2020Directory_FNL_FlippingBook

NYC BANS HAIR DISCRIMINATION

2020 MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY & SERVICES GUIDE HOT TOPICS

Dress codes and appearance policies are important tools that dealers can use to set expectations about the dealership’s image, culture, and goals. For example, dealers can prohibit piercings and tattoos to project a professional image to clients, but only if done so in a consistent manner. Notably, if an employee asserts a religious basis for a piercing or tattoo,

an exception must be granted depending on whether the request for an exception is based on a sincerely held religious belief and, if so, whether allowing the exception would create an undue hardship to the dealer. Recent developments highlight how important it is for employers to protect themselves from discrimination claims while protecting the rights of their employees. In New York City, employers can no longer ask employees to change their hairstyle after guidance from the NYC Commission on Human Rights banned the practice in February 2019. Although the ban speaks to hair in general, it is clear from the examples provided by the City that the impetus for the legislation was perceived discrimination against people of color. Examples of such policies include employers who previously asked employees to chemically straighten their hair, limit the size of their hair, or take other steps to change their hair from anything natural or closely associated to their identity. The guidance states that forcing employees to change their hairstyle is perceived as a form of racism and, therefore, prohibited under New York City Human Rights Law. Examples of discrimination on the basis of hair include: • An employer asking a person of color to change their hairstyle from one that is considered natural or closely associated with their identity, such as twists or braids, to one that conforms to the company’s appearance standards. • An employer banning hair that extends a certain number of inches from the scalp, thereby limiting Afros, or requiring people of color to straighten or relax their hair. • An employer forcing people of color to obtain a supervisor’s permission before changing their hairstyle, but not requiring the same from other people. • An employer refusing to hire a person of color with a hairstyle closely associated with their identity, such as cornrows, because their hairstyle does not fit the “image”the employer is trying to project for sales representatives. Additionally, employers cannot use a health or safety concern as a way to ask their workers to change a hairstyle. Instead, employers must exhaust every other possible alternative before imposing a ban or restriction. Alternatives can include hairnets, ties, and other options. Dealers should review their existing grooming and appearance policies to eliminate any policy that may violate this recent guidance interpreting the city human rights law.

64

Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs