I worked for a McDonald's in Florida and white men were reqired to have their hair neatly trimmed and be cleaned shaven while several others (in a different protected class were not. Management even went as far as to force this one white male to go out and buy a straight razor and shave in the bathroom or go home. I've been told that my hair was to remain above the collar and be neatly trimmed (I didn't argue, the next day I got a hair cut). Meanwhile they have one non white (sorry I'm groping for a politically correct way to write this) who hasn't cut his hair in the year he's been there. Other minorities have goatees and nobody punishes them.

Upon taking this to the EEOC, the reply was "We don't do dress codes."

Understand, I'm not against the dress code--just that its enforced disparately.

Think there's a case?

I worked for a McDonald's in Florida and white men were reqired to have their hair neatly trimmed and be cleaned shaven while several others (in a different protected class were not. Management even went as far as to force this one white male to go out and buy a straight razor and shave in the bathroom or go home. I've been told that my hair was to remain above the collar and be neatly trimmed (I didn't argue, the next day I got a hair cut). Meanwhile they have one non white (sorry I'm groping for a politically correct way to write this) who hasn't cut his hair in the year he's been there. Other minorities have goatees and nobody punishes them.

Upon taking this to the EEOC, the reply was "We don't do dress codes."

Understand, I'm not against the dress code--just that its enforced disparately.

Think there's a case? The protected "CLASS" you speak of would'nt be dark skinned would they? Anyway, the EEOC responded to dress codes...according to your statment. This issue has been around a long time...it is useless to pursue. I say that for this reason. It is not a matter of dress, but a matter of epidermic detriment, for the shaving of the face..that is. As far as the head hair, if for religious reasons than mabey its protected, but i doubt it. Go back to the eeoc again and state your concern.. this time be specific !!!!!

There are both medical and religious reasons for the discrepancy you mention; certain races can have a condition that makes shaving a serious problem, and it is much more likely that races other than Caucasions will have religious reasons for long hair.

You cannot sue without a right to sue letter from the EEOC or your state human rights commission, so talk to one or the other, or both, again, but unless one of the agencies is willing to investigate and issue you such a letter, you're licked before you start.

There are both medical and religious reasons for the discrepancy you mention; certain races can have a condition that makes shaving a serious problem, and it is much more likely that races other than Caucasions will have religious reasons for long hair.

You cannot sue without a right to sue letter from the EEOC or your state human rights commission, so talk to one or the other, or both, again, but unless one of the agencies is willing to investigate and issue you such a letter, you're licked before you start. Thanks for the clarity CBG,

EEOC can't refuse to take your charge, but they can refuse to process it or investigate it. The value in accepting your charge is that when they dismiss it they will issue you a notice of right to sue that will allow you to proceed into federal district court. I'm not recommending that you do that based on your situation. I'm just stating a fact.

I would recommend that should you return to EEOC, you tell them your complaint is that you believe McDonald's is enforcing its dress code disparately based on race.

The protected "CLASS" you speak of would'nt be dark skinned would they? Anyway, the EEOC responded to dress codes...according to your statment. This issue has been around a long time...it is useless to pursue. I say that for this reason. It is not a matter of dress, but a matter of epidermic detriment, for the shaving of the face..that is. As far as the head hair, if for religious reasons than mabey its protected, but i doubt it. Go back to the eeoc again and state your concern.. this time be specific !!!!!


I can understand the epidermic detriment you speak of, but then that's what they make sensitive skin formula shave cream for, right? I mean, there are plenty of products on the market that address that problem.

It's a little more serious than that. The condition I'm thinking of can't be relieved just by changing brands of shaving cream.

Um, no actually. Sensitive skin shave gel doesn't cut it. That's kind of the point. It also doesn't address those who may have religious reasons for not shaving or for wearing the hairstyles that they do. You are not entitled to be informed what religion or what practices have been accommodated.

Unless your religion has a stance on long hair and you were asked to violate it by cutting your hair, and you informed your employer of this fact, it wasn't illegal for them to require that you cut it. It *may* be an issue if management is assuming that all in a particular minority group have a religious reason for not shaving or cutting their hair.

This Case Is Closed For Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Um, no actually. Sensitive skin shave gel doesn't cut it. That's kind of the point. It also doesn't address those who may have religious reasons for not shaving or for wearing the hairstyles that they do. You are not entitled to be informed what religion or what practices have been accommodated.

Unless your religion has a stance on long hair and you were asked to violate it by cutting your hair, and you informed your employer of this fact, it wasn't illegal for them to require that you cut it. It *may* be an issue if management is assuming that all in a particular minority group have a religious reason for not shaving or cutting their hair.

I can see your point and I find it valid. The point where the validation fails is when you have a mixed group of six people not shaving, but your punishing one group of people (by making them go out and get a straight razor and forcing them to shave). Point of clarification: Again, I have nothing against shaving, I do have something against rules being enforced disparitely

None of which changes any of the replies. You cannot sue unless either the EEOC or the state human rights commission issues you a right to sue letter. That is your option. Period.

I think we've squeezed all the juice we can out of this issue.