Jobseeker accuses Carowinds of discrimination

Sorry for the double post. This thread is moving so fast...

I just wanted to address the race issue. Even though we all know that it's bs, it is a very good point that more African Americans have dreds than other races.

I'm white. I had dreds when I was younger, because band members of metal band Korn had them (none whome are African American, btw). I liked the style. I worked at a very nice toy store at the time. I kept them neat, and I had special shampoo to wash them with, so they were very clean as well. It was no big deal to my employers. So the idea that only a certain race has dreds is crap.

Sure the girl was probably offended. I believe her story that she cried. It would probably make someone feel very small to not be hired at a McJob like Carowinds just because she had an artistic, yet mostly socially acceptable, hairatyle.

LostKause said:
When you work at Cedar Point, your identity becomes where you work within the park.

Isn't that the point of uniforms?

LostKause said:
You lose who you used to be, the guy in the band, the girl who is a gifted artist, the dude who is an awesome football player, or the girl who used to be on TV. ...Assimilated into the Borg, if you will.

Working a ride at Cedar Point is not the place to express yourself with clothes or hairstyles, that's for your personal time.

LostKause said:

Sure the girl was probably offended. I believe her story that she cried. It would probably make someone feel very small to not be hired at a McJob like Carowinds just because she had an artistic, yet mostly socially acceptable, hairatyle.

Not in the world according to Gonch, based on his very dismissive responses he gave me. People are supposed to be stone faced and not care the things that happen to them. So im sure she went out smiling and feeling good she didnt get the job because of her hair style. </scarcasm>

"

So you could have a mohawk when you go back to the dorms and have short, neatly trimmed, tapered hair when you go back to work the next day?

Dreds can't simply be taken out in the morning and put back in in the evening. same with mohawks, or very socially acceptible sholder length hair on boys. Spiked hair is probably the only hairstyle that can be made ot look "normal" during work and fixed to show your personal individuality when you are off work.

Could the real reason for the guidelines be that CP doesn't want to hire people who are proud of their individuiality? Maybe those kinds of people are more prone to cause problems? maybe it doesn't have anything at all to do with appearance.

I really don't think that anyone's outward appearance defines his/her identity or personality. I don't believe that CF's dress code is meant in any way to indicate that. I think that's the big disconnect in this discussion.

The dress code is meant to control the appearance of the overall park as seen by the public. It's been said before, when you are employed by someone and on the job, you are not representing yourself. You are representing the employer. And the public is far from accepting all manners of expression, particularly in matters where they are spending their money.

Well I do realize that a certain line should be drawn in terms of employee expression. I wouldn't allow a tattoo depicting a sex act to be visable, for example. But CF really takes it way too far. I think that the employees should be allowed to have the same hairstyles, tats, and piercings that the guest are allowed to show. The park doesn't allow guests to wear anything offensive. They also don't allow "biker colors" or the "goth" look...lol. So I'm with some of you all there.

Vernon said:
Hmmm, let me see.

A. Dreadlocks are a choice she chose to make.
B. CedarFair and any most other potential employer is an at-will state. If you don't like their rules, don't apply for the job.

I am pretty sure all states are "at-will" with the exception of Montana and Arizona ( though Colorado had a chance to vote on this last year but didn't ). In an "at-will" state, employers can deny employment or fire people at any time and for any reason unless its a protective class.

Take Ohio for example..if Kings Island wants to fire an employee because they had found out if he/she had visted Kennywood the previous weekend...well since Ohio is an "at-will" state, they can fire that person for visiting Kennywood if they wish and it would be totally legal.

Now chances are they won't but they could if they really wanted too.

It also has to do with safety as well along with appearance when it comes to getting hired with any amusement park. It doesn't matter if she could be the perfect employee or not. She is representing the company as thier representative. IF the company has the policy of being groomed and have the hair in it's natural state. Then so be it. Nothing racist about it. The only reason why this lady did have dreadlocks is to make herself stand out in a crowd and make everyone think of her as a nutcase. I wouldn't hire her with dreadlocks at all. I have to look at my policy and if they don't fit it then they can go and get hired at some other joint that accepts dreadlocks.

"The only reason why this lady did have dreadlocks is to make herself standout in a crowd and make everyone think of her as a nutcase."

Note - turning off italics may erase your post...

I said in this very post...

Even Gonch has had a mohawk before, if I recall correctly. It has nothing to do with being a nutcase and everything to do with expressing yourself. I know a lot of artistic, creative types with unique hairstyles.

...Or something like that. I should have just used the quote feature...lol

I have never once looked at someone with dreads and thought "there goes a nutcase".

I don't judge someone's mental stability or personality based on their hairstyle.

My 8 year old son had a mohawk for about a year and a half before he shaved it down this spring. We were shocked that he wanted it, because he normally hated being the center of attention, but one of the other kids in school had a fauxhawk, and he wanted to go all the way.

He really grew into it, and became a lot more outgoing with time. Later in the 'hawk's life, he even took to spiking it up---particularly for soccer games, where he played in goal. He said he liked to look "mean", which is funny if you've ever met him---he's about as incapable of being mean as an 8 year old boy can be.

ObBuzz: his mohawk got us a trip as the First Family on Soarin' last February, too.

Majorcut said:
The only reason why this lady did have dreadlocks is to make herself stand out in a crowd and make everyone think of her as a nutcase.

With completely asinine assumptions like this, no wonder Cedar Fair is taking the conservative road. I unfortunately understand their rationale now.

Overall it makes me sad. I just can't come to grips with the fact that in 2009 people still believe that tattoos, piercings and hair are actually reasons to judge people, and that they're willing to accept that arrangement.

I'll never forget years ago, while my former wife was in grad school, she was working at a CompUSA as software manager. She had a nose ring for quite some time, not because she wanted attention, but because she liked the way it looked. That's probably the same reason that anyone wears earrings or likes a certain color or whatever. And did I mention that it's culturally acceptable in India?

Anyway, some hilljack came up to her who she'd later find out could barely turn on a computer, and said she didn't want her help because with that tiny little thing in her nose, she obviously didn't know what she was talking about. The general manager did the right thing, and told the customer they could accept her help or leave.

I remember when dudes wearing earrings was "gay," and when being gay was, well, "gay." I guess we're mostly over that, but we still have a long way to go. Again, I can't believe that so many people are willing to persist these silly and judgmental arrangements.

Jeff said:
I just can't come to grips with the fact that in 2009 people still believe that tattoos, piercings and hair are actually reasons to judge people, and that they're willing to accept that arrangement.

With the exception of one glaring example in this thread, I don't think anyone here is saying that at all. In fact, I feel like I've said the opposite many times.

It's not judging someone based on superficial reasons. It's a matter of someone not meeting the requirements (equally superficial) established by the company for the position.

I'm totally on the other side in my shock - I can't believe anyone is surprised that your appearance might affect you abilty to land certain jobs.

I remember when dudes wearing earrings was "gay,"

1983 in rural western PA. I was 10. How hardcore am I? How cool were my parents?

Too much crap over the years to remember. Hell, I still had the f'd up hair a few years ago - which BeastBuzz was that?

I couldn't tell you how much crap I got over something as silly as that haircut, even as an adult - in every day life, in personal situations, in professional situations...

...

...

And for the record, I never cried about it. :)

I'd be lying if I said most of it wasn't just to piss off the establishment more than for myself...or at least equally so. I've done more than my part to knock down the very walls that you're pissed still exist.

I have absolutely no problem with someone wanting a 'clean cut' look in their employees. I have no problem with someone hiring an employee with a big penis tattooed on their forehead.

I'm cool with it either way. Whatever.

How about this scenerio. I own a company and I can't stand females with short hair. Every female applicant that comes in that has short hair I dismiss from possibly being hired because of this. Even though these females have clean and well groomed hair, can I legally keep from hiring them?

I bring this up, because companies like CF make it very clear that a male's hair must be at a certain short length but no mention is stated of a females hair length.

So basically, I am reversing the roles. I guarantee I would be in court for this.

With parks, it really makes no sense. If I am standing in line to buy a churro at a stand and then while in line I see a guy with long hair or a girl with dread locks working the stand, am I going to leave the line? No, and I guarantee most wouldn't. Would I not ride a coaster because a ride-op has a (not standard hairstyle)?

It really is just old fashioned, out of date thinking by higher ups.

Whoever compared this to someone going to court and looking presentable is not fair. Your future is on the line if you are going before a judge. Better safe then sorry.

eightdotthree said:
But it's not a business meeting at an executive's office.

No,it was in a room full of thousands of people including executives. Howis that not high stakes? The guy is brilliant and people care what hesays, not what he's wearing.

Lord Gonchar said:
With the exception of one glaring example in this thread, I don't think anyone here is saying that at all.

But if you defend Cedar Fair's actions, you're indirectly dignifying people like Majorcut. Yeah, I get it, perhaps this is an issue that could alter the bottom line, but I doubt it.

I don't think I am...at all. No one has said anything negative or derogatory about the girl. She simply doesn't meet the CF standards for employee appearance.

If she's a nutcase, that's completely unrelated to her hair...unless it's full of secrets. ;)

I don't even think it could alter their bottom line...and if it did it'd be hurting them because they're passing on potentially great employees.

I just don't think their 'grooming guidelines' are out of line or unreasonable or even close to discriminatory...or even an issue to 99.99% of their applicants.

I also suspect that this sort of 'appearance requirement' is enforced to some degree at vastly more places of employment than not. This isn't some bizzare, unheard-of-in-these-times Draconian law.

The one (of many) things I loved about Hard Rock Park was their liberal dress code for their employees. :) I told the chick at Nights In White Satin that I thought it was kickass that she could work and not worry about her purple spiked hair, nose rings, and tats. :) I told the dude at the Eagles ride that I LOVED his old school Motley Crue shirt!

Personally I HATE dressing up. I can sorta compromise depending on the job or situation but otherwise I will wear what I want. If someone likes to dress up then the more power to them. :) Otherwise I think it's sad that people judge others by how a person is dressed. On the other hand there are limits.

I am VERY liberal when it comes to clothes. I LOVE showing off my tats. :) I think everyone should wear jeans and T-shirts to work if they want. If someone wants to be business casual or wear a suit that should be their choice as well. If someone wants to have dreadlocks, spiked hair, etc., that should be their choice. As long as a person is productive in their job, it shouldn't matter what they wear.

As long as a person takes care of themselves and actually washes their clothes I will have no complaints. ;)

I know my thought process doesn't agree with the real world. ;) Sadly people are going to judge by race, clothes, religion, color, hair style, etc.

If I ever get married you won't see me wearing an overpriced, uncomfortable wedding dress. Why bother? It will probably be one of my Steve & Barry's jeans and one of my beloved hoodies....in Vegas. :)

-Tina

<----who should stop ranting and get some much needed sleep before heading out to HWN. ;)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Heck, I've been known to regularly wear sandles, shorts and a T-shirt TO CHURCH on a regular basis.

If i'm going for a job interview, I prefer my CLEAN jeans and a nice polo shirt. Okay, my Dockers if it's with a big boss. I've never liked ties or suits. I'll let an emplyer judge me for me, not my cloths.

can I legally keep from hiring them?

I'm not sure. In general, though, anti-discrimination law is a lot less constraining than a lot of folks think, so I'm guessing it might be legal.

There are specific "protected classes," and you can't refuse to hire on the basis of being a member of (or not a member of) those classes. This includes things like race, gender, and "family status" (married, kids, whatnot). In some states, including Michigan, the set of protected classes doesn't include sexual orientation, though some cities in Michigan (including Ann Arbor) do have such protections. So, in the next county over, in Jackson, if you don't want to hire a gay man, you don't have to---even if he's clearly the most qualified candidate or, for that matter, the only candidate.

http://www.hrhero.com/hot/168757/

Back to the "short hair bigot"---it's possible that a good lawyer could successfully argue that this is just a policy against women in general. If that lawyer prevails, then you'd be guilty of gender discrimination, which is illegal.

Hiring according to appearance is not common practice at all. That's why I'm going to head over to Hooters today for lunch and enjoy the excellent service I receive from the overweight male servers who are all wearing turtlenecks. ;)