• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

jackalope said:
Okay, show me the case.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
jackalope said:
However, the makeup case seems to go against this, so I wonder why they upheld makeup requirements for women?
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom