Court Of Appeals Ruling On Dreadlocks and Employers

Hi, 

I am unsure if I am posting this in the right section (if not please advise me where to post this), but I recently saw this story circulating and wanted to get some feedback on it from people on this forum as it obviously affects many of us. This link below has more details:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/appeals-court-rules-dreadlocks-work_us_57e0252ae4b0071a6e08a7c3

But essentially there was a ruling done by the US court of appeals that now says that Title IX is no longer a defense for those of us like myself who wear dreads for spiritual reasons. I sincerely hope that some good soul starts a petition or something of that nature to fight this because it is beyond offensive that many people who wear their dreads for reasons other than fashion will be turned down for jobs and now have pretty much no defense, as title IX has been stepped on. 

  “We recognize that the distinction between immutable and mutable characteristics of race can sometimes be a fine (and difficult) one, but it is a line that courts have drawn,” U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan wrote for the most recent ruling . “So, for example, discrimination on the basis of black hair texture (an immutable characteristic) is prohibited by Title VII, while adverse action on the basis of black hairstyle (a mutable choice) is not.”

" The commission filed a lawsuit  on Jones’ behalf in 2013, stating that withdrawing her contract based on her hairstyle is racial discrimination because “dreadlocks are a manner of wearing the hair that is physiologically and culturally associated with people of African descent.” The EEOC argued that race is a social construct not solely defined by traits that can’t be changed. It also asserted that the “hairstyle can be a determinant of racial identity.”

So I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this.

Brightest Blessings!

updated by @ravens-light: 03/24/23 04:17:01AM

i featured it can you edit with quoted excerpts if you click <> next to the eye and surround the excerpts in <blockquote> excerpt text </blockquote> that would be cool of ya but if you don't want to bother just include the relevant paragraph or 2

--
My new book Ban The Taboo Vol 1

I went back and edited the post

i see however do not believe that this does violate title IX  as this is about race and cultural identity not spirituality however its equally troubling

if not even more so

well

i'm unsure .. 1 would say the pants below the butt, or even a penis sheaf  and lip disk are racial and cultural identity

i don't get the court ruling that hairstyle can be a detriment to cultural identity

when hairstyles been linked to cultural identities closely

cultural.. not racial

as a race every possible hairstyle there is has been worn by people who were influenced by the many cultures that affect a race

racial hairstyles can only really refer to the texture of the hair  style is more culture then race

--
My new book Ban The Taboo Vol 1

The courts are determining what is mutable vs what isn't. And- Perhaps they didn't consider the fact that certain hair types (course) regardless of race require more work to avoid loc'ing. Not a single human was born with a choice of our hair type. The argument could be creatively rewritten to circumvent and address the reality of style grooming to be the "choice" and mutable issue here. Hair type isn't isolated to race, but is more pronounced in certain genetics which contain higher concentration of particular races. Am I making sense?    

As for spirituality, if a muslim can walk around with head garb protected by "rights", I don't see why other religions can't have the same rights if loc'ing is in their beliefs. I'm certain this issue will be tested again. Hopefully with more liberty to give individuals protection against discrimination.