Looks, Beauty, & Appearance Discrimination in Employment Employment discrimination legislation has evolved to include race, disabilities, sexual harassment of either gender, and age. In lieu of this evolution and an increasing trend toward equality for all individuals in the workplace, the time has come for the protective reach of employment discrimination law to cover ugliness. While the proposal may cause titters at first, evidence exists that discrimination based on looks (or physical appearance) occurs in the workplace. An investigation was conducted by ABC’s 20/20 news program in 1994 that sent two men and two women into the workplace to secure the same jobs (Sessions 1). The individuals were coached to act in a similar manner during the interviews and took with them resumes with matching education and experience. The only difference was that one of the men and one of the women was superior in physical attraction to their counterpart. The results demonstrate whether intentional or not, looks discrimination does play a role in the employment process “In five cases out of five, the more attractive woman got the job; in three chances out of three, the more attractive man was hired” (Sessions 1). Historically, legislation aimed at physical appearance is not a revolutionary concept. Many jurisdictions had laws in the past that barred “ugly” or “unsightly” people from appearing in public places. Such laws today would cause an outcry among civil rights activists. Yet, legislation aimed at protecting “ugly” people from discrimination does not exist on a national level with other employment discrimination legislation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection against discrimination based on many aspects, including race, disability, sex, and age. However, before a new kind of characteristic can become protected under federal civil rights law, it must be associated in some form with an already protected characteristic under anti-discrimination law. For example, someone who is grossly obese and believes they have suffered employment discrimination as a result will have a good chance of winning a lawsuit based on discrimination if the obesity is due to some kind of disability or medical condition. However, if the obesity is not related to some already protected characteristics, chances are the courts would not view it as discriminati... ... middle of paper ... ...on against race “If an employment practice which operates to exclude blacks cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited” (Shaping 3). Thus, all forms of looks discrimination should be afforded employment discrimination protection that have nothing to do with job performance. The burden will be on the employer to prove those rejected due to physical appearance have a direct bearing on job performance (i.e., someone who is 150 pounds overweight does not appeal to consumers of a diet program, or someone with bad acne does not perform well at a cosmetics counter). Therefore, looks discrimination protection should be afforded under Title VII employment discrimination law. Bibliography: New developments in employment discrimination law. Available at: http://www.google.com, November 2000, 1-6. Shaping employment discrimination law. Available at: http://www.google.com, November 2000, 1-5. Amack, L. O. The future of employment discrimination law. Law Info Forum, Available at: http://www.google.com, March 6, 1994, 1-4. Sessions, D. D. Looks discrimination: If looks could kill…. Equal Opportunity Career Journal, Nov-Dec 1995, 1-6.
Today’s job seeker has tough competition. In the textbook reading “Judging by the Cover” by Bonny Gainley, she argues that job seekers ought to be careful when they make personal choices that initially will affect their chances of entering the workplace. People have a need to be accepted by others just the way they are, but many of us were taught as adolescence that we should not judge a book by its cover, yet people judge others solely on their personal appearances. That goes for businesses as well, “[t]he bottom line is that businesses exist to make money. Whether it seems fair or not, generally employers do care about the personal appearances of the people they hire because those people represent the business to its customers” (5). Maybe
Currently television networks and stations require a set appearance and weight standards for news reporters, newscasters, weather forecaster. Our society looks at the news and weather to see not only the news and weather but the persons. They believe that physical attractiveness and pleasing body image have long been known to have marketplace advantages. Therefore many organizations set appearance standards for their employees, because they think that will project a particular image and as well as a favorable working environment. (Harvey & Allard , 2012, p. 231)
In today’s job market, there are many reasons an individual could be turned down for employment. According to Deborah Rhodes, author of “Why looks are the last bastion of discrimination”, appearance should not be one of them. Rhodes is a law professor at Stanford and holder of numerous titles for her outstanding work in legal matters. She is also the author and co-author of over 250 articles (Directory). In this article, she addresses an issue with profound impact on today’s society. She proposes that appearance discrimination should be included in anti-discrimination laws in addition to what is already accepted and legalized in today’s workplace. While it is a seemingly “silly” concern, it is actually quite valid. There has been many a concern over discrimination. That is, discrimination based on race, color, gender, and others of a similar nature in the work environment.
Many companies are using new techniques to attract modern day society. One of these techniques is revising their hiring practices. Instead of hiring based on intelligence, or skill sets, they desire employees with “the look”. Companies want people that represent their product or brand. In the article, “Going for the Look, But Risking Discrimination” by Steven Greenhouse, the store Abercrombie and Fitch hire people with a “classic American” look. However, there are many problems that can arise with this. Marshall Cohen, a senior industry analyst, claims that companies are forced to do what is necessary. I disagree with this statement. Companies that hire based on looks are risking more they assume.
Bennett-Alexander, Dawn D. & Hartman, Laura P. (2001). Employment Law for Business (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing. Downloaded February 4, 2008 from the data base of http://www.eeoc.gov
In the realm of work the appearance of someone’s body has a significant impact on their success according to Lorber and Yancey. In the text it was emphasized how height is idealized in the work world because it shows authority and being superior to peers and competition. Weight, height, race and jaw shape all are characteristics that have been observed to play a particular role in decision-making for leaders, e.g. the men with looks far from ideal had rarely moved up in military status in comparison to those with more idealized looks (253).
The authors begin the article with the “Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989)” case. Where the “United States law recognizes the illegality of sex/gender stereotyping when it drives formal discrimination in employment.” (Leskinen) In this study the authors investigate whether such stereotyping, and intolerance for counter-stereo-typicality, also contributes in the different components combined to affects women’s risk in the work place of being harassed. By then using a test of 425 working women, the authors tested to see how “deviations from stereotypical femininity—masculine appearance, masculine-typed behaviors (aggression and self- reliance), and work in a masculine context “ were related to women’s experience of gender harassment. (Leskinen)
Many people are stereotyped and discriminated by their appearances. According to Deborah L. Rhodes, in her essay "Why Looks Are the Last Bastion of Discrimination," she stated that "irrelevant physical characteristics reinforces invidious stereotypes and undermines equal-opportunity principles based on merit and performance." Such discrimination is evident in the Hispanic community.
Three employees have finished interviewing college students for summer internships. The employees discuss how one of the candidates was too ugly to work at Allied Products Inc. Then employees begin discussing if discrimination on the basis of looks is unethical or even illegal.
Physical beauty is constructed by the society that we live in. We are socialized from a very young age to aspire to become what our culture deems ideal. Living in the United States, as in many other Western cultures, we are expected to be well-educated, maintain middle-class or upper-class status, be employed as well as maintain a physical standard of beauty. Although beauty is relative to each culture, it is obvious that we as Americans, especially women, are expected to be maintain a youthful appearance, wear cosmetics and fashionable clothes, but most importantly: not to be overweight. Our society is socially constructed to expect certain physical features to be the norm, anything outside this is considered deviant. Obesity is defined as outside the norms of our culture's aesthetic norms (Gros). “People who do not match idealized or normative expectations of the body are subjected to stigmatization” (Heckert 32). Obesity is a physical deviance; it is one that is an overwhelming problem in our society as we are always judged daily, by our appearance. Those who do not conform to the standards of beauty, especially when it comes to weight, are stigmatized and suffer at the hands of a society that labels them as deviants.
The article titled Distaste or Disability? Evaluating the Legal Framework for Protecting Obese Workers by Jennifer Bennett Shinall takes a look at obese people in the work place and whether they are discriminated in the workplace due to distaste or actual physical disability. The article also examines the situation from a gender discrimination point of view, and whether or not gender plays a factor in employers discriminating against obese workers.
In sports, education, and careers, there have always been moments where a woman who takes part in these is discriminated solely for their gender. What makes a male physician discriminate a female peer in the first place? If they were able to work to the same level as a male physician then that should be enough. Nevertheless, that is not the case in a career that dominated by men; to men, they judge women based on their appearances and their personalities rather than focusing on the knowledge and proficiencies that they can contribute to the workplace. Regarding appearance, many people will judge others based on their physical appearance. This, in turn, influences the way other peers or subordinates will respond or act when around the individuals being judged. For instance, when a female physician begins her residency or career, the men who work there will not concentrate on the skills that got her to this stage of medical education but only on what is seen on the outside. According to Michael Kimmel’s article Fired for Being Beautiful, “discrimination based on beauty is rooted in the same sexist principle as discrimination against the ugly.
The phenomenon of “lookism” has been a running topic of discussion for a long time. The term is a culturally formed word used to describe the treatment of people who are thought to be physically attractive. As far back as 42 BC, Publilius Syrus declared that “A fair exterior is a silent recommendation” while Shakespeare said that beauty in itself persuades people without another form influence (Cavico, Muffler, & Mujtaba, 2012). A perfect example was given by James (2008), that when two women of similar qualification apply for the same job, the employer would likely pick the most attractive of the two. This decision is purely based on and informed by the notion that physical attractiveness is accompanied by other favorable
The idea of hiring and promoting on the basis of looks is an ethical issue that impacts a variety of people. Primary stakeholders, who were previously identified as the groups of people whose rights were directly exercised and denied (whether perceived or actual) and were morally harmed and/or benefited directly, include candidates and current employees and employers and businesses. Secondary stakeholders, or the groups of people who are indirectly impacted include families of the employed and those seeking employment, the government, and consumers and society in general. Each group of these stakeholders also is impacted morally and has rights that are affected because of lookism. The remainder of this paper will focus on whether or not the act of hiring or promoting on the basis of looks, especially in jobs where looks are considered to be important to the job, is ethical by testing it against a comprehensive ethical framework. First, lookism will be looked at through an economic lens, using Friedman’s economic theory. Next, a decision will be made based on the legal requirements related to lookism. Lastly, this issue will be tested using two ethical duty systems, the first being distributive justice and the second being utilitarianism. The final decision will be then be made after looking at the decisions of the four individual parts as a whole.
Appearance can be broken down into physical features that the applicants have minimal control over, like height, skin color, facial features and texture of hair, and those that they can control like grooming. It is mainly the attributes that one can’t fully control that makes this discrimination unjust.