Is this request rude or racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about name tags for workers instead?

Won't help with dementia patients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Context is working at a posh, upscale retirement community. If the manager pulls a worker aside and request that she not wear different "confusing" wigs to work. This worker wears different wigs that all look like they are growing out of her scalp, but one day it will be a short dark brown bob, the next it will be jet black long and curly, another day it may be a dark brown pixie cut. These obviously are wigs that look really natural. If the manager makes this request on the grounds that the residents (some with dementia) will be confused, is this unreasonable?

Yes and it’s illegal in Momtgomery county.

What law?

Eeo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about name tags for workers instead?

Won't help with dementia patients.

Ok. Op you’ve already made a choice. Why are you here? Tell her to stop changing her hair.
You might get lucky and she might not sue the shyte out of you.
Either way her person will be harmed. But hey, it’s just another aggression we are dealt. -AA lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about name tags for workers instead?

Won't help with dementia patients.

Ok. Op you’ve already made a choice. Why are you here? Tell her to stop changing her hair.
You might get lucky and she might not sue the shyte out of you.
Either way her person will be harmed. But hey, it’s just another aggression we are dealt. -AA lawyer

Her person will be harmed? Why not try a little resilience in life? There are very few people who can go through life doing exactly what they would like to do all of the time without someone telling them what to do. OP is not one, you are not one and neither am I. It has nothing to do with the color of your skin. Life is hard, but attitudes like yours make it much harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Context is working at a posh, upscale retirement community. If the manager pulls a worker aside and request that she not wear different "confusing" wigs to work. This worker wears different wigs that all look like they are growing out of her scalp, but one day it will be a short dark brown bob, the next it will be jet black long and curly, another day it may be a dark brown pixie cut. These obviously are wigs that look really natural. If the manager makes this request on the grounds that the residents (some with dementia) will be confused, is this unreasonable?

Yes and it’s illegal in Momtgomery county.

What law?

Eeo

This is not necessarily true.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=da7fb0a1-172a-45de-9060-12a16cabb9d1

Personal dress and appearance is a common way individuals express their personality, including their political and religious views. Unfortunately, the personal choices individuals make in attire, hairstyle and other personal appearance factors may collide with workplace rules, creating conflicts.

Federal U.S. law does not directly regulate employer dress codes or appearance policies. However, it does prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on a number of protected characteristics including, for example, religion, sex, race and national origin. This prohibition on discrimination can implicate employer dress codes if they have a disparate impact on individuals in a protected classification or if the policy is selectively enforced. Federal law also requires U.S. employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of employees unless doing so would result in an undue hardship. Additionally, some employer dress code/appearance policies may violate U.S. labor law. Furthermore, U.S. employers must also be aware of state and local laws, which often provide greater protections for employees than provided by federal law.

Employers can create dress codes and as long as the dress code is not applied due to an employee's protected class, it is not a violation. For example, forbidding an employee from wearing a hijab or yarmulke is a violation of their religious rights. Not allowing a black employee to wear their hair in cornrows or dreadlocs can be an EEO violation based on race. However, asking that the employees keep a consistent appearance for the treatment of patients who have dementia or short term memory issues is not a violation as long as the policy is consistent across the board. Asking people to limit the number of times they significantly change their appearance over a period of time is not a violation. Barring wigs entirely could be construed as a EEO violation, but not asking employees to pick a wig and stay with it for a given period is not an EEO violation.

And the employee is going to waste a lot of money and lose their case if they try to push this one. They may have a case if other employees have been given more laxity in changing their appearance more frequently, but personal expression is not a requirement for employment. Employers can mandate uniforms and dress codes and this would include hair as long as they did not restrict options for every protected class. Telling someone to pick a hair style or wig is not the same as not allowing wigs at all.

[Anonymous]

The key question - is it a policy that ALL employees maintain a strict no hair changes policy? Must apply to all or none. If no such mandate exists it’s racist because they are singling her out.