Another Hair Piece: Exploring New Strands of Analysis under Title VII

Parent Category: Intersectionality

Category: Gender

Written by Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Abstracted from: Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Another Hair Piece: Exploring New Strands of Analysis under Title VII, 98 Georgetown Law Journal 1079-1131 (April, 2010)(260 Footnotes)

Imagine that you are a white woman who works as a bartender in a popular casino in an alternate racial universe. Your employer has issued and enforces the following grooming policy as it relates to hairstyles:

POLICY

Employees will adhere to the following appearance guidelines within the workplace. Failure to abide by these guidelines may result in disciplinary action, including termination.

Appearance: Employees must maintain a professional image at all times.

Hair: Extreme or fad hairstyles are prohibited.

• Males:

Hair must be worn in a short style and must not extend below the top of your shirt collar. Ponytails are prohibited.

• Females:

Hair must be worn in braids of any kind, including cornrows, locks, twists, or a short style that does not extend below the top of your shirt collar.

You file a lawsuit, alleging discrimination at the intersection of race and gender. You do not contest the difference in hair length restrictions placed on male and female workers. Courts have repeatedly applied the undue burden test–a special hybrid, disparate treatment-disparate impact test used in sex-discrimination grooming cases–and upheld policies that allow women to wear their hair long but require men to wear their hair short. These courts reason that such hair-length policies impose different but essentially equal burdens on men and women.

via Another Hair Piece: Exploring New Strands of Analysis under Title VII – Race, Racism and the Law.