Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a hair-length policy applicable only to men when “[n]o similar regulation restricts the hair length or hair style of female employees” was not sex discrimination
• holding that a policy was not discrimination where “[n]o similar regulation restricts the hair length or hair style of female employees, but both male and female employees must conform to certain standards of dress” — exactly the scenario stipulated to here
• approving similar policy again requiring only men to cut their hair, but also imposing hair style policy on men alone
• upholding validity of reasonable grooming and appearance standards when “imposed in an evenhanded manner on all employees”
• “Defendant’s hair length requirement for male employees is part of a comprehensive personal grooming code applicable to all employees.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).