Head shaving not a firing offence

If the baldness was not even visible, how could it offend anyone?

Jan 2011

Sometimes a hairstyle means more than a fashion statement.

Winnipegger Stephanie Lozinski made headlines this week after shaving her head in support of her uncle’s plight with cancer. Many found the sacrifice inspiring, as few healthy people would consider total hair loss for the sake of someone they love.

But Lozinski says her boss at Sawatdee Thai restaurant on Provencher Boulevard fired her because of her new look, even though she wore scarves or wigs to cover her bald head during every shift.

If that’s the case, as it appears to be from the manager’s comments to local media so far, this waitress is right to speak out.

Of course, restaurants do have a vested interest in each employee’s image and a right to enforce a basic dress code. In general, it’s fair to require servers to wear uniforms, remove piercings, conceal tattoos or even cover a bald head during their shifts.

Like it or not, an employee’s appearance — especially when it comes to cleanliness — can make a big difference in how customers view the business they represent. An outfit of grass-stained, ripped jeans and purple hair, for example, doesn’t exactly scream “fine dining.” But if Lozinski consistently covered her head and was fired anyway, this case clearly crosses the line.

A wig or scarf is more than a fair compromise to cover a hairdo that bothers managers and/or customers. If the baldness was not even visible, how could it offend anyone?

And in this case, where the choice was made to support a great cause, if a guest at Sawatdee questioned the server’s lack of locks, chances are they would be satisfied, if not impressed, by her answer.

For food safety, a shaved head may even be a bonus, since hairless servers pretty much can’t shed a single strand of hair into the food they serve.

In general, cutting hair for cancer wigs or research is incredibly common and typically considered a selfless act of charity. The only real difference between that roundly admired choice for a short do and a scalp-baring shave is a few inches.

No matter what her employment outcome is, Lozinski has shone a light on a painfully common disease, which the Canadian Cancer Society estimated would kill 76,000 Canadians in 2010 alone. Just last week, Lozinski’s uncle lost his fight against cancer as well.

Obviously, if someone lost their hair during chemotherapy and was fired because of it, the vast majority of Winnipeggers would be outraged. It would be hypocritical to treat someone who voluntarily made this sacrifice much differently.

Lozinski has filed a human rights complaint stating she was discriminated against for her appearance, which was already rejected. She says this was because she shaved her head voluntarily, not due to illness or disability.

She’s now reportedly considering a second rights complaint based on the fact she believes a man who shaved his head under the same circumstances would not have been fired.

When you consider how much emphasis is placed on the female appearance, this gender discrimination claim might stand a much better chance of success.

But regardless of the human rights issues at play, there is a clear ethical line about the way Lozinski was treated.

Bosses have no right to control how their employees present themselves after hours. So, as long as those with shaved heads, tattoos, or piercings are considerate enough of their employer’s business to conform to a dress code while on the clock, that consideration should be more than enough to keep a job.

If those who dare to be different for a cause respect the rules of others, they deserve the same respect in return.

Source