Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Should Employers Be Permitted to Discriminate on the Basis of Appearance?

by David Doorey October 10, 2014
written by David Doorey October 10, 2014

Originally published on October 14, 2014

An Edmonton woman who says she’s being discriminated against because she has 22 visible piercings is reigniting the debate about workplace dress codes.  Kendra Behringer, 24, complained that one prospective employer threw out her résumé in front of her.

This is the opening of an article in the National Post about employers discriminating against applicants and employees based on piercings, tattoos, and ‘dress code’.      Should employers be able to weed out workers whose appearance they don’t like?  Let’s start with the question of whether they can do this.  The answer is that they can, with a couple of exceptions.
1.     Employers Can Discriminate On the Basis of Appearance, with Two Exceptions
Remember that the Common Law does not prohibit discrimination in employment at all.  There is no tort of discrimination that applies to the hiring and selection process (recall Seneca College v. Bhaudauria), and a nonunion employer can fire an employee for absolutely no reason whatsoever.  Many people wrongfully believe that they can’t be fired without a good reason.  That is true of unionized employees, because unions bargain contract clauses requiring the employer to have “just cause”.  Unless a nonunion employee has bargained their own “just cause” clause into their contract, their employer can terminate them for showing up with a new tattoo or for dying their hair green, or just because the employer is in a bad mood.  No reason is needed.

Can Employers Discriminate on Basis of Piercings? Credit:  Postmedia News

Can Employers Discriminate on Basis of Piercings?
Credit: Postmedia News

Exception One:   Dress and Appearance Codes in Unionized Workplaces Must Be ‘Reasonable’

So the first exception to the general rule that an employer can discriminate on the basis of appearance relates to unionized employees.  If the employee is unionized, then the employer will need to establish that the employee’s appearance will have a real detrimental impact on the employer’s economic interests, as I have discussed before.  That’s because employer rules in a unionized workplace must be ‘reasonable’ according to labour arbitration jurisprudence.  A unionized employer’s dress or appearance code can be challenged as unreasonable by the filing of a grievance.  However, even a unionized employer can usually discriminate against job applicants whose appearance they don’t like, since the collective agreement rules don’t usually govern the hiring and selection process.

Exception Two:  Dress and Appearance Codes Must Not Violate Human Rights Statutes

The second general exception to the rule that an employer can discriminate on the basis of appearance is that an employer cannot use appearance as a proxy for a prohibited ground of discrimination in human rights legislation.  Human rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of certain designated grounds.  Look at Section 5 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, for example:

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.

Do you think that an employer who refuses employment to an applicant because it doesn’t like her piercings and tattoos is discriminating on the basis of one of these grounds?

It’s possible, but only in the rarest of cases.  For example, a requirement to wear black could discriminate against a worker whose religion requires them to wear white.  A rule against piercings could discriminate against someone who has piercing for religious reasons or because piercings are a common symbol in their ethnicity.  If an appearance rule is really code for a particular skin colour or ethnicity, then that would discriminate. For example, a restaurant that hires only ‘pretty blonds’ would be in violation of this Section, because there are huge segments of the population that will not be blond because of their ethnicity, place of origin, ancestry, or creed.  If there are religions or ethnicities that require or expect tattoos of some form, then a ban on tattoos could be caught by creed.  You get the idea.  But a simple rule that we will not hire 24 year olds with purple hair and piercing through their cheeks is almost certainly not prohibited by human rights legislation.

Some commentators have argued that a tattoo is included within the prohibited ground of “colour”.  What do you think of that argument?  A tattoo certainly colours the skin.  On the other hand, I’m pretty certain that the intention of including ‘colour’ was to catch the immutable colour of one’s skin–the skin colour we are born with.  The argument that human rights legislation protects the right of employees to paint their skin without fear of employer reprisal would require a very expansive application of ‘colour’, essentially applying it to artistic or personal expression.

2.     Should Employers Be Prohibited from Discriminating Against Workers on the Basis of Appearance?
The woman in the National Post story is lobbying for an amendment to the Alberta human rights legislation to add “body modifications” to the list of prohibited grounds.  Do we like that idea?  Frankly, although I understand the sense of unfairness of being denied employment because of how you look, I don’t see the adding of body modification to human rights codes happening.  One problem with the idea is that it is under-inclusive.  If we are going to add body modifications, then why not other aspects of appearance, like dress, hair colour, weight, height, or just appearance more generally.   In some U.S. States, governments have added height and weight to the prohibited grounds.  Lots of employers hire people because they like how they look.  They are ‘pretty’ or ‘sexy’, they look ‘professional’, they look like they will ‘fit in’.  Do we think that is fair?  We could pass a law that bans employers from basing their employment decisions on “appearance” if we want, which would include ‘tattoos and piercing’ but also more than that.   Should we?
Questions for Discussion
Why do you think our governments have not prohibited discrimination on the basis of appearance?  
Do you foresee any difficulties in the application or enforcement of such a law?
In unionized workplaces, employers must justify a dress or appearance code and demonstrate that it is necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. Nonuniuon employers need not justify appearance codes at all.  Should a law be enacted that holds nonunion employers to the same standard of reasonableness as unionized employers?

10 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Texts as Evidence in Human Rights Cases
next post
Can a Negative Employment Reference be Defamation?

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
1h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923165Like on Twitter 13646239761740923167Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
3h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
19 Feb

Tenants have associations, but landlords can't just ignore them. Is Landlord Tenant Law the next frontier in Freedom of Association litigation?

@TheLawofWork considers:

“The Striking Absence of Freedom of Association in Landlord and Tenant Law”

https://lawofwork.ca/the-striking-absence-of-freedom-of-association-in-landlord-and-tenant-law/

Reply on Twitter 1362821027458334724Retweet on Twitter 13628210274583347243Like on Twitter 13628210274583347244Twitter 1362821027458334724
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.