Discrimination in the Workplace

[Jyates94]

In the state of Tennessee, what are the laws concerning employers who discriminate? In this situation, said employer hired an employee in the restaurant industry as a kitchen worker. Said employee has worked there for a few months and within this time has proven themselves to be a hard worker, has always showed up on time and is consistent with their work ethic. Said employee asked to pick up hours and train as a server. Employer said that was fine. However, employer didn't follow through with training and upon later, said employee was not allowed to serve or work with the public outside of the kitchen because of physical appearance. Employee is well groomed, and has a professional appearance. No tattoos or piercings, no outlandish hair styles. Employer said because of employees "teeth", that the employee will not be allowed to serve. I would like to know the legality of this situation and how I should proceed further with this. Thanks.

 

[quincy]

In the state of Tennessee, what are the laws concerning employers who discriminate? In this situation, said employer hired an employee in the restaurant industry as a kitchen worker. Said employee has worked there for a few months and within this time has proven themselves to be a hard worker, has always showed up on time and is consistent with their work ethic. Said employee asked to pick up hours and train as a server. Employer said that was fine. However, employer didn't follow through with training and upon later, said employee was not allowed to serve or work with the public outside of the kitchen because of physical appearance. Employee is well groomed, and has a professional appearance. No tattoos or piercings, no outlandish hair styles. Employer said because of employees "teeth", that the employee will not be allowed to serve. I would like to know the legality of this situation and how I should proceed further with this. Thanks.

What is wrong with his teeth?

His employer can choose to make him a server or not.

 

[Jyates94]

Nothing is wrong with them in my opinion, they aren't "perfect" but neither are mine or any other employees I've seen who serve there. He has excellent dental hygiene, sometimes genetics plays a part in making them look imperfect but nothing that would jump out to the public in a negative way. It confuses me because they told him that he could serve and a few weeks went by, they didn't offer to train him...and then today, the district manager apparently pulled him aside and retracted the previous agreement and said it was because of his teeth. I know that appearance discrimination is a gray area from what I've read so far. But somehow it just doesn't seem right, especially since his appearance "good enough" to hire for the kitchen.

 

[quincy]

Nothing is wrong with them in my opinion, they aren't "perfect" but neither are mine or any other employees I've seen who serve there. He has excellent dental hygiene, sometimes genetics plays a part in making them look imperfect but nothing that would jump out to the public in a negative way. It confuses me because they told him that he could serve and a few weeks went by, they didn't offer to train him...and then today, the district manager apparently pulled him aside and retracted the previous agreement and said it was because of his teeth. I know that appearance discrimination is a gray area from what I've read so far. But somehow it just doesn't seem right, especially since his appearance "good enough" to hire for the kitchen.

The employer might feel that a good enough appearance for the kitchen is not good enough to be a server.

If there is a dental school in your area, there is often also a free dental clinic to go with it, this if the employee wants to improve his appearance to meet the employer's exacting standards and cannot otherwise afford dental care.

If teeth is the only issue here, it is not illegal discrimination.

 

[Jyates94]

That's so mind blowing! Thank you for taking the time to read this and give me some info to clear this issue up.

 

[quincy]

That's so mind blowing! Thank you for taking the time to read this and give me some info to clear this issue up.

You're welcome, Jyates94. I appreciate the thanks.

There is a rather comprehensive article that was published in the National Law Review a few years ago that discusses the laws that can come into play with appearance in the workplace. You can search online for the article written by Emily Jane Perkins, Northern Illinois University College of Law, titled "Regulating Appearance in the Workplace: An Employer's Guide to Avoid Employment Discrimination Lawsuits."

There can be a legitimate business interest in an employer's regulation of employees' appearance. As long as the appearance regulation does not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, or does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or does not violate the Americans with Disability Act, the employer is generally on safe legal ground.

 

[cbg]

FYI the above is true not just in TN, but in every state as well. It might fail to pass muster in Washington DC, where discrimination laws protect "personal appearance" but outside of that, it's pretty much universal unless there is a municipal, county or local law to the contrary.

 

[quincy]

FYI the above is true not just in TN, but in every state as well. It might fail to pass muster in Washington DC, where discrimination laws protect "personal appearance" but outside of that, it's pretty much universal unless there is a municipal, county or local law to the contrary.

Here is a link to D.C.'s laws, which state that personal appearance does not relate to "requirements of cleanliness, uniforms, or prescribed standards, when uniformly applied to a class of employees for a reasonable business purposes ..."

https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/titles/2/chapters/14/

 

[Taxing Matters]

In the state of Tennessee, what are the laws concerning employers who discriminate?

There are several federal laws that prohibit discrimination against employees by an employer with at least 15 employees. Those laws make it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of the employee's race, color, national origin, citizenship, religion, sex, age (if the employee is at least age 40), disability, and genetic test information. See the discussion of this by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC is the federal agency that enforces these laws. Note, however, that the discussion includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation as part of sex discrimination. While that is the agency's position, those positions have yet to be confirmed by the Supreme Court and may turn out to be incorrect if/when the Court hears a challenge to it. A case now before the court involving a transgender employee might resolve that issue depending how broad the language is that the court uses in resolving the case.

Tennessee law makes illegal for any employer regardless of size to discriminate against an employee because of the employee's age (40+), color, creed, disability, national origin, race, religion or sex. The state Human Rights Commission explains the state law.

As cbg points out, neither federal nor any state law prohibits discrimination based on employee appearance (e.g. because of clothing worn, hair style choices, tattoos, physical conditions that are not the result of a disability, etc.) unless the appearance is itself part of a protected characteristic. For example, discrimination against employees who wear clothing that is an integral part of their religion may be illegal. DC is the only jurisdiction in the U.S. that I am aware of that expressly protects an employee because of appearance, though even there the law has some exceptions to that for business necessity.

 

[quincy]

... DC is the only jurisdiction in the U.S. that I am aware of that expressly protects an employee because of appearance, though even there the law has some exceptions to that for business necessity.

Michigan is the only state that specifically protects against discrimination based on height and weight, which goes to the appearance of an employee, although D.C.'s law on appearance also covers height and weight.

Here is a link with access to Tennessee's Human Rights Act and Disability Act:
https://www.tn.gov/humanrights.html

 

[cbg]

Here is a link to D.C.'s laws, which state that personal appearance does not relate to "requirements of cleanliness, uniforms, or prescribed standards, when uniformly applied to a class of employees for a reasonable business purposes ..."

https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/titles/2/chapters/14/

I remembered the requirement since it's so unique, but I didn't have the opportunity to look it up right away. Thus my qualification of "may". Thanks, Q.

 

[cbg]

Michigan is the only state that specifically protects against discrimination based on height and weight, which goes to the appearance of an employee, although D.C.'s law on appearance also covers height and weight.

Here is a link with access to Tennessee's Human Rights Act and Disability Act:
https://www.tn.gov/humanrights.html

Yes, but Michigan's law IS limited to height and weight.

 

[quincy]

I remembered the requirement since it's so unique, but I didn't have the opportunity to look it up right away. Thus my qualification of "may". Thanks, Q.

Actually, thank you. I wasn't previously aware of the inclusion of "appearance" in D.C.'s Human Rights law.