MENUMENU
  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
        • SEE MORE
          PREMIUM RESOURCES
  • HR DEEP DIVES
        • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources for HR Professionals
          Employment Law
          Labor Law Posting Requirements: Everything You Need to Know
          Recruiting
          businesswoman selecting future employees on digital interfaces
          Recruiting Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
          Performance Management
          vector image of young female making star rating
          Performance Review Resources
          Employment Law
          Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity and the EEOC
          Recruiting
          Onboarding Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
  • CORONAVIRUS & HR

  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE

HR Morning

MENUMENU
  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
        • SEE MORE
          PREMIUM RESOURCES
  • HR DEEP DIVES
        • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources for HR Professionals
          Employment Law
          Labor Law Posting Requirements: Everything You Need to Know
          Recruiting
          businesswoman selecting future employees on digital interfaces
          Recruiting Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
          Performance Management
          vector image of young female making star rating
          Performance Review Resources
          Employment Law
          Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity and the EEOC
          Recruiting
          Onboarding Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
  • CORONAVIRUS & HR
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • More
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Staff Administration
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • Employee Services
    • Work Location
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans

Shave-or-else policy tested in court

Fred Hosier
by Fred Hosier
December 11, 2008
2 minute read
  • SHARE ON


A service station technician claims his former employer’s grooming policy, which prohibited facial hair, discriminated against him due to his religion.
Bobby Brown was employed by a Jiffy Lube in Massachusetts. He worked on vehicles and doubled as a salesperson, greeter and cashier.
The Jiffy Lube franchise owner brought in a consultant to determine how to improve business.
Among the recommendations was that the shop institute a grooming policy for its employees who had customer contact.
The policy stated, “customer-contact employees are expected to be clean-shaven with no facial hair … hair should be clean, combed, and neatly trimmed or arranged. Radical departures from conventional dress or personal grooming and hygiene standards are not permitted.”
Brown is a Rastafarian, a religion he had adhered to for ten years. The religion does not permit him to shave or cut his hair.
The employee told the Jiffy Lube’s manager that he wanted to maintain customer contact without having to shave or cut his hair.
The manager told him if he didn’t comply with the new grooming policy, he’d only be allowed to work in the lower bay and could not have customer contact.
Undue hardship?
In response to his lawsuit, the Jiffy Lube argued that allowing an exemption to its grooming policy would be an undue hardship because it had a right to control its public image.
In a deposition, the owner presented evidence that sales increased after the grooming policy went into effect.
However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said the evidence was insufficient to show increased profitability was caused by the policy, so Jiffy Lube did not prove it had an undue hardship.
The court remanded the case back to a lower court to determine whether assigning Brown to the lower bay where he’d have no customer contact was a reasonable accommodation.
Religious appearance requirements may include hair, yarmulkes, veils and even the mark on the forehead that denotes Ash Wednesday. What do you think about this case and the potential conflict between workplace grooming rules and religious freedom? Let us know via the Comments Box below.
Brown v. F.L. Roberts & Co., Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, No. 10155, 12/2/08. You can click here to download the court’s decision.

Fred Hosier
Fred Hosier
Fred Hosier is editor of Safety News Alert. He has written about occupational safety and health since 1999. Fred's been in the communications business since 1985, including 11 years at WILM Newsradio in Wilmington, DE, where he was News Director.

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES

Keep Up To Date with the Latest HR News

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

Sign up for a free HRMorning membership and get our newsletter!
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • HR Technology
  • Performance Management
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation & Payroll
  • Policy & Culture
  • Staff Administration
  • Wellness & Safety
  • Staff Departure
  • Employee Services
  • Work Location
  • HR Career & Self-Care

HRMorning, part of the SuccessFuel Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day’s headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Privacy Policy Terms of Service
Copyright © 2021 SuccessFuel

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

preloader