Fedex : Dreadlocks, And Religious Beliefs

leaders should have guidelines for the students as to what is and what is not appropriate clothing

To some, arguing over student dress code seems trivial and useless. To others, it goes deeper than that. Dress code might seem like the typical “first world problem”, but to the average high school student, gaining the freedom ‘no dress code’ grants is incredible. The fact of the matter is, the rigid enforcement of student dress code has gone too far in today 's society and dehumanizes us as citizens. Although school dress code attempts to promote modesty and protection, it also reinforces gender inequality, smothers individualism, is unconstitutional, and should not be enforced in public schools.

When in the course of life events it becomes necessary for students to protest against dress code. Students should have the right to wear any type of attire they desire to because it is a form of expressing their individuality.

* Dignity. Maintain the individuals’ dignity. By closing the door and curtains when they are getting dress.

You have raised some great points as to J.C. encounter of unlawful religious discrimination. As you said J.C. tried to compromise with his employer by packing or wearing his dreads in a neat and professional matter. But as a result his employer refused which resulted in J.C. losing his job. I agree with your analysis that the company's actions toward J.C. is violation of Title VII. However I also believe that it is a violation of his first amendment right. As a citizen of this so called great land, we are allowed to practice our religion and face no form of discrimination. This case not only describes a violation against Title VII but also the first amendment

“Hey you, with the short dress, come with me to the office!” The amount of times this demanding dialogue is heard by a high school student, barked by an administrator, is abundant without measure. School dress codes are getting completely out of hand. Students everyday are getting sent home frequently too much, distracting them from their main purpose which is to learn. which is to learn. in attending school, to learn. Girls are unable to wear dresses, that they attend church with to school, without receiving disciplinary actions from an administrator. Boys are unable to wear tank tops or inappropriate graphic tees, but with all these regulations, there is a fine and very vague line, of what is appropriate and what is not. The time wasted,

How does somebodies attire effects other people’s judgments of them? More specifically, how does attire of women influences others judgments? These are questions that take root from evolving problems in the world today. It is hard to give an honest answer because it is an opinionated argument. However, appropriate attire policies is a growing problem for society, there is a growing demand for equality in male and female attire. The argument is expressed in an article written by Laura Bates called, “How School Dress Codes Shame Girls and Perpetuate Rape Culture”. The problem is that women are expected to dress in a way that is socially acceptable. Socially acceptable means that, females must dress in a way that protects and covers the female anatomy. This argument that Bates explains, expresses a pathos appeal because you are allowed to understand the point of view of those who have been victimized by dress codes. The article also gives an ethos appeal because the article makes a person question their morale value. Questioning whether dress codes are equal or unjust and sexist. Reading the argumentative peace it is obvious that Bates stands against sexist dress codes.

Although many companies set dress codes, proper training should take place explaining the need for possible exceptions due to necessary accommodations, especially for management (Durant, 2017). While a grooming policy is instituted for various reasons, such as safety, professional image, as well as avoidance of inappropriate employee choices, modifications must be considered for religious beliefs or disability needs unless that accommodation puts undue hardship on the company (Bernardin & Russell, 2013). Loss of customers due to their concern over the appearance of an employee is not considered a hardship. In fact, the Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie reiterated that Title VII requires that “favored treatment”, not just neutrality” should prevail when a religious belief clashes with the employer dress and grooming policies (King, 2016). Likewise, an employer’s perception that customers may have a problem with a certain look, is not a valid reason that a person is not hired. In most cases, if the company reasonably should have known that a particular part of an applicant’s appearance is due to a religious belief, even if the applicant does not address the issue, the company is still held to the standard of accommodation. One possible exception to that “should have known” rule may be if the

As a practicing Muslim Elauf wore her hijab to the interview. During the interview neither Elauf or the interviewer Heather Cooke, the assistant store manager, mentioned the hijab or anything else related to Elauf’s religion. Upon completion of the interview it was determined by Cooke that Elauf was a good candidate for employment. Even though she was deemed fit for the position, Cooke was worried that Elauf’s hijab would violate the company’s Look Policy. Abercrombie’s Look Policy includes a strict “no caps” guideline. Cooke’s concern led her to ask both her store manager and district manager. Cooke then alluded to her superiors that she believed Elauf wore a hijab for religious reasons. It was at this point that Cooke was instructed not to hire Elauf because her hijab violated their policy. The EEOC, on behalf of Elauf, brought a suit against Abercrombie & Fitch Inc., for their alleged violation of Title VII. While the district court found in favour of Elauf, awarding her $20,000 in damages, the Tenth Circuit court reversed this decision. They did so claiming that for an employer to be held liable the applicant must request or discuss the accommodation that they are seeking to provide the actual knowledge of said

In regards to the Critical Thinking case study “Are Dreadlocks Protected under Title VII?” Fed Ex employee Christopher Polk should not be allowed to wear dreadlocks (Bethel University, 2017). Title VII Civil Rights Acts of 1964 gleaned from the Department of Justice website, explains Title VII makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone based on race, color, national origin, or sex. This includes females who are pregnant, gender identity, and religion (Justice.gov, n.d.). Interestingly, Title VII states that by refusal or failure to reasonably accommodate an individual’s “sincerely” held religious observances or practices violate one’s civil rights. (Justice.gov, n.d.). Additionally, in the article “No Dreadlocks Allowed”

In order to establish a prime facie case of failure to reasonable accommodate religion, Mrs. Cloutier has to demonstrate: a sincere religious belief that conflicts with the dress code policy, that Cotsco was informed on the conflicting belief and the policy, and that she suffered an adverse employment outcome due the religious belief. (p.332)

The case involving Mr. Polk and FED-EX is a complicated case. Typically, an employer can prohibit certain hair styles as they are considered cosmetic in nature. Hairstyles being included in a company’s grooming policy may be related to safety concerns, customer interaction concerns or other employer hardships. At the beginning of Mr. Polk’s employment, the policy was not an issue as Mr. Polk was not engaged in religious behaviors that impacted the grooming policy. However, Mr. Polk’s persuade an alternative religious belief than when he started his employment. He became engaged in the religious beliefs imposed by the Rastafarians, as is his civil right under the First Amendment of the Constitution. The issues here are not Mr. Polk’s right to practice Rastafarian religion. It is how its culture and beliefs imposed on the grooming policy at FED-Ex where Mr. Polk was employed. When this religious belief imposed against the grooming policy of FED-Ex, it was Mr. Polk’s responsibility to bring it before the attention of his employer as in the case Lord Osunfarian Xodus v.

Yes, I do believe that others should be able to violate grooming policy based on religion beliefs. Reason being an organization or business should be able accommodate any employee needs when it comes down to respecting any religion preference. But when reading the article regarding Mr. Polk dreadlocks, it sounds like this is something that he decided to do while working for FedEx. It doesn’t sound like he was a Rastafarian before working for FedEx. However Mr. Polk knew before becoming Rastafarian that there were guidelines regarding grooming. Before, Mr. Polk decided to make a decision to grow out his dreadlocks it was his responsibility as a staff member to change his religion preference and discuss his change of hair. We as employees staff

It will be important for the managers to enforce the policy, identify potential legal issues, and work with employees for accomodations. If the dress code conflicts with an employee’s religious practices, modification of the dress code must be considered unless it results in undue hardship (Bernadine & Russell, 2012). FedEx is a company that delivers more than 12 million packages per day and employ’s 170,000 team members (FedEx, 2016). Therefore, the importance of a reasonable grooming policy is far reaching in the representation of the company and what image it portrays. The grooming policy should reflect the legal compliance of the company’s views and not the subjective reactions of the

Due to Sonia’s religious beliefs management should understand and accommodate Sonia’s personal choice for attire. Because Sonia’s attire does not impose undue hardship on the organization’s legitimate business interests, there is no reason not to allow Sonia’s attire in the work place. In order to prove undue hardship an employer must be able to prove that any accommodation would require more than ordinary business costs, diminish efficiency in other jobs, impair workplace safety, infringe on the rights and benefits of other employees, cause other coworkers to carry the burden of the accommodated employee’s hazardous or burdensome work, or conflict with other laws or regulations (Gross, 2012, para 10).