What is race and how do we as a society define it? That is a question recently addressed in a case called EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions. The defendant company extended a job offer to an applicant which it then revoked when the applicant refused to cut her dreadlocks pursuant to a corporate race-neutral grooming policy. Ultimately, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") brought suit on behalf of the applicant, alleging that the revocation of her job offer was race discrimination in violation of Title VII. Specifically, the EEOC argued that dreadlocks are a hairstyle culturally associated with race. The EEOC also argued that if a white employee chose to wear dreadlocks "as a sign of racial support for her black colleagues," the white employee could also bring a race-based disparate treatment claim.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Georgia, Florida, and Alabama) rejected this argument but engaged in a lengthy discussion of whether "race" as defined in Title VII should include cultural perceptions. The Court recognized that culture is a broad and every-changing concept and that there was an increased demand for a broader interpretation of "race" under Title VII. However, the Court held that the practical implications of including culture within the meaning of race would be too difficult and ambiguous to implement. For example, how should a court choose which cultural practices are associated with a specific race, especially because certain cultural practices may be absorbed or transferred among different races? Courts would also have to choose which definition of "race" as well as which cultural characteristics or traits are worthy of Title VII protection. The Eleventh Circuit held that courts are tasked only with interpreting Title VII and "not with grading competing doctoral theses in anthropology or sociology."

As a result, the Eleventh Circuit reiterated in this case that race as defined under Title VII must be based on immutable characteristics, which are characteristics that are beyond an individual's power to alter. As a hairstyle can be readily changed, it is not an immutable characteristic and thus not included in the protections of Title VII.

While this case does not alter an employer's obligations under Title VII, it is worth noting that the Court did recognize the ever-changing societal definitions of race and racial culture. While the employer's decision and policy here were ultimately found to not violate Title VII, employers may wish t0 re-evaluate policies that may adversely affect individuals with certain characteristics often associated with a particular race. If that policy is not essential to the workplace and work at issue, it may be worth reconsidering if it is worth having at all.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.