his hair and comb it isn't an undue burden. There's nothing in any standards that have to do with unisex hairstyles. There's no sexism in this story.

  5. #105
    Professor
    formerroadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 08:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,014

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    If everyone would look at the fool AP article posted a few pages back, the white man in question stated that he had only seen on black officer who was male that had corn rows and he was told to cut his hair as well. This is not a racism issue.

    Also, this is not a matter of sexism either. The dress code is different for men and for women in ways that do not cause undo burden on either sex nor violate norms. Men are supposed to have a clean cut, which this officer's superior deemed his corn rows not to be as such. I don't see the hubbub. I had to wear a tie to teach in high school. None of the women had to wear ties. What's the big deal?
    It's time for a revolution in our country. Not a revolution forged with guns and bombs but a revolution forged of compassion and altruism. A revolution that extends a hand to those who don't have and who cannot. A revolution that makes Health Care available to all those in the US.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •