About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

23 Barry L. Rev. 27 (2017-2018)
The Eleventh Circuit Dreadlocks Ban and the Implications of Race Discrimination in the Workplace

handle is hein.journals/barry23 and id is 33 raw text is: 









        THE   ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DREADLOCKS BAN AND THE
  IMPLICATIONS OF RACE DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE

                                                                Jacqueline Frank*

                                 INTRODUCTION

    A  woman   by the name of Chastity Jones was  on the lookout for a job in 2010,
when  she  sent in an application for a customer service position with Catastrophe
Management Solutions (CMS).1 Upon receiving her application, the company
selected Chastity for an in-person interview.2 In preparation for this interview, she
dressed up in a blue business suit and tied her hair up in short dreadlocks.3 After the
interview, Chastity learned that she was hired for the position, and not a word was
mentioned  about her hair.4 After a quick meeting with the new hires, Chastity spoke
with the human   resources manager  who,  at the end of the conversation, informed
Chastity that if she kept the dreadlocks, they could not hire her.5 At her refusal to get
rid of the dreadlocks, CMS asked  Chastity to return the paperwork given to her just
a few moments   prior, and they rescinded the job offer.6
    Chastity had the dreadlocks when  she arrived for her initial interview, and they
were  apparent to all those who saw her.7 She was clearly fit for the position, for she
was  hired on the spot.8 Even after her hiring, not a word was mentioned as to her
hairstyle.9 It was not until she was about to leave, when  she was  alone with the
manager,  that this issue was brought  up.o  The  job description for her position
included sitting at a computer and talking on the telephone. Why  then would  her
personal hairstyle cause such an issue as to lead to a reversal in this employment
opportunity? Chastity must have  wondered  the same thing, for she proceeded to file
a  claim  for race  discrimination through  the  Equal  Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as her

   *    J.D. Candidate, 2018, Barry University School of Law; B.S. Psychology, The Florida State University,
2014. Thank you to Professor Daniel O'Gorman for spiking my interest in this topic and inspiring me to write this
Note, and for always being there to answer my questions when I need guidance, and to Professor Helia Hull for
providing me with excellent legal research and writing skills-I would not be where I am without your assistance.
   1.   EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Sols., 852 F.3d 1018, 1021 (11th Cir. 2016).
   2.   Id.
   3.   Id.
   4.   Id
   5.   Id.
   6.   Catastrophe, 852 F.3d at 1022.
   7.   See id at 1021 (all of the applicants were brought into a room together when their hiring was announced,
and it is apparent that upon seeing Chastity, her hair was style was noticeable).
   8.   Id.
   9.   Id
   10.  Id.
   11.  Id. (stating the service representatives do not have contact with the public as they are in a large call
room).


27

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most