Jobseeker accuses Carowinds of discrimination

Wahoo brings up the point of interjecting common sense and potential for a solid employee, which is exactly the kind of thing that I was advocating. I interviewed for a job last week where a guy went on a rant about "ponytail and T-shirt programmers," and that was the end of my desire to work there, since the most significant mentor in my professional career was, in fact, a guy with a ponytail who wore T-shirts. And he could code anyone I know under the table with an understanding of business that was unusually solid.

My point here is that a lot of standards like this are arbitrary, and only exist because someone previously gave them to you. Adhering to those standards may cause you to dismiss a good human being without a good reason.

Is there a legal case here? I suspect not, but as Andy indicated, there's a fuzzy line there that's not entirely clear. At the very least, it strikes me as really bad PR.

2) Is it "fair"?

Hard to say---a lot goes into "fair". If it was truly targeted at a specific group of people (race, creed, or class), then I'd say no, it's not "fair". But, I don't think this particular restriction meets that standard, at least based on what I know so far. In other words, I think intent plays a role in "fair" vs. "unfair".

Perhaps a better question would be "is it reasonable?" I think Jeff's argument (which I sympathize with) is that it isn't reasonable---given the cultural landscape of the moment, there is unlikely to be much of a negative impact on the business by a polite, cheerful young woman with well-kept dreadlocks working the tilt-a-whirl.

The CF grooming standards are even more obviously goofy when you go to a park like Great America. The differences between the average patron and the staff are even more pronounced than they are here in flyover country.

But if that's the image they choose to represent their business, are they wrong?

Do they lose some decent employees because of meaningless things like tats or hairstyles? Sure, but they get plenty that fit the image they want to portray.

I don't think anyone is saying these people that don't fit the mold aren't capable, just that they don't fit the mold...and to get the job, one of the requirements is that you gotta fit the mold.

Adhering to those standards may cause you to dismiss a good human being without a good reason.

Unfortunately, for reasons both good and bad, HR departments really like clear, unambiguous rules. Once you've vetted those rules with the lawyerly types, having them makes it a lot easier (i.e. less expensive) to defend against claims of discrimination, wrongful termination, etc. Actually making these decisions in terms of (subjective) potential and performance is a lot murkier. .

Do they lose some decent employees because of meaningless things like tats or hairstyles? Sure, but they get plenty that fit the image they want to portray.

I'd argue that they don't---either that, or their traning and management is ineffective. They get enough warm bodies, but I'm not sure enough of them are as good as they could be.

It will be interesting to see if the quality of service ends up being a little better this year by virtue of the deeper employment pool.

Lord Gonchar said:
But if that's the image they choose to represent their business, are they wrong?

Probably not, they just look like assholes. :)

As far as "the mold" goes, we've all seen plenty of Barbie and Ken types who are clearly useless and suck at their jobs. All the more reason that measuring the value of an employee is best left to other metrics. I don't think the public is nearly as picky as Cedar Fair thinks.

Brian Noble said:
I'd argue that they don't---either that, or their traning and management is ineffective.

I'd argue that it goes well beyond either of those ideas. Let's face it, there's not much in the park that requires a hard-to-fill skillset. Yet we're always questioning employee quality at the parks.

Something's not clicking. I can't help but think that not hiring girls with dreadlocks isn't the issue. (was that a triple negative?)

Lord Gonchar said:
But if that's the image they choose to represent their business, are they wrong?

But what if the mold is completely arbitrary, regardless of intent.

Like, "You must have a last name that begins with a vowel to work in kiddie land." That strikes me as totally unfair and totally arbitrary, but it's their mold and their good intentions, right?

Jeff said:
As far as "the mold" goes, we've all seen plenty of Barbie and Ken types who are clearly useless and suck at their jobs. All the more reason that measuring the value of an employee is best left to other metrics. I don't think the public is nearly as picky as Cedar Fair thinks.

And I've seen plenty that are. I've also seen plenty of 'non-conventional' types that suck at life too and others that don't.

I've also seen plenty of people who have the appropriate skillset for a job be clearly useless and suck and others who didn't 'get a chance' and excel regardless.

There's a lot that goes into deciding if someone is right for your company, for a job, for the opportunity. It's every bit as valid to expect a certain look as it is a certain attitude or skill or whatever.

(Getting awfully close to the 'being 25' conversation again. :) )

Crap, did I just become LostKause?

Andy, you ARE a lost cause. :) Okay, now that I've gotten my jab out of the way, let's get to the meat.

I think that if the tatoo can be covered up with normal cothing, okay, peeks out the edges a bit. would be okay. At long as the hair is kept neat, I wouldn't have a problem with dreads or oddball colors.

Look, if the person can do the job, shows up to work on time AND sober and drug free, I don't give two hoots what the look like.

Lord Gonchar said:
But if that's the image they choose to represent their business, are they wrong?

Wow.. this statement doesnt sit well with me.. Hopefully im reading more into it.

So its ok for outward appearances of any kind to drive hiring practices of companies.. Hello 1950s, we are back again..

I dunno. Are you reading too much into it?

To summarize the thread so far:

Girl with dreads doesn't get hired because that doesn't fit the grooming standards Carowinds has set for their employees:

"Hair must be natural, clean, well-groomed and simply arranged," reads the document, which is provided to applicants. "Faddish, extreme hairstyles, including…dreadlocks are not permitted."

I say that's fine if CF chooses to make that a part of the hiring requirement.

So now that you're up to speed, did you read too much into it?

No.

Ask a dumb question...

All you've done, Gonch, is argue the other side of what I was saying about qualifications, which only reinforces my point: Outward appearance has nothing to do with the ability to perform a job. That's why I also mentioned the part about how picky customers are, because that's really the issue. You've arrived at the same conclusion I have about the relationship between appearance and employee quality (namely that, in the area of hair, there isn't one).

So given that, I ask again, are Cedar Fair's customers really that picky? Are they that tied into the cultural acceptance that Cedar Fair believes doesn't exist as far as hair goes?

Your hero park, last year's Hard Rock Park, was filled with hair/tattoo/piercing types, right? You said it was awesome. Do they have a different standard because it's a rock-n-roll themed park? Are the customers separated by 200 miles that different?

Jeff said:
Your hero park, last year's Hard Rock Park, was filled with hair/tattoo/piercing types, right? You said it was awesome. Do they have a different standard because it's a rock-n-roll themed park? Are the customers separated by 200 miles that different?

Perfect example.

If someone showed up in a suit with a conservative hairstyle and look, they very well may not have been hired for not fitting the look required for the job.

That's HRP's perrogative to make that decision based on the image they choose to portray.

I'm not saying how you look effects your ability to perform at all...just the opposite. But I am saying I see nothing wrong with how you look being a job requirement.

ApolloAndy said:

Can you really draw a line between culture and religion?

Well, you could argue religion is a choice and culture is not.

Aren't dreadlocks so mainstream at this point that they don't really draw a second glance anymore?

I like to hire only girls with short skirts and big boobs...but that is just me.

Jeff said:
Outward appearance has nothing to do with the ability to perform a job.

No it doesn't.

This doesn't have to do with performance though. Employees can not wear street clothes to work, they have to wear a uniform and wear it a certain way. The way they keep their hair is part of that uniform.

Your example of the t-shirt and pony tail programmer is not a good comparison, in most cases that programmer is behind the scenes not in front of clients. I am the same type of programmer, I bike to work, wear shorts and sandals all day, but when I go in front of a client I wear something nice. I am representing my company at that point and shorts and a t-shirt is not professional. Neither would a mohawk.

Lord Gonchar said:
That's HRP's perrogative to make that decision based on the image they choose to portray.

I'm not questioning that. I'm asking if the consumer's perception impacts the bottom line, and if not, then why should it matter to Cedar Fair if a girl has dreads?

Lord Gonchar says:

But I am saying I see nothing wrong with how you look being a job requirement.

Guess you wouldnt.. Unless it was you that was turned down...

We discussed earlier that theres a fine line of when it becomes discrimination and when its the "particulars for the job". Either way the qualified could be emotionally hurt by this type of rejection..

Not saying this is her dream job, but I would rather hear that im missing a certain experience needed for the job than something that is an outward appearence (granted this is a changeable one, but I dont live in a bubble, hair is just one of many things out there being physically judged).