Does your workplace dress code address personal features such as facial hair, makeup, tattoos and piercings? Whether such policies are discriminatory continues to be an issue, as the city of Houston is finding out.

Houston doesn’t allow its police officers to have beards. Actually, they can have beards, but if they do, they can’t wear the city police uniform. Four bearded officers on the force are on plain clothes duty.

Four African American officers have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city, claiming discrimination because shaving triggers a skin condition that disproportionately affects black men.

Men with pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) suffer rashes, ingrown hairs, infection, bleeding and scarring from shaving.

The officers claim that since they can only do plain clothes police duties it impacts their earning potential.

Recently, Houston City Council voted to allocate up to $150,000 to fight the officers’ suit, despite some council members’ questioning of the no-beard policy itself.

Houston Police enacted the no-beard rule for officers in 1993 so uniformed officers look conservative and professional, according to a city memo.

The Houston Chronicle reports that the policy wasn’t regularly enforced until after Sept. 11, 2001. After 9/11, all uniformed officers received gas masks, and beards sometimes prevent adequate seals when wearing the safety gear.

Three of the bearded officers say they’ve tested the gas masks and got good seals. They also claim the department could buy some different masks that work with beards.

What the courts have said

Federal courts have ruled that personal appearance rules in and of themselves aren’t illegal.

However, affected employees have to show discrimination in one of the areas protected by federal law — gender, age, race or national origin, color, religion, and disability.

For example, the Sikh religion requires men to wear beards. Some Orthodox Jewish men also wear beards as part of religious observance.

State and local laws may preclude employers from implementing such dress and appearance policies or add other categories, such as sexual orientation, to the federal list. Union contracts also have to be considered.

The argument by the Houston police that the policy affects their earnings potential may be a key to the court’s decision.

In Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, a group of African American firefighters, who were told they had to shave their beards, filed suit against the city using the same argument that they suffered from PFB.

The court rejected their disparate race claim because the City’s grooming requirement was based on a legitimate business necessity, that the firefighters had to have good seals on their respiratory equipment.

In other employee appearance cases, showing that the policy discriminated against a protected class and proving that it caused financial hardship is a combination that swayed judges to rule against the employer.

HR Blunders will follow the Houston police case and let you know how it turns out.

Does your company have rules about employee appearance that go beyond how they dress? Let us know.

Tags: appearance, beards, discrimination, dress code, lawsuit