Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MechAg94]

House Approves Bill to Ban Hairstyle Discrimination in the Workplace
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/house-approves-bill-to-ban-hairstyle-discrimination.aspx

The Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act—HR 2116—passed the House in a 235-to-189 vote on March 18.

Racial and national origin discrimination can occur because of long-standing biases and stereotypes associated with hair texture and style, according to the bill. "For example, routinely, people of African descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities because they are adorned with natural or protective hairstyles in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, or worn in locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots or Afros," the bill states.

The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from firing, refusing to hire or otherwise discriminating against workers based on "hair texture or hairstyle, if that hair texture or that hairstyle is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin."

There are no other problems in the world.  We have solved them all and now we are down to hairstyle discrimination.  Isn't that wonderful?

The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from firing, refusing to hire or otherwise discriminating against workers based on "hair texture or hairstyle, if that hair texture or that hairstyle is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin."

I am real curious if the hairstyle must be associated with the race or national origin of the person with hair style, or just any race or national origin. 

[MillCreek]

^^^I wonder how this will play with the cases of beards in the military, either due to medical reasons, such as ingrown hairs, or religious reasons, as for the Sikhs.

[WLJ]

[Bogie]

Nothing says "proud African-American like 36 inches of Indonesian hair glued on and braided..."

[HankB]

Will the law be interpreted as mandating higher ceilings and doorways as a reasonable accommodation?

[Bogie]

I'm in the middle of a workplace catch-22 situation - I have to get yet another doctor's note about my painful grindy ankle and bone spurs, but... "Hey, I know it's your day off, but could you come in?"
 
Told the FNG manager "no" yesterday. I was in the middle of a deep dive into smart home stuff... Wait, I need to check my front yard again... (back yard is coming on Saturday, and the workshop and extender next Thursday).

[dogmush]

^^^I wonder how this will play with the cases of beards in the military, either due to medical reasons, such as ingrown hairs, or religious reasons, as for the Sikhs.

You can already get a shaving exemption due to medical or religious  reasons.

[Pb]

The constitution does not give the federal government the authority to dictate who private employees should hire or fire in the first place.  But all of us know this.

[French G.]

^^^I wonder how this will play with the cases of beards in the military, either due to medical reasons, such as ingrown hairs, or religious reasons, as for the Sikhs.

There are already heard waivers for ingrown hairs and such. Military already has this law in effect forgotten the reasons for short hair I guess. 

[Bogie]

Personally, I wish it was legal in football to use hair as a handle...

[Cliffh]

Well, I can't fire you 'cause your hair is offensive to our customers.  Instead, I'll fire you just 'cause I can.

[Pb]

Well, I can't fire you 'cause your hair is offensive to our customers.  Instead, I'll fire you just 'cause I can.

This gives people with ugly hairstyles an excuse to sue if they ever get fired.  An employers defense against this, is to hire enough people with ugly hair as "proof" they are not bigoted against ugly hair.

Just like how gov mandated laws against discriminating against certain races creates preferential hiring for them.  The only way an employer to prove they are not racist is to hire a bunch of the protected racial group.  And now that the supreme court has declared homosexuals and transvestites are also a protected class (based on banning discrimination on the basis of "sex"), we can expect to see preferential hiring for homosexuals and transvestites.

[230RN]

The constitution does not give the federal government the authority to dictate who private employees should hire or fire in the first place.  But all of us know this.

You keep harping on what the Constitution says or does't say.  Get with it.  Don't you realize it's a "living document," and can say whatever we want it to say whenever we want it to say it.

If we want it to say we should all use green table napkins, then so be it and that's the living law.

And if someof the Justices are color blind and can only make a green napkin decision out of thin air, that, my friend, is it. 

Period.

Get with it, Pb !

Terry. 230RN