On Sept. 15, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared it legal for employers to refuse to hire an individual based solely on the fact that they have dreadlocks.

Chastity Jones, an Alabama resident and someone who proudly sports dreadlocks, was told during a meeting to discuss scheduling conflicts for her new job at Catastrophe Management Solutions that her dreadlocks were not included in the job offer.

Jeannie Wilson, the human resources manager for CMS, commented on Jones’ dreads, saying that dreads “tend to get messy, although I’m not saying yours are, but you know what I’m talking about.”

Jones contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, convinced that the terminated job offer did not comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s Title VII, which protects employees from discrimination of all kinds.

The Title clearly states that its purpose is “to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.”

The EEOC classified the situation as racial discrimination and claimed that “dreadlocks are a manner of wearing the hair that is physiologically and culturally associated with people of African descent.”

Despite this effort, the court ruled against the lawsuit with the argument that a hairstyle is not a defining racial characteristic and is strictly based on choice, especially considering the fact that Jones is white.

Judge Jordan Carnes, the judge responsible for the ruling, admitted to the ambiguity of the legal definition of ‘race’ in Title VII.

“Our point is not to take a stand on any side of this debate,” Carnes said. “But rather to suggest that, given the role and complexity of race in our society, and the many different sides in the discussion, it may not be a bad idea to try to resolve through the democratic process what ‘race’ means (or should mean) in Title VII.”

This confusion surrounding racially associated hairstyles is similar to the dress code policy implemented by Butler Traditional High School in Kentucky back in July, stating that students were not allowed to wear their hair in “extreme, distracting or attention-getting” hairstyles that included cornrows, twists, and dreadlocks.

The school was quickly called out for the discriminatory policy through a Tweet posted by an upset mother. After many complaints from parents and locals, the school removed it from the rule-book.

So what separates these two situations that led to two different conclusions? 

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the individuals being affected by the dress code were children. Or maybe it is due to Butler Traditional High School’s obligation to please their students and families.

Whatever the reason, the court’s decision to allow such discrimination in the workplace is surprising and I definitely foresee the ruling facing further appeals in the future.