New York City just banned discrimination based on hairstyles

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
bilateralrope
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4219
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

New York City just banned discrimination based on hairstyles

Post by bilateralrope » 2019-02-19 10:59pm

Now employers, schools and clubs that discriminate against natural hair and styles like afros, cornrows and dreadlocks can get a $250,000 fine.
New Yorkers can no longer be forced to have “professional” hair — whatever that means.

They now have the legal right to wear their locks in locs — or au naturale, or styled in afros, cornrows, dreadlocks, twists, braids, Bantu knots and other ‘dos at work, in school, as well as in fitness clubs and nightclubs, under new regulations issued by the New York City Commission on Human Rights on Monday.

And any grooming or appearance policies that ban natural hair or hairstyles can be subject to a $250,000 fine.

The new guidelines are believed to be the first in the U.S. to highlight the hair discrimination and the bias against natural and textured hairstyles that disproportionately affects black people. The Marines approved braid, twist and “lock” (often spelled loc) hairstyles in 2015, and the Army reversed its ban on cornrows and dreadlocks for women in 2017.

“Such policies are rooted in and perpetuate racist notions of what is considered ‘professional’ or ‘appropriate’ in the workplace and public spaces and are violations of the NYC Human Rights Law,” the NYC Commission on Human Rights explained in its press release. The commission is also investigating seven cases involving discrimination based on natural hair or hairstyles, which include black employees “being forced to wear their braided hair up when employees of other ethnicities can wear their long styles down; being fired for wearing her natural hair down; and being told that locs are unacceptable and unclean, and being forced to change her hair as a condition of employment.”

This comes after several high-profile cases of students being sent home from school or disciplined for their hair that have sparked nationwide outrage.

A 6-year-old in Hewitt, Texas was ordered to cut his locs over winter break before being allowed to return to school last month. His mother, writer T.L. Browning, shared the letter sent by Spring Valley Elementary School on Twitter, asking, “How does his hair affect his ability to learn?”

Last August, Clinton Stanley and his 6-year-old son Clinton Jr. were turned away from an Apopka, Fla. private school on the first grader’s first day because the boy was wearing dreadlocks. “If a kid has dreadlocks, that’s your personal standard,” Stanley told his local WESH 2 News station. “Meaning, that’s a personal problem you haven’t overcome, because 95% of the kids who have dreadlocks are African American.”

Former Jackson, Miss. news anchor Brittany Noble Jones has alleged that she was fired from her local news station last year after she began going on the air more often with her natural hair; she was told that Nexstar Broadcasting’s company policy stated that talent could not have “shaggy, unkempt” hair on the air. (The network told “Today” that it “vigorously denied” the accusations, and that Jones was axed over excessive absenteeism.)

And last fall, a woman working at LA Fitness in Sidell, La. claimed she was fired over her hair — a supervisor allegedly sent her a text stating that her hair did not “meet LA Fitness standards in a fro,” adding, “we want a classy appearance.”

NFL player Colin Kaepernick has been called out for his afro, as well as for kneeling during the national anthem to protest the treatment of minorities in the U.S. Michael Vick suggested that Kaepernick “cut his hair” and “try to be presentable” if he wants to ever get signed with another NFL team.

Former “Fox News” host Bill O’Reilly was criticized in 2017 after saying he wasn’t listening to Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters of California because of her hair. “I was looking at the James Brown wig,” he said.

And in 2015, former “Fashion Police” host Giuliana Rancic was slammed for saying that the dreads Zendaya, then 18, wore to the Oscars probably smelled of “patchouli” and “weed.”

“Policies that limit the ability to wear natural hair or hairstyles associated with black people aren’t about ‘neatness’ or ‘professionalism;’ they are about limiting the way black people move through workplaces, public spaces and other settings,” said NYC Human Rights Commissioner and Chair Carmelyn P. Malalis in a written statement. “This new legal enforcement guidance will help school administrators, employers, and providers of public accommodations to understand that black New Yorkers have the right to wear their hair however they choose without fear of stigma or retaliation.”

NYC First Lady Chirlane McCray added on Twitter that, “Bias against the curly textured hair of people of African descent is as old as this country and a form of race-based discrimination.”

One in five black women told the Perception Institute that they feel social pressure to straighten their hair for work; twice as many as white women. What’s more, a majority of participants in the 2017 study, regardless of race, showed implicit bias against textured hair. Black women in the study also reported suffering more anxiety around their hair, and they spent more on hair care and styling products than white women did. In fact, Nielsen reported last fall that black consumers spent $473 million on hair care.

But despite black shoppers’ spending power, the Perception Institute noted that bias against their hair is still strong. For example, hair products servicing natural and textured hair are often housed in the “ethnic” section of stores, while those for straight and smooth hair are stocked in the “beauty” section.

But the natural hair movement continues to grow. Hair relaxer sales plummeted 38% between 2012 and 2017, according to market research firm Mintel. Half of black women (51%) also told the 2018 Mintel report that their current hairstyle makes them feel beautiful, and 40% said they are most likely to wear their hair naturally, with no chemicals or heat styling.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama, who wore her hair straight throughout her eight years in the White House, also appeared on the cover of Essence magazine last year wearing her natural curls.

I expect lots of complaining about "PC going too far" from people who have only read the headline.

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11256
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: New York City just banned discrimination based on hairstyles

Post by Lord Revan » 2019-02-20 04:11am

I dunno maybe I'm just a wierdo, but I think only valid reason to restrict hair styles is if there's a clear objective safety hazzard from using a certain hairstyle, for example having loose long hair when working with machines where said hair could easily get caught in and badly injure or even kill the person.

That said even then it should be applied equally as in all long hairstyles should be banned not just the ones the people giving the ban don't like.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 26608
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: New York City just banned discrimination based on hairstyles

Post by Broomstick » 2019-02-20 04:58am

Agreed.

I've worked with many people with dreadlocks, afros, etc. who I have found to be entirely professional, and such styles when maintained (as they almost always are) are no more untidy/dirty/whatever than other styles. Personally, I find cornrows and 'locks to be far more stylish and tidy than some of the "deliberately messy" styles seem on (predominantly) Caucasian women.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11256
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: New York City just banned discrimination based on hairstyles

Post by Lord Revan » 2019-02-20 05:34am

Broomstick wrote:
2019-02-20 04:58am
Agreed.

I've worked with many people with dreadlocks, afros, etc. who I have found to be entirely professional, and such styles when maintained (as they almost always are) are no more untidy/dirty/whatever than other styles. Personally, I find cornrows and 'locks to be far more stylish and tidy than some of the "deliberately messy" styles seem on (predominantly) Caucasian women.
I think part of the reason is that people don't get that in order to look good "deliberately messy" styles (be they for male, female or both) are very high maintenance. so these people just take as an excuse to be lazy about their grooming. Yes ironically it takes more effort to look like you don't give a shit about grooming and still look good then it takes to have a more "normal" hairstyle.

As I said only when it's matter of safety and objectively so should your hairstyle really matter as long as it's well cared for.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

bilateralrope
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4219
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: New York City just banned discrimination based on hairstyles

Post by bilateralrope » 2019-02-20 06:13am

Lord Revan wrote:
2019-02-20 04:11am
I dunno maybe I'm just a wierdo, but I think only valid reason to restrict hair styles is if there's a clear objective safety hazzard from using a certain hairstyle, for example having loose long hair when working with machines where said hair could easily get caught in and badly injure or even kill the person.

That said even then it should be applied equally as in all long hairstyles should be banned not just the ones the people giving the ban don't like.
You don't even need to ban long hair. Just mandate the use of something to keep it safely contained.

Now if the hairstyle isn't compatible with the hairnet, then we might have a discussion about how much the employer needs to look and pay for another solution before they can ban that hairstyle.

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11256
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: New York City just banned discrimination based on hairstyles

Post by Lord Revan » 2019-02-20 08:03am

bilateralrope wrote:
2019-02-20 06:13am
Lord Revan wrote:
2019-02-20 04:11am
I dunno maybe I'm just a wierdo, but I think only valid reason to restrict hair styles is if there's a clear objective safety hazzard from using a certain hairstyle, for example having loose long hair when working with machines where said hair could easily get caught in and badly injure or even kill the person.

That said even then it should be applied equally as in all long hairstyles should be banned not just the ones the people giving the ban don't like.
You don't even need to ban long hair. Just mandate the use of something to keep it safely contained.

Now if the hairstyle isn't compatible with the hairnet, then we might have a discussion about how much the employer needs to look and pay for another solution before they can ban that hairstyle.
True but that's besides the point, my point was that only valid reason to ban a hairstyles is if causes a clear safety hazzard
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6530
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: New York City just banned discrimination based on hairstyles

Post by Zaune » 2019-02-20 10:29am

Lord Revan wrote:
2019-02-20 04:11am
I dunno maybe I'm just a wierdo, but I think only valid reason to restrict hair styles is if there's a clear objective safety hazzard from using a certain hairstyle, for example having loose long hair when working with machines where said hair could easily get caught in and badly injure or even kill the person.
Easily solved with protective clothing, unless you have an afro so enormous that you have trouble fitting it through a door. It's no harder to fit cornrows or a man-bun under a protective hair-net than it is for a ponytail, and there are "beard-bibs" that serve basically the same purpose for facial hair.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11256
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: New York City just banned discrimination based on hairstyles

Post by Lord Revan » 2019-02-20 12:42pm

Zaune wrote:
2019-02-20 10:29am
Lord Revan wrote:
2019-02-20 04:11am
I dunno maybe I'm just a wierdo, but I think only valid reason to restrict hair styles is if there's a clear objective safety hazzard from using a certain hairstyle, for example having loose long hair when working with machines where said hair could easily get caught in and badly injure or even kill the person.
Easily solved with protective clothing, unless you have an afro so enormous that you have trouble fitting it through a door. It's no harder to fit cornrows or a man-bun under a protective hair-net than it is for a ponytail, and there are "beard-bibs" that serve basically the same purpose for facial hair.
As I stated above it's besides my point, which is that the only and I mean only valid to outright ban any hairstyle would due clear safety reason. The fact that in 99% cases even there a full ban isn't needed only re-enforces the point.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12841
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: New York City just banned discrimination based on hairstyles

Post by Elheru Aran » 2019-02-20 04:50pm

The only problem I have with this legislation is that I can see it being extraordinarily hard to prove. It's similar to many other workplace discrimination rules-- for example, you cannot fire a woman for being pregnant... but you CAN fire her for some made-up pretext that isn't 'because you're pregnant', in most of the US anyway.

If NY isn't a "Right to Work" state, if employers do have to state some reason for firing, then this law is easier to enforce. If however it IS a 'Right to Work' state, where both employers and employees can terminate employment at any time without any given reason, then... that's going to be a problem.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.

User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4790
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: New York City just banned discrimination based on hairstyles

Post by TheFeniX » 2019-02-20 05:46pm

Elheru Aran wrote:
2019-02-20 04:50pm
The only problem I have with this legislation is that I can see it being extraordinarily hard to prove. It's similar to many other workplace discrimination rules-- for example, you cannot fire a woman for being pregnant... but you CAN fire her for some made-up pretext that isn't 'because you're pregnant', in most of the US anyway.
A lot of illegal firing decisions are hard to prove, you can only make it as easy as possible and push employers to not do it out of fear if they DO get caught: they are going to eat it.

I don't have much an opinion on this except to say: the idea that certain people NEED to spend tons on money on hair care to look "acceptable" is pretty damn discriminatory. I'm sure people will/are claiming "PC out of control," but most those guys don't have to worry about coming to work everyday with a "high and tight" haircut that has to be maintained once week (or pick your poison). For myself, I can let my hair go crazy and just trim my sideburns: this gives me almost 6 months between hair appointments. So, it would be easy for me to say "I have no problem keeping myself presentable."
If NY isn't a "Right to Work" state, if employers do have to state some reason for firing, then this law is easier to enforce. If however it IS a 'Right to Work' state, where both employers and employees can terminate employment at any time without any given reason, then... that's going to be a problem.
Even right to work states have their limits. They can lay you off for no reason, but that still means they can't lay you off for any reason. This entitles you to unemployment versus something like getting shitcanned for negligence. This means a company has to weight the cost of unemployment versus them getting their ass kicked in court if they can't prove they fired someone for cause.

The bigger issue is companies just cutting your pay, fucking with your hours, or any other number of things until you quit without good cause or lower your performance to a point they CAN fire you for cause.

Post Reply