Jobseeker accuses Carowinds of discrimination

Jeff said:
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.

But you have said that you take offense to people wearing their pants a certain way, but saggy pants are part of hip-hop and skate culture. You draw your line there. Others draw it further back.

Jeff said:
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.

A conference is a much different atmosphere than a meeting. My boss wears ripped jeans to work, but when he is out selling potential clients he is in business casual or a suit and tie depending on who the client is an what their culture is. He does it out of respect.

Hopman said:
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.

If that's the case why not just show up in your street clothes?

Carrie M. said:

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.

Carrie is absolutely right about this. Especially at an amusement park where many customers might get a negative impression of the place being to "carnival". Tattoos, dreadlocks, piercing and other things will give many in the general public the impression that the park has a certain "seediness" to it. Fair or not, grooming standards are meant to present an image of wholesome, safe family fun to the general public.

I was actully going to bring up Hooters as an example. But, Hooters has a "business reason" for wanting to hire the way they hire. Chitown's example is "just because I don't like short hair", with no business case behind it. It's possible that the two situations are legally distinct.

But, I don't think they are based on my layman's understanding of the issue.

eightdotthree said:
But you have said that you take offense to people wearing their pants a certain way, but saggy pants are part of hip-hop and skate culture. You draw your line there. Others draw it further back.

I don't take offense to it. Never said that. I said it's messy and I take issue with it.

A conference is a much different atmosphere than a meeting. My boss wears ripped jeans to work, but when he is out selling potential clients he is in business casual or a suit and tie depending on who the client is an what their culture is. He does it out of respect.

Whatever. I know where I was and what was at stake. Respect has nothing to do with the clothes you wear, which is not something anyone can debate one way or another beyond "because I say so." Interestingly enough, when I interviewed in Redmond, they specifically told me, "Don't wear a tie, you won't get hired." Obviously the 44th largest company in the world has some different ideas about what clothes mean.

Lord Gonchar said:
She simply doesn't meet the CFstandards for employee appearance... I also suspect that this sort of'appearance requirement' is enforced to some degree at vastly moreplaces of employment than not. This isn't some bizzare,unheard-of-in-these-times Draconian law.

Yeah, you keep coming back to that, and I keep asking, why is that OK? When does our culture stop making judgment about people based solely on their appearance? I could care less about the legality of it, or even "people" think.

In the case of Microsoft, they get it, and I believe that they're forward thinking in what culturally makes the most sense (even if they can't make Windows not suck). They've had domestic partner benefits for ages too.

Interesting. I would say Microsoft doesn't get "it", at least not the it this thread was originally based upon.

when I interviewed in Redmond, they specifically told me, "Don't wear a tie, you won't get hired."

So, how is that more acceptable than "don't wear dreads, you won't get hired"?

Seems to me, based on the argument presented, that a person should be able to show up for an interview at Microsoft wearing a suit and tie if that is how they best express themselves. Why should they not hire that person?

Or does a company have the right to decide what image they want to present and what culture they choose to foster and hire accordingly?

Jeff said:I don't take offense to it. Never said that. I said it's messy and I take issue with it.

And Cedar Fair takes issue with hair styles. Where do we stop? Can she sue Cedar Fair for not allowing her to wear jeans, flip flops and her own t-shirt to work?

Cedar Fair can do whatever the hell it wants. I was done debating that pages ago. I moved on to the abstract issue of judgment based on appearance, which I suspect no one will take on because it's completely arbitrary, and you know it.

See, maybe here's where my disconnect is. I find that judging people based on appearance choices is only marginally less wrong than judging people on non-choices like race. Hard to believe this coming from someone continually annoyed with stupid people, but I believe that every human being I encounter has something to contribute until they prove otherwise. Thus, writing off someone for something like dreadlocks, whether it's your right or not, strikes me as cosmically stupid.

@Carrie: Come on... you know that's a silly comparison when placed in the context of a scale of conservative views, which is what we're talking about here.

That doesn't make any sense, Jeff. In the same post you talk about the issue being judging people based on appearance choices. That's not limited to conservative judgments.

The larger issue is that each organization has a specific culture and image. Most likely they will want to hire for that culture and image. Why is that so wrong?

If I prefer to wear suits to work, how happy am I going to be at Microsoft where they frown upon it?

If I want to wear dreads in my hair, how happy am I going to be working for a park where they frown upon it?

It's really about a fit for the employee and the employer. If the fit is wrong, everyone loses.

I don't think it's a silly comparison at all. If Microsoft says up front that they won't hire someone in a tie, then they are judging them on their appearance and missing out on potential brilliance.

A perfect example. At my last job a young kid came into an interview in a suit and tie when the rest of us were in shorts and t-shirts, even my boss. We interviewed him, loved him, hired him and he ended up being not only the smartest programmer I have ever known, but he is one of my better friends.

Jeff said:
Yeah, you keep coming back to that, and I keep asking, why is that OK? When does our culture stop making judgment about people based solely on their appearance?

I moved on to the abstract issue of judgment based on appearance, which I suspect no one will take on because it's completely arbitrary, and you know it.

I don't know quite how to word it. You keep using judgment in a way that, to me, implies the employer thinks less of you or thinks you're incapable or something to that degree.

I keep going back to it because it's not a judgment in that sense. No one is judging the applicant based on their hairstyle. No one is saying the hairstyle means anything other than they don't fit the job requirements. They're being qualified.

It's not a case of being judged in that way. No one is saying that if you look a certain way you're a bad person or incapable of doing the job. They're just saying you don't match the list of conditions they've set for the position.

It is completely arbitrary. I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise.

@Carrie: Come on... you know that's a silly comparison when placed in the context of a scale of conservative views, which is what we're talking about here.

The arbitrary conservative view that CF takes is bad and judgemental, but the arbitrary non-conservative view that Microsoft takes isn't?

You can't dismiss that, Jeff. It's exactly the same thing. You were told that if you came in looking a certain way, you wouldn't get the job. Flat out. Why is that ok? Why would it be ok for Microsoft to make a judgement based on something as arbitrary as a piece of fabric hanging from your neck?

I don't think it's fair to call out Cedar Fair for doing this and then claim Microsoft "gets it" because Microsoft's arbitrary standard is one you personally agree with while CF's isn't.

robotfactory said:
Two words, John: Joe Rhode

I've seen him in so many interviews looking twice as, uh... Fabulous.

Imagineers are exempt from these rules. They wear beards, don't wear their name tags, and well, yeah Joe Rhode.

Plus it's Joe Rhode!

There are two things going on here. First, if you turn around and suggest that my opposite reactions (Microsoft) are the same thing as the conservative judgment, then you reinforce my point about how arbitrary and silly it is to judge on appearance.

However, if you call out the Microsoft interview example, you're not talking about the same situation anyway. In the conservative appearance example, the employer suggests that your appearance implies something about your ability to do the job. In the more liberal case, Microsoft isn't making inferences about your ability to do the job, they're making inferences about how you think the clothes matter and will get you a job.

Do you get that? They're not the same at all. Perhaps both make some kind of judgment, sure, but only one is about your implied ability to do the job and contribute. That distinction is important.

So if the employer is not making judgment about their ability to do the job, then would you agree that they're pandering to what they think might be public perception? Bringing it back to the start of the thread, is that OK if it means overlooking good people who will do a good job and bring value to the product?

No one is judging the applicant based on their hairstyle.

Actually, someone is...

In the conservative appearance example, the employer suggests that your appearance implies something about your ability to do the job.

...but it's not the employer. It's the hypothetical guest. If the guest reacts negatively to the employee's appearance, that will leave the guest with a bad impression, negatively impacting the business.

Or, to put it another way---one of the fundamental "job responsibilities" is projecting a certain image. It's not meeting that specific responsibility that disqualifies the candidate. I don't think anyone (including Cedar Fair) is claiming that not meeting appearance standards necessarily also means you can't properly check lapbars or fry chunks of impaled, battered cheese.

My version of the question is different: is it really the case that a non-trivial fraction of park patrons would react negatively to dreadlocks, tattoos, or piercings? I don't know. I suspect in certain markets (Santa Clara) the answer is pretty clearly no, based on the fact that I was about the only person in the park without a tattoo or piercing. In other markets, maybe the answer is yes.

Edited to add:

Bringing it back to the start of the thread, is that OK if it means overlooking good people who will do a good job and bring value to the product?

If they are right---if a non-trivial fraction of guests would react negatively---then yes, it is OK. It is not Cedar Fair's job to convince people who wrongly react to stereotypes that they are wrong. If they are wrong, then it's not OK---not for any moral reason, but rather simply because it is bad for business.

And that's the right question to ask, and I suspect the right assumed answer.

My issue goes deeper in that, if I were in charge, I'd be hesitant to pander to that kind of stupidity, even if it did put my business at risk. I would not make a good CEO.

Yeah, the only thing being judged in any scenario is appearance. You are inferring that the reason has to do with a perception about job performance. I never said that's the case. I don't believe that's the case.

Do you get that? Your distinction is not real. The appearance judgment has nothing to do with potential job performance.

It's about image. It's about culture.

And yes, it's ok. Pete pointed out the rationale as it pertains to the amusement park industry. It matters to the general public.

You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. You can choose to rally against it. But Cedar Fair gets to choose how it wants to present itself to the public. And employees agree to represent Cedar Fair when they choose to be employed by them.

Edited to point out that Brian got in before I finished this response.

^^I'm totally with Jeff. I would not make a good CEO either.

Cedar Fair gets to choose how it wants to present itself to the public.

You could probably argue that even if every single executive at Cedar Fair agreed with Jeff, they are duty-bound to have such appearance standards. Provided people really would react negatively, Cedar Fair doesn't really have a choice. As officers of a public company, they have a fiduciary duty to the unitholders, and must maximize profits. Pushing for social good over profits is a good way to get yourself into very hot legal water, even though it may be the Right Thing.

But, a comment that came up really early in the discussion may have gotten lost: these standards are rarely reviewed---they are inherited, from one year to the next. Even if the cultural context that originally required them is dead and gone, the vestiges remain for quite some time. Are we at the point where these could be relaxed, or not?

Yes, you are right. When I speak about Cedar Fair making a choice, I mean the business and it makes sense that the choice is for business/profitable reasons. It doesn't matter what each executive holds as a personal view.

Can the policies be relaxed? Maybe. How do you determine that? Is it when the majority of the people who apply don't meet your guidelines? That would indicate a cultural shift, anyway.

I don't know how you measure public tolerance. I don't know how it was measured when the original policy was created. Sure, there are customers that carry the same style that the guidelines prohibit. But are they the majority? Maybe that's how you measure the tolerance?

Jeff said:
There are two things going on here. First, if you turn around and suggest that my opposite reactions (Microsoft) are the same thing as the conservative judgment, then you reinforce my point about how arbitrary and silly it is to judge on appearance.

For the umpteenth time, I agree. It seems so arbitrary and silly. I've agreed on that count many many times now. To not hire someone for having dreadlocks is completely arbitrary and silly to me. I can't spell it out any clearer.

But I have no problem with CF implementing that standard for their company. Having a 'grooming standard' is not necessarily silly. It's fine if the company wants to present itself in a particular way - rather that way be clean cut and 'proper' or casual and tie-free. Either way it's a standard.

And I don't have a problem with it because I don't believe that all things are appropriate at all times. It's up to individual discretion and in this case it's CF's business - they get to make the call.

That's my personal opinion.

Beyond that, Brian covered it pretty well.

I'd be hesitant to pander to that kind of stupidity, even if it did put my business at risk. I would not make a good CEO.

Or maybe just the opposite. If this thinking is really so wrong and outdated, you'd be wildly successful.

I personally think it depends entirely on the indivudual situation as to where I'd draw the line. What was my business? What was the position? That sort of thing. I don't think it's as easy as "one size fits all."

Carrie M. said:
Yeah, the only thing being judged in any scenario is appearance. You are inferring that the reason has to do with a perception about job performance. I never said that's the case. I don't believe that's the case.

Do you get that? Your distinction is not real. The appearance judgment has nothing to do with potential job performance.

It's about image. It's about culture.

No, that's exactly what I'm saying, and it matters. The distinction is very real, and it has nothing to do with job performance. That's what I've been getting at all along. I'm making no such inference, I'm flat out saying that it has to do with perceived job ability. Whether it's on the part of the employer or the consumer, it doesn't matter. I would have a very negative opinion of anyone who acted as they did toward my former wife in the situation I described, and at least in that case, the employer did the "right" thing, in a moral sense, if not a business sense.

The professor keeps throwing me a bone in trying to steer me where I suspect he thinks I want to be going, and in this case he's right on. The standards are in fact inherited, in exactly the same way that we inherit religious beliefs or destructive social norms like racism. It's something you learn, and I don't know why our culture is intent to simply accept it. Granted, comparing civil rights victories to that of a dreadlock-wearing teen may be a little silly, but both social issues are rooted in the same issues of appearance-based perception. We don't establish those standards until they're introduced to us.

I don't know why we as a culture are so scared to challenge what we know, aside from the human nature that fears change. I don't advocate change for the sake of change, but when you assume the role of amateur anthropologist and see us make the same mistakes again and again, you can only conclude that a little change is good for the world.