I recently (about a month ago) applied for a position at the grocery chain Safeway. Three weeks after the interview - yesterday - I got called and offered a position. I arrived today to fill out paperwork and finalize the job.
As I walked in, the person hiring noticed my long hair tucked into the back of my shirt. She hadn't noticed it at the original interview, and she stated that she should have asked back then whether or not I'd be willing to cut it to meet their dress code requirements. I informed her that I wasn't. I then asked if the company required the same from women's hair. She said no, and showed me the guidelines. I offered to keep it tucked into my shirt (as it was, and as it would have been anyway) or to keep it up under a hat, but she said that wouldn't work with the management.
She seemed genuinely interested in trying to help me out because of her original mistake, asking if I could find some religious reason to keep my hair long. I have none. I made a point to ask her to put in writing that the only reason I was not being given this job was the length of my hair, and that I was qualified in every other area. Had I been female, I would have been given the job without problem.
Looking online, I've found that almost every court case that has been brought up has favored those discriminating against men with long hair. I have, however, discovered a Washington state law protecting gender identity and expression form discrimination. I am curious as to if either that law, or the in-writing statement that the only reason I was not given the job I was offered was my hair length would be a viable claim. Perhaps a gender discrimination case based on the idea that it requires both monetary and time investment to keep hair cut above the collar, and it is an investment only being forced upon male employees would work.
This being said, I'm not even interested in taking their money through a suit; I just really want to work and thought I was finally done job hunting.
As I walked in, the person hiring noticed my long hair tucked into the back of my shirt. She hadn't noticed it at the original interview, and she stated that she should have asked back then whether or not I'd be willing to cut it to meet their dress code requirements. I informed her that I wasn't. I then asked if the company required the same from women's hair. She said no, and showed me the guidelines. I offered to keep it tucked into my shirt (as it was, and as it would have been anyway) or to keep it up under a hat, but she said that wouldn't work with the management.
She seemed genuinely interested in trying to help me out because of her original mistake, asking if I could find some religious reason to keep my hair long. I have none. I made a point to ask her to put in writing that the only reason I was not being given this job was the length of my hair, and that I was qualified in every other area. Had I been female, I would have been given the job without problem.
Looking online, I've found that almost every court case that has been brought up has favored those discriminating against men with long hair. I have, however, discovered a Washington state law protecting gender identity and expression form discrimination. I am curious as to if either that law, or the in-writing statement that the only reason I was not given the job I was offered was my hair length would be a viable claim. Perhaps a gender discrimination case based on the idea that it requires both monetary and time investment to keep hair cut above the collar, and it is an investment only being forced upon male employees would work.
This being said, I'm not even interested in taking their money through a suit; I just really want to work and thought I was finally done job hunting.
