Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc.
27 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 694, 527 F.Supp. 229, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16102 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's grooming policy that prohibits a hairstyle associated with a particular race does not constitute prohibited discrimination under Title VII if the policy is applied neutrally and regulates a mutable characteristic (a chosen hairstyle) rather than an immutable one (such as natural hair texture or skin color).
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a Black woman, was employed by American Airlines for approximately eleven years as an airport operations agent.
- Her duties required extensive and direct contact with passengers.
- American Airlines maintained a grooming policy prohibiting employees in passenger-contact roles from wearing an 'all-braided' hairstyle, also known as 'corn rows'.
- Plaintiff began wearing her hair in the prohibited corn row style to work.
- Plaintiff asserted that the corn row hairstyle has deep cultural and historical significance for Black American women.
- American Airlines' stated purpose for the grooming policy was to project a conservative and business-like image to the public.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff first filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- After exhausting her administrative remedies, the EEOC issued the plaintiff a right-to-sue letter.
- Plaintiff sued American Airlines in the U.S. District Court, alleging violations of the Thirteenth Amendment, Title VII, and § 1981.
- Defendant American Airlines filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's grooming policy that prohibits an 'all-braided' hairstyle, which holds cultural significance for Black women, constitute racial or sexual discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Sofaer, District Judge
No. An employer's grooming policy prohibiting an 'all-braided' hairstyle does not constitute unlawful racial or sexual discrimination under Title VII. The court reasoned that Title VII's protections are primarily directed at discrimination based on immutable characteristics, which are traits beyond an individual's power to alter, such as race or sex. The court distinguished the 'all-braided' hairstyle, which it characterized as a mutable 'artifice' and an 'easily changed characteristic,' from a natural hairstyle like an 'Afro/bush,' which might receive protection because it implicates immutable traits. Because the grooming policy was facially neutral—applying equally to all races and sexes—and regulated a mutable choice rather than an unchangeable characteristic, it was more closely related to the employer's business judgment than to a violation of equal employment opportunity. The court analogized the policy to permissible English-only rules in the workplace, which regulate sociocultural traits, and found the employer's interest in projecting a business-like image to be a legitimate business consideration.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant and often-criticized precedent by creating a sharp distinction between immutable racial characteristics and mutable cultural practices. It solidified the legal framework allowing employers to regulate employee appearance and grooming, even when those regulations impact culturally significant hairstyles. The 'immutable vs. mutable characteristics' analysis became a central point of contention in subsequent employment discrimination cases involving grooming policies, particularly those affecting Black employees. This case's reasoning has been challenged by later legal developments, including the passage of CROWN Acts in various states, which explicitly protect natural and cultural hairstyles.
