Imagine walking into a job interview. Nerves on end, hoping to make a good impression, you dressed up very nice. The manager offers you a job, on one condition–you remove the cross necklace from your neck.

You are caught off guard, shocked that the manager requested this. Christianity is a huge part of your family and culture–it has been for many generations. You feel that this cross necklace is a part of your identity, and you find it unfair to be asked to take it off in order to get a job.

Well, luckily, this isn’t legal in the United States, in terms of discrimination towards cross-wearing Christians, that is. However, recently the Court of Appeals ruled that it is legal to turn down a job applicant because they have dreadlocks.

Wait, what? OK, let’s back up a bit.

Dreadlocks and Workplace Discrimination

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to discriminate in the workplace based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Sounds like a good law to me. Now, how do dreadlocks factor into this law?

There has been debate over whether dreadlocks are, indeed, a product of black culture. Some argue that thousands of years ago, humans didn’t have combs and brushes, therefore creating something like what a modern day dreadlock would look like.

There have also been signs of the hairstyle speculated in ancient Egyptian artifacts, suggesting Egypt as its origin. Although this may be true, the modern term “dreadlock” is a product of Rastafarian culture, originating in Ethiopia during the early 1900s. Many Rastafarians identify dreadlocks a symbol of African identity.

So, dreadlocks fall under the categories of race, color, religion and national origin, making the hairstyle qualify for four out of five of the protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Although dreadlocks are not exclusively worn by Rastafarians or people of African descent, there is definitely a significant link between the black community and wearing locks. Despite this, Jeannie Wilson, a manager for Catastrophe Management Solutions, terminated a job offer to a woman named Chastity Jones because of her dreadlocks, and claimed that her actions were in no violation of workplace discrimination law because the hairstyle is “racially neutral.”

The Case: EEOC v. CMS

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, recently filed a lawsuit against Catastrophe Management Solutions, CMS, because of the termination of a job offered to Jones because of her dreadlocks.

A brief of the case states that “the EEOC’s [claim] would also produce a host of practical difficulties and unintended, perverse effects. Under the EEOC’s approach, employers, judges, and juries would be required to engage in unbounded racial and anthropological theorizing, speculating about what hairstyles, clothing, or other practices are “associated with” different races [...] and cultures; whether a given employee is of that race, nation, or culture; and whether the employee is, by her hairstyle or some other practice, engaging in a display of racial or cultural pride.”

Well, that’s a valid point. It does take extra effort to determine whether or not an act of discrimination is taking place. For example, what if an employer permitted a black employee to wear dreadlocks, but not a white employee in the same position? Things get tricky.

So, yes, this is a complicated issue. I’m not saying there’s a quick-fix, simple solution. It’s not all black and white (ha). But shouldn’t we be putting as much effort as is necessary towards ending discrimination in the workplace?

It’s much easier for hiring manager, Wilson, to say that she won’t hire Jones because dreadlocks “tend to get messy.”

What if instead of dreadlocks, it was a cross necklace? What if Jeannie Wilson claimed that cross necklaces ‘tend to get messy’? Just the same as dreadlocks, it’s pretty hard to imagine how much of a mess can really be made by a necklace.

It seems as though the Court of Appeals has turned a blind eye to the large amount of religious and racial baggage of dreadlocks, rather deciding that the hairstyle is ‘racially neutral.’ This is a quick-fix ‘solution’ to a complicated problem that deserves more time and consideration than it has been given.