Home News Courts Rule that “Lockblocking” is Legal

Courts Rule that “Lockblocking” is Legal

by Michael Troutt

In September, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that companies have the right to refuse employment to individuals with dreadlocks. The ruling came in light of a 2010 lawsuit that was brought about by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of Chastity Jones.

Jones, an African-American woman with dreadlocks, was offered employment at Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS), a company that processes insurance claims in Mobile, Alabama. After successfully completing the interview process, Jones met with a CMS human resources manager to discuss a scheduling conflict. In this private meeting, Jones was informed that there was a strict grooming policy and that she would be required to cut her dreads in order to be employed at CMS. When Jones questioned the policy, she was told that “they tend to get a little messy.” Jones protested and her job offer at CMS was retracted.

According to court documents, the EEOC argued that, historically, dreadlocks came from Africans who were aboard slave ships for long periods of time, while crossing the ocean. During that time their hair was matted with feces, sweat and blood, and upon being unloaded from the ships, the slave traders were known to remark on how “dreadful” their hair looked. Thus the name dreadlocks became the common term for this naturally coiling hairstyle. Perhaps the most common association with dreadlocks is the Rastafarian religious movement out of Jamaica, made famous by the legendary musician Bob Marley. Rastafarians wear dreadlocks because they believe that strength is associated with hair length and that dreads are a way of living in harmony with nature.

In light of this history, the EEOC argued that dreadlocks are a hairstyle that is culturally and racially associated with African-Americans, and is therefore discrimination, according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.”

Despite this argument, the court upheld the grooming policy of CMS as being race-neutral and stated that it was not discriminatory based on Title VII. The court ruled that Title VII protects “immutable” characteristics, and though dreadlocks may be racially and historically tied to African culture, the hairstyle is “mutable” and can be changed to conform to company policy. Blackburn Director of Diversity and Inclusion Jarrod Gray believes that an employer should have some say in how their employees conform to a company model. However, Gray also pointed out how ridiculous the excuse CMS used for being against dreadlocks was, and stated that “If you’re going to make a case for something, make a strong case that makes sense,” instead of basing it on a false truth that dreadlocks are messy.

For now, the court’s ruling stands and the EEOC has not indicated any plans to appeal the case.

Related Articles

Leave a Comment