Facts:
The facts of this issues is that there has been in some cases of hairstyle based discrimination within the work place. Looking at the case of EEOC v. Mims Distributing Company, Inc., in regards to Christopher Alston, an African American man. This case was a hairstyle based discrimination, however it was based on the company not having a policy to addressed hairstyle as a religious practice. The outcome of this case ended with Mims Distributing Company paying $50,000 and adopting a formal religious accommodation policy that will address future issues (Lally, 2015). Another case based on hairstyle discrimination would be Farryn Johnson v. Hooters. Ms. Johnson, an African American was awarded more than $250,000 after an arbitrator found that racial discrimination did in fact contributed to her getting fired (CHUCK, 2015). Hooters prohibits only African-American Hooters Girls from wearing blond highlights in their hair, other women were allowed to wear blond highlight in their hair (CHUCK, 2015). Johnson was told by the manager that blond streaks didn 't look natural on African Americans (CHUCK, 2015). However, on the other hand cases that are similar to Chasity Jones, an African American woman, who was initially hired to work for Catastrophe Management Systems but notified later that the job was withdrawn because of her hairstyle, which were dreadlocks, was not found guilty of discrimination (Wellington, 2016). However, every case is not like the other case because
EEOC v. Mims Distributing Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:14-CV-00538
1. Who were the parties to the lawsuit? How were they related?
The parties in this lawsuit are: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff) and Mims Distributing Company, Inc (defendant), the EEOC is the plaintiff on behalf of Christopher Alston (Lally, 2015). Christopher Alston was a potential employee of the Mims Distributing Company, Inc.
2. What was the nature of the issue in the suit?
The nature of this