Last week, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a decision dismissing a case filed by the EEOC on behalf of a black applicant whose employment offer was rescinded pursuant to the company’s grooming policy when she refused to cut off her dreadlocks.  See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Sols., No. 14-13482, 2016 WL 4916851 (11th Cir. Sept. 15, 2016). The court held that Title VII—which protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on race and national origin among other bases—prohibited discrimination based on immutable traits.  Dreadlocks, the court held, are not an immutable characteristic of black individuals. 

The opinion contains an interesting discussion of what “race” means for purposes of Title VII.  The EEOC argued that “race” encompasses individual expression when such expression is tied to race.  The court rejected this argument, making clear that Title VII “protects persons in covered categories with respect to their immutable characteristics, but not their cultural practices.”  In doing so the court also declined to rely on the EEOC’s own Compliance Manual which takes a similar position that Title VII prohibits discrimination “because of cultural characteristics often linked to race or ethnicity, such as a person's name, cultural dress and grooming practices, or accent or manner of speech.”  The court pointed out that the EEOC contravened this position in an administrative appeal involving another case, and that the Compliance Manual conflicts with caselaw on the topic.  This case affirms an employer’s right to enforce hiring practices and policies—including grooming policies—so long as they are not tied to any applicant’s protected class.