A guy got fired at work b/c he had earings in and refused to take them out
Question: If in the policy that you signed when you go hired, it said males couldn’t wear earings. Counld the employer fire you? I think that its discrimination. If females can wear them guys should be able to also. Same difference, right.
Answer: That is gender bias, isn’t it, but is it the illegal kind? Here’s what http://HRMattersBlog.com says about it.
When an employer’s dress code differentiates between male and female employees, the charge often is made that a gender specific requirement constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII). However, generally, the courts do not require that both sexes must follow the exact same rules. Instead, they hold only that both sexes, when in similar situations, should be held to the same general standard. As an example, you might say that all office employees with customer contact (regardless of sex) must present a well-groomed, professional appearance. The standard is consistent but the actual rules may accommodate sex-based differences, such as different hair lengths. It is a well-settled principle of law that dress requirements that reflect current social norms typically have been upheld, even when they affect only one sex. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined thirty years ago in Carroll v. Talman Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 604 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 929 (1980) that employers do not have to apply identical dress or grooming standards to men and women when the differences are justified by social norms. Applying the same logic, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found, in Fountain v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 555 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1977), that a grocery chain did not violate Title VII because it required only male employees to wear a tie. Also, in the same vein, policies prohibiting male employees from wearing earrings, but allowing women to wear them, generally have been upheld. For example, the court in Kleinsorge v. Eyeland Corp., 81 FEP Cases 1601 (E.D. Pa.), aff’d 251 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2000), found that minor differences in personal appearance codes that reflect customary modes of grooming do not constitute sex discrimination. Therefore, the employer’s request that a male employee not wear earrings, when female employees were allowed to so, did not violate Title VII. http://www.hrmattersblog.com/dress-code/dress-codes-can-be-different-for-men-and-women/
Find A Lawyer Are you dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, work injuries, wrongful termination or other problems at work that you know are wrong and need them to stop? Click here to search LegalMatch. Act now to get a consultation with qualified employment law attorney in your area before it's too late to file a claim.
6 Responses to A guy got fired at work b/c he had earings in and refused to take them out
This is just another example of the Old School Companies that for no reason at all want men to be men, not pussies.
Nope. They can decide standards of dress, and earrings are part of the dress code. This is discrimination, BUT this is legal discrimination compared to illegal discrimination such as on the basis of age. Sorry, but courts are going to rule in their favor on this.
They can fire you at anytime for anything regardless. Sign a piece of paper about earings…. they ask someone to sign something to just put to rest any discrimination thing.
So this guy wanted his job right? Well he could have just taken them out…… done and over.
Yes it could be viewed as discrimination in a way but businesses have considerations. Usually it is when people come in contact with customers. The same often applies with women having large earings, too much makeup, etc.
A company has to view it this way. Its bad for business. Those who spend money (and by and large those who are succesfull) don’t have have earings or tats. On a man it is viewed as why would a man hobble his future and need such things to make a statement to stand out…… instead of just character. So basically (right or not) earings are seen as offensive and unmanly by a large segment of the population… young or not.
Yes I totally agree that it is discrimination in a way as that person could be awesome at their job regardless. I would be considered successful but my but is not tight. Most people are not.
Point is that future is key…. not earrings. Do what you will but be able to clean up and not have old holes years later as in society there will be discrimination years later even.
If you live in an "at will" state, you can quit for any reason, and an employer can fire you for any reason.
They told him to take the ear rings out, he didn’t, that was their reason.
Yes, it is discrimination. No, it is not the same difference. Employers are premitted to set standards for dress and behavior in their organizations. Yes, the individual can be fired for ignoring or refusing to comply with a policy he agreed to when hired. Cases like this have been tried before and are usually lost. However, you might want to check your state statutes. If you live in a very progressive state you may have rights that add to those the feds have extablished.
This is not a question of rights. This is a question of contract. If he signed a paper stating that he was aware of the policy that males could not wear earrings, and he wore them anyway, then legally he can be fired. Again, this is not a moral question, or a question of right or wrong. Strictly legally, he can be fired for violating a policy that he was aware of. Sorry.