Here at the Law Office of Vincent Miletti, Esq. and the home of the #UnusuallyMotivated movement, we take pride as a resilient and dependable legal services firm, providing such services in both a traditional and online, web-based environment. With mastered specialization in areas such as Employment and Labor Law, Intellectual Property (IP) (trademark, copyright, patent), Entertainment Law, and e-Commerce (Supply Chain, Distribution, Fulfillment, Standard Legal & Regulatory), we provide a range of legal services including, but not limited to traditional legal representation (litigation, mediation, arbitration, opinion letters and advisory), non-litigated business legal representation and legal counsel, and unique, online legal services such as smart forms, mobile training, legal marketing and development.

Still, we, here at Miletti Law®, feel obligated to enlighten, educate, and create awareness, free of charge, about how these issues and many others affect our unusually motivated® readers and/or their businesses. Accordingly, in order to achieve this goal, we have committed ourselves to creating authoritative, trustworthy & distinctive content, which looks to not only educate, but also deliver in a manner that only Miletti Law® can. Usually, this content is featured as videos that are posted on our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtvUryqkkMAJLwrLu2BBt6w and blogs that are published on our website WWW.MILETTILAW.COM. With that, the ball is in your court and you have an effortless obligation to subscribe to the channel and sign up for the Newsletter on the website, which encompasses the best way to ensure that you stay in the loop and benefit from the knowledge bombs that we drop here!

Here at Miletti Law®, we are the authoritative force in Employment and Labor Law. Therefore, we are committed to the continued updating of our series on employment & labor law with fresh, verifiable, and credible content. In that spirit, this blog is Part X of our series on “Religious Accommodation Requirements.” We have been, since Part I of this series, talking about the obligation of the employer to provide the employee or applicant with a reasonable accommodation. However, Title VII does not require the employer to provide accommodation that imposes an undue hardship on the employer’s business operations. The concept of undue hardship was defined and explored in Part VII of this series, which is accessible at https://milettilaw.com/blog/f/what-is-undue-hardship-in-religious-accommodation. Accordingly, as promised in Part IX of this series, this blog covers “Personal Appearance & Grooming Policies,” which is another type of undue hardship that may be faced by an employer, as well an overview of current status of the law as it regards “Hairstyle Discrimination.”

Personal Appearance & Grooming Policies

Title VII does not usually oblige employers to provide employees with exemptions to personal appearance and grooming policies for employee’s religious beliefs. It has been recognized by courts that, in order to present a workforce that is reasonably professional in appearance to clients or customers, employers have a legitimate interest to uphold grooming standards for employees interacting with clients or customers regularly in the employers’ service to the public. Examples of cases where courts upheld employer decisions to not provide exemptions to personal appearance and grooming policies for employee’s religious beliefs include:

EEOC v. Sambo’s of Ga., Inc., 530 F. Supp. 86, 91 (N.D. Ga. 1981). After a Sikh employee’s application for the position of a general manager was declined by an employer (a restaurant), the Sikh employee brought a claim that the employer failed to provide him with an exemption to personal appearance and grooming policies, which would allow him to keep his beard as required by his religion. However, since such an exemption violated the employer’s policy regarding managerial employees’ grooming standards, the court ruled that one bona fide qualification for a restaurant’s manager is being clean-shaved. Considering changes in personal grooming standards that have taken place over the decade, it is doubtful whether courts would make the same ruling.

Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126, 134-37 (1st Cir. 2004). In this case, an employee and a member of the Church of Body Modification brought a claim that her employer, a retailer, had refused to allow her to wear facial jewelry as required by her religion. However, the court affirmed the employer’s decision based on the retailer’s right public image control, since the employee’s request violated the employer’s personal appearance policy that prohibited all facial jewelry.

Hussein v. Waldorf Astoria, 134 F. Supp. 2d 591, 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In this case, an employee (a banquet waiter) brought a claim against his employer (a hotel), after the employer denied him the exemption and right to keep a noticeable beard during a given shift as required by his Muslim religion. However, the court affirmed the employer’s decision not to accommodate this employee since the exemption would have violated the hotel’s policy that its employees should not keep a beard.

As we have discussed in past blogs published in this series, it is the duty of employers to engage employees in interactive processes when considering a reasonable accommodation (one that would eliminate the conflict with the employee’s religious beliefs), especially when dealing with personal appearance and grooming policies. However, it is crucial to note that there may be different requirements under many state laws. For instance, as provided for in clause N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(10)(a), employers are required by the New York State Human Rights Law to provide employees with reasonable accommodations with regards to facial hair, clothing, or any attire as per employees’ religious beliefs. In some in instances, it might be possible to eliminate such conflicts and reasonably accommodate employees and yet comply with personal appearance and grooming policies specific to a given employer.

Hairstyle Discrimination

While they could now be a source of religious accommodation claims, hairstyle laws that typically concerns race have been added in several states that include New York, California, Colorado, Virginia, New Jersey. Starting with our own Jerusalem, New York has, through the executive order N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(37), included traits historically associated with race such as hair style and hair texture, as part of the definition of race in the state’s amendment of the New York State Human Rights Law. Similarly, as provided for under the directive N.J. Stat. § 10:5-5(vv), (ww), New Jersey now specifies protected hairstyles such as twists, locks, and braids in the state’s recently incorporated CROWN (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair) Act.

As the last blog of this series, Part XI will be concerned with “Additional Key Discrimination and Religious Accommodation Issues” that affect both employers and employees, as it concerns religious accommodation.

Until then, stay tuned for more legal guidance, training, and counsel. In the interim, reach us with questions or comments on our website at the Contact Us page!

Always rising above the bar,

Isaac T.,

Legal Writer & Author.