Grooming Policy

Most companies have dress codes, but few have grooming policies, as far as I know. When I first read the story, I was sure a company could enforce a grooming policy in any situation. After more reading, I have a different opinion, and we will discuss this change in opinion, and the laws which govern this issue. We will also look at the same grooming policy from a different angle. Instead of considering religious reasons, would the FedEx policy hold up in a court of law based upon a safety policy? “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from being discriminated against by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin” (Dhillon, 2011, p. 213). This is the basis by which all discrimination lawsuits are governed. Some religions depend upon appearance such as beards, turbans, and in the case of Mr. Polk, long dreadlocks, just to name a few. Grooming policies are usually based upon the culture of the

Polk (Bethel University, 2017). However, I do feel the company should be able to ask the employee to cover up the dreadlocks or long hair for some reasons. Covering the hair is simple, and the hair remains in place so the employee can wear it down outside of work. In some settings, long hair could be detrimental to the employee, therefore creating a safety hazard. The company I work for, has a similar grooming policy. An employee who has long hair must keep it pulled back or covered to prevent the hair from being caught inside moving equipment. This has happened in another facility within the company, so the grooming policy was put into place. The safety of an employee would be the first concern, so long hair for religious reasons should not be permitted in certain