What Religion Provides For the Right To Wear / involves Wearing DREADLOCKS?

[easyt65]

The Publix Supermarket Chain has a strict employee grooming requirements employees must adhere to. The employee in this story had already been hired but had not started work yet...and then he showed up with dreadlocks, in violation of the chain's grooming requirements / restrictions.

The answer to my question is 'Rastafarian'.
- "The employee is a practicing Rastafarian, a religion in which subscribers use dreadlocks to distinguish themselves from non-Rastas."

The employee offered to wear his hair up in a hat, but management declined his proposed compromise. So now the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Publix Supermarket chain.


SO THE 'MEAT' OF THE DISCUSSION IS THIS:

WHERE DOES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM / LIBERTY BEGIN AND END IN CASES INVOLVING BUSINESSES?

American citizens have a right to 'Religious Freedom'; yet...

In one case American business owners were sued for refusing to provide a service due to their religious beliefs.
-- Religious Freedom / Rights / Belief LOSES out.

In this case a business is being sued for discriminating against a person's religious beliefs, being told they can not have any company policies / rules that may go against the religious beliefs of the employees they hire.
- Religious Freedom / Rights / Beliefs WIN out.

(*** One could argue that Publix erred when they hired the individual before making it clear and getting him to acknowledge and agree to comply with the company's grooming requirements ... but I would be willing to bet that if the employee had been denied a job with Publix over his dreadlocks we would still be seeing a lawsuit over discrimination of his religious beliefs.)

Supermarket chain sued for religious discrimination for requiring employee to cut dreadlocks

 

[Eaglewings]

The Publix Supermarket Chain has a strict employee grooming requirements employees must adhere to. The employee in this story had already been hired but had not started work yet...and then he showed up with dreadlocks, in violation of the chain's grooming requirements / restrictions.

The answer to my question is 'Rastafarian'.
- "The employee is a practicing Rastafarian, a religion in which subscribers use dreadlocks to distinguish themselves from non-Rastas."

The employee offered to wear his hair up in a hat, but management declined his proposed compromise. So now the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Publix Supermarket chain.


SO THE 'MEAT' OF THE DISCUSSION IS THIS:

WHERE DOES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM / LIBERTY BEGIN AND END IN CASES INVOLVING BUSINESSES?

American citizens have a right to 'Religious Freedom'; yet...

In one case American business owners were sued for refusing to provide a service due to their religious beliefs.
-- Religious Freedom / Rights / Belief LOSES out.

In this case a business is being sued for discriminating against a person's religious beliefs, being told they can not have any company policies / rules that may go against the religious beliefs of the employees they hire.
- Religious Freedom / Rights / Beliefs WIN out.

(*** One could argue that Publix erred when they hired the individual before making it clear and getting him to acknowledge and agree to comply with the company's grooming requirements ... but I would be willing to bet that if the employee had been denied a job with Publix over his dreadlocks we would still be seeing a lawsuit over discrimination of his religious beliefs.)

Supermarket chain sued for religious discrimination for requiring employee to cut dreadlocks

This confusion should have been dealt with at the time of his interview. I am sure that he didn't grow those dreadlocks overnight.

.

 

[easyt65]

This confusion should have been dealt with at the time of his interview. I am sure that he didn't grow those dreadlocks overnight. .

Agreed...which leads back to my 'pondering':

Had Publix made it clear to him that he could not have the job unless he cut his dreadlocks, do you think he would have still sued Publix for religious discrimination?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Only one question. Was wearing the hat a reasonable accommodation?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Publix Supermarket Chain has a strict employee grooming requirements employees must adhere to. The employee in this story had already been hired but had not started work yet...and then he showed up with dreadlocks, in violation of the chain's grooming requirements / restrictions.

The answer to my question is 'Rastafarian'.
- "The employee is a practicing Rastafarian, a religion in which subscribers use dreadlocks to distinguish themselves from non-Rastas."

The employee offered to wear his hair up in a hat, but management declined his proposed compromise. So now the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Publix Supermarket chain.


SO THE 'MEAT' OF THE DISCUSSION IS THIS:

WHERE DOES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM / LIBERTY BEGIN AND END IN CASES INVOLVING BUSINESSES?

American citizens have a right to 'Religious Freedom'; yet...

In one case American business owners were sued for refusing to provide a service due to their religious beliefs.
-- Religious Freedom / Rights / Belief LOSES out.

In this case a business is being sued for discriminating against a person's religious beliefs, being told they can not have any company policies / rules that may go against the religious beliefs of the employees they hire.
- Religious Freedom / Rights / Beliefs WIN out.

(*** One could argue that Publix erred when they hired the individual before making it clear and getting him to acknowledge and agree to comply with the company's grooming requirements ... but I would be willing to bet that if the employee had been denied a job with Publix over his dreadlocks we would still be seeing a lawsuit over discrimination of his religious beliefs.)

Supermarket chain sued for religious discrimination for requiring employee to cut dreadlocks

Here's the confusion, and the error that led to it:

The business owners were sued for discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is prohibited by law. It doesn't matter why they did it. Religion, neurosis, having a bad day, it doesn't matter.

 

[OldLady]

The Publix Supermarket Chain has a strict employee grooming requirements employees must adhere to. The employee in this story had already been hired but had not started work yet...and then he showed up with dreadlocks, in violation of the chain's grooming requirements / restrictions.

The answer to my question is 'Rastafarian'.
- "The employee is a practicing Rastafarian, a religion in which subscribers use dreadlocks to distinguish themselves from non-Rastas."

The employee offered to wear his hair up in a hat, but management declined his proposed compromise. So now the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Publix Supermarket chain.


SO THE 'MEAT' OF THE DISCUSSION IS THIS:

WHERE DOES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM / LIBERTY BEGIN AND END IN CASES INVOLVING BUSINESSES?

American citizens have a right to 'Religious Freedom'; yet...

In one case American business owners were sued for refusing to provide a service due to their religious beliefs.
-- Religious Freedom / Rights / Belief LOSES out.

In this case a business is being sued for discriminating against a person's religious beliefs, being told they can not have any company policies / rules that may go against the religious beliefs of the employees they hire.
- Religious Freedom / Rights / Beliefs WIN out.

(*** One could argue that Publix erred when they hired the individual before making it clear and getting him to acknowledge and agree to comply with the company's grooming requirements ... but I would be willing to bet that if the employee had been denied a job with Publix over his dreadlocks we would still be seeing a lawsuit over discrimination of his religious beliefs.)

Supermarket chain sued for religious discrimination for requiring employee to cut dreadlocks

Orthodox Jews who are forbidden to ever shave their beards might have a similar problem. My solution? If you need your dreadlocks for religious reasons, don't apply for a job somewhere with strict hygiene-based rules.
I was at my local diner one morning; sitting at the next table was a group of young people including a guy with dreadlocks so filthy and skanky it took my appetite away. I'm pretty good at ignoring, but man, those were just crawly. In a business whose sole purpose is selling FOOD, I can certainly understand that rule.

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, Yes, There Were Radicals In The 1930`s, His Name Is Tafari Makonnen Woldemikael, Born In All Places, Ethiopia in July 23 1892! Changed name to Haile Selassie I as King of Ethiopia in 1930, he was seen as the second coming of Christ, but changed his name many times? If Haile Selassie I was the messiah. he kept it very quiet. He himself always denied being a reincarnation of Jesus. As you can see below, picture of Haile Selassie, no dreadlocks, by the way, the Religion was born in the Ghetto`s of Jamaica, let the truth be told!!! The Religion In My View, Is A Black Ghetto Thing In America, Most Don`t Know Why Or How About The Religion, Just An Excuse To Smoke Weed!!! In The Religion, Most Don`t Smoke Weed, So It Says A Lot About The Ones Who Do Smoke!!!

My Opinion? Dreadlocks Is A Jamaican Thing, And In America? A Ghetto Thing!!!

"GTP"
"The Ghetto"

 

[Syriusly]

The Publix Supermarket Chain has a strict employee grooming requirements employees must adhere to. The employee in this story had already been hired but had not started work yet...and then he showed up with dreadlocks, in violation of the chain's grooming requirements / restrictions.

The answer to my question is 'Rastafarian'.
- "The employee is a practicing Rastafarian, a religion in which subscribers use dreadlocks to distinguish themselves from non-Rastas."

The employee offered to wear his hair up in a hat, but management declined his proposed compromise. So now the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Publix Supermarket chain.


SO THE 'MEAT' OF THE DISCUSSION IS THIS:

WHERE DOES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM / LIBERTY BEGIN AND END IN CASES INVOLVING BUSINESSES?

American citizens have a right to 'Religious Freedom'; yet...

In one case American business owners were sued for refusing to provide a service due to their religious beliefs.
-- Religious Freedom / Rights / Belief LOSES out.

In this case a business is being sued for discriminating against a person's religious beliefs, being told they can not have any company policies / rules that may go against the religious beliefs of the employees they hire.
- Religious Freedom / Rights / Beliefs WIN out.

(*** One could argue that Publix erred when they hired the individual before making it clear and getting him to acknowledge and agree to comply with the company's grooming requirements ... but I would be willing to bet that if the employee had been denied a job with Publix over his dreadlocks we would still be seeing a lawsuit over discrimination of his religious beliefs.)

Supermarket chain sued for religious discrimination for requiring employee to cut dreadlocks

Employment law pretty much comes down to whether or not an employer can make a reasonable accommodation for religious practices.

Which is why 'reasonable accommodation' is mentioned twice in the artice:

“Usher told the manager he could not cut his hair because of his religion and asked if he could wear his hair in a hat,” the EEOC said in a statement. “Management refused to allow the hat or any other reasonable accommodation, and he was forced to quit before his first day of work.”

“At Publix, we value and appreciate the diversity of all of our associates. We work to provide environments where known religious beliefs and practices of our associates and applicants are reasonably accommodated,” the statement said.

Employers have to comply with the EEOC regulations. Companies have to comply with business laws, including laws that prohibit discrimination against customers.

Frankly I don't know how Publix will win this one- a hair net or a hat would seem like a reasonable accommodation to me.

 

[Syriusly]

This confusion should have been dealt with at the time of his interview. I am sure that he didn't grow those dreadlocks overnight. .

Agreed...which leads back to my 'pondering':

Had Publix made it clear to him that he could not have the job unless he cut his dreadlocks, do you think he would have still sued Publix for religious discrimination?

Wouldn't have mattered under the law.

Seems odd that they would have hired him without noticing the dreads though- and having that discussion at the time.

 

[monkrules]

This confusion should have been dealt with at the time of his interview. I am sure that he didn't grow those dreadlocks overnight. .

Agreed...which leads back to my 'pondering':

Had Publix made it clear to him that he could not have the job unless he cut his dreadlocks, do you think he would have still sued Publix for religious discrimination?

Wouldn't have mattered under the law.

Seems odd that they would have hired him without noticing the dreads though- and having that discussion at the time.

If he looked weird at his interview they shouldn't have hired him.

No need to bring up his religious shit, that always opens a can of worms.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The Publix Supermarket Chain has a strict employee grooming requirements employees must adhere to. The employee in this story had already been hired but had not started work yet...and then he showed up with dreadlocks, in violation of the chain's grooming requirements / restrictions.

The answer to my question is 'Rastafarian'.
- "The employee is a practicing Rastafarian, a religion in which subscribers use dreadlocks to distinguish themselves from non-Rastas."

The employee offered to wear his hair up in a hat, but management declined his proposed compromise. So now the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Publix Supermarket chain.


SO THE 'MEAT' OF THE DISCUSSION IS THIS:

WHERE DOES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM / LIBERTY BEGIN AND END IN CASES INVOLVING BUSINESSES?

American citizens have a right to 'Religious Freedom'; yet...

In one case American business owners were sued for refusing to provide a service due to their religious beliefs.
-- Religious Freedom / Rights / Belief LOSES out.

In this case a business is being sued for discriminating against a person's religious beliefs, being told they can not have any company policies / rules that may go against the religious beliefs of the employees they hire.
- Religious Freedom / Rights / Beliefs WIN out.

(*** One could argue that Publix erred when they hired the individual before making it clear and getting him to acknowledge and agree to comply with the company's grooming requirements ... but I would be willing to bet that if the employee had been denied a job with Publix over his dreadlocks we would still be seeing a lawsuit over discrimination of his religious beliefs.)

Supermarket chain sued for religious discrimination for requiring employee to cut dreadlocks

I don't see religious implication but now we're arguing a normal hairstyle as a resin to fire someone? GTFO