In today’s world, how you look matters. People care a lot about appearance and it can affect your success. Studies show that attractive people are assumed to be smarter, more capable, and have more opportunities. Employers know that good-looking employees can help make sales and close deals. So, it’s important to look professional and put together, because it can make a big difference in the business world. Employers often try to control how their employees look at work by making rules about how they dress and groom themselves. Some employees have gone to court and sued their employers for discriminating against them based on how they look. For example, some women sued an airline for having different weight rules for them and men. Another woman sued her old job for making her feel uncomfortable about what she wore to work. And a man sued his boss for telling him to cover up a tattoo on his arm. Courts have to decide if it’s okay for employers to make rules about how their workers look. Employers can have appearance-based policies like dress codes and grooming rules, as long as they are applied fairly to everyone. However, these policies should not unfairly impact any specific group of people. Employers should be careful when implementing and enforcing appearance standards to avoid discrimination lawsuits. This article discusses recent cases where employees sued over appearance-related issues and provides guidance for employers on how to avoid legal trouble. Two men were fired from their jobs for not following their employer’s grooming policy. They argued that the policy was discriminatory because it treated men and women differently. However, the court ruled that the policy was not discriminatory under the law. The court ruled that private employers can set their own grooming and dress code policies, and that the Constitution’s protection of individual rights only applies to government actions, not private employers. In another case, female Department of Corrections officers sued because the dress code required them to wear trousers, which went against their religious beliefs. The court sided with the DOC, saying that all officers had to be prepared for emergencies and that trousers were necessary for safety gear. In a different case, an African American woman claimed she was discriminated against because her employer had a policy about hairstyles that only seemed to apply to her. The court ruled that grooming and dress code policies must be fair for everyone, regardless of race. Hollins sued her employer for race discrimination and won on appeal. McManus sued her employer for discrimination based on her appearance but lost in court. And a group of firefighters sued their employer for racial and disability discrimination because they were told to shave their beards, and they won their case. The court rejected the firefighters’ claim that the grooming policy was discriminatory, because the defendant showed that it was necessary for safety reasons. The court also said the firefighters didn’t provide evidence of a less discriminatory alternative. The court also said that PFB may not even be considered a physical impairment under the law.
In another case, a woman was told by her boss that her clothing was inappropriate for work, even though he never made any inappropriate advances towards her. Schmitz was fired from her job and sued her employer in federal court. The court ruled in favor of the employer, stating that her work environment was not hostile, and she was asked to dress professionally by multiple supervisors. In another case, Swartzentruber was asked to cover up his offensive tattoo at work because it was creating a racially hostile environment. He was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. A man with a tattoo filed a lawsuit against his employer, claiming that requiring him to cover his tattoo was religious discrimination. The court said he didn’t prove that his religious beliefs conflicted with the company’s requirement. Even if he did, the court said the company would suffer too much if they let him show the tattoo. The court dismissed the lawsuit. This shows that courts don’t usually consider appearance as a reason for discrimination. But if someone can show that appearance is linked to a protected group and that group is treated differently, they might win their case. Also, companies can’t enforce their dress code unfairly, but they can have different rules based on what’s considered normal appearance. Weight discrimination based on appearance, such as weight, is not usually illegal. To argue sex discrimination on the basis of weight, a person needs to show that men and women are treated differently. In one case, a woman was denied a promotion because of her weight and was told she needed to lose weight to get the job. She sued, claiming the company had one standard for women and another for men. The court ruled in favor of the company because she couldn’t show that overweight men had been treated differently. In the Frank v. United Airlines case, female flight attendants sued the airline for having a weight requirement that was unfair to women. The court agreed with the flight attendants, saying that the airline’s policy was discriminatory because it imposed tougher weight restrictions on female flight attendants compared to male ones. The court also said that the airline didn’t show why having female flight attendants weigh less than male ones was necessary for their job. So, the court ruled in favor of the flight attendants. Weight-based discrimination claims are most often brought under the ADA. In order to bring a successful claim, a plaintiff must show that their weight is related to a physiological disorder and substantially limits their major life activities. Simply being overweight is not enough to qualify for ADA protections. In a case where an employee was terminated for not meeting weight guidelines, the court ruled in favor of the employer because the employee did not show that his weight was related to a physiological disorder. In simpler terms, just being overweight is not considered a disability under the ADA unless it is related to a physiological disorder. A former employee sued his college, claiming he was fired because of his weight. The court said there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the college discriminated against him because of his weight. The person who hired him also decided to fire him, and another person who wanted him fired was also overweight. So, the court said even if the employee was considered disabled because of his weight, that wasn’t the reason he was fired. TL;DR: It’s not okay for employers to discriminate against employees based on their weight, but they can make certain appearance policies as long as they apply them equally to men and women. If someone is obese because of a medical condition, they may be protected by the law. Employers need to make sure their policies are fair for everyone. Private employers can set their own appearance standards, and they can have different rules for men and women. But they need to be fair and consistent with everyone. If they have a dress code or grooming policy, they have to apply it the same way for everyone and have good reasons for it. If they do this, they are less likely to get in trouble with the law. Research has shown that appearance can affect a person’s success, including their income and job opportunities. There are even lawsuits about discrimination based on appearance. In some cases, courts have ruled in favor of the employer, while in others, they have ruled in favor of the employee. In one case, the employee was awarded money for breach of contract.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-beauty-and-the-beast-in-the-workplace-appearance-based-discrimination-claims-under-eeo-laws/
Leave a Reply