Judge: TSA violated rights of Rastafarian

[bambbbam2]

A bit of light hearted news from the un-funny TSA...

From
Judge: TSA violated rights of Rastafarian - Boston.com

BOSTON—The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says the rights of a Rastafarian baggage screener at Boston's Logan International Airport were violated when he was threatened with firing unless he kept his hair short.







The American Civil Liberties Union said Tuesday that Josue Brissot (JOE'-sway BREE'-soh) was assured when he was hired by the Transporation Security Administration in 2002 that his long dreadlocks were not a problem.



But by 2005 he was being told his hair was against agency policy and he would be fired unless he cut it. Brissot keeps his hair long for religious reasons.

 

[BAM1748]

That's fine until his hair gets caught in a baggage conveyor. I guess he could sue them for not providing proper protection.


Rolls Royce had a case many years back where a worker had his hair in a mohawk and had it "varnished" so it was hard and sharp like a knife, he was sacked as a potential danger to other workers.

 

[docjames]

The TSA, keeping you safe.

 

[samh004]

That's fine until his hair gets caught in a baggage conveyor. I guess he could sue them for not providing proper protection.

Perhaps they shouldn’t have hired him in the first place then, or told him that his hair was fine then. Ultimately, could they give him a choice… cut it or sign this so when you are dragged into machinery you have no right to sue?

 

[SeaWolf]

I don't see why the long hair is intrinsically dangerous. If it's kept tied back then I don't think there's anymore danger of it getting caught in the machinery than if a woman had long hair that she kept tied back. I doubt the TSA dress code requires women to keep their hair short, it probably only requires that it be kept tied back.

 

[medhead]

That's fine until his hair gets caught in a baggage conveyor. I guess he could sue them for not providing proper protection.

You've totally missed the point, if proper safety measures are taken then the hair can't get caught in a conveyor. In Australia OHS legislation puts the onus on the employer. So yes, in general, if they fail to take steps to prevent his hair getting caught then he can sue them. But they don't just have the option of providing him with protection. the Conveyor could be guarded, and with hair tied back that would prevent the hair getting caught.

This certainly isn't a safety issue to let someone follow their beliefs. We also don't only have women as an example of people who can work with long hair. What about Sikhs? Are there thousands of Sikh baggage handlers getting dragged into conveyors every year in India?

 

[trippin_the_rift]

I've seen many female TSA employees with long hair....

 

[BAM1748]

You've totally missed the point, if proper safety measures are taken then the hair can't get caught in a conveyor. In Australia OHS legislation puts the onus on the employer. So yes, in general, if they fail to take steps to prevent his hair getting caught then he can sue them. But they don't just have the option of providing him with protection. the Conveyor could be guarded, and with hair tied back that would prevent the hair getting caught.

This certainly isn't a safety issue to let someone follow their beliefs. We also don't only have women as an example of people who can work with long hair. What about Sikhs? Are there thousands of Sikh baggage handlers getting dragged into conveyors every year in India?

Although I was making a flippant comment, I will respond in Medheads more serious tone.

Sikh's wear nothing more on their hair than a turban, that's fine that's the religion - what about Sikh bicycle, motorcycle riders, should the NSW police enforce the helmet law for them? Isn't that discriminating against me as a non believer making me wear a helmet. (Sikh's are exempt from wearing helmets in the UK, as a % they have more fatailites than the naitonal average)

And yes, Sikh's have brain injuries (in north america where it's recorded) between .4% and 2% higher than the national average as aresult of accidents.

Developed countries have, since the industrial revolution gone to short hair partly for reason of safety. Look at hair styles before the steam age.

We know Rasterfai wear hats, so in this case that isn't the issue, just my remark about not wanting a hair cut, but could make a claim for getting his hair caught up.

While the onus is on the employer here in Aust, it has shifted away from that in some states, WA for eg, where the employer must provide PPE and training, but the employee has a duty of care to use it and be safe and gone of the days of no fault (of the employee) claims which just get paid, a % of each claim can be attributed by the court to the employee. A $100K claim for a removed scalp, if attributed to the employee could result in just the medical costs being paid by the insurer.


Matt
previously an insurance manager for a global engineering company, which included workers compensation

 

[medhead]

Although I was making a flippant comment, I will respond in Medheads more serious tone.

Sikh's wear nothing more on their hair than a turban, that's fine that's the religion - what about Sikh bicycle, motorcycle riders, should the NSW police enforce the helmet law for them? Isn't that discriminating against me as a non believer making me wear a helmet. (Sikh's are exempt from wearing helmets in the UK, as a % they have more fatailites than the naitonal average)

And yes, Sikh's have brain injuries (in north america where it's recorded) between .4% and 2% higher than the national average as aresult of accidents.

Developed countries have, since the industrial revolution gone to short hair partly for reason of safety. Look at hair styles before the steam age.

We know Rasterfai wear hats, so in this case that isn't the issue, just my remark about not wanting a hair cut, but could make a claim for getting his hair caught up.

While the onus is on the employer here in Aust, it has shifted away from that in some states, WA for eg, where the employer must provide PPE and training, but the employee has a duty of care to use it and be safe and gone of the days of no fault (of the employee) claims which just get paid, a % of each claim can be attributed by the court to the employee. A $100K claim for a removed scalp, if attributed to the employee could result in just the medical costs being paid by the insurer.


Matt
previously an insurance manager for a global engineering company, which included workers compensation

Interesting discussion about Sikhs and helments. I'm not sure how wearing a helment impacts their beliefs. Sure it might be difficult and uncomfortable, but the helment is still going to cover and contain their hair.

As you say everyone has responsibilities under OHS legislation and that is in all states not just WA. Primarily the employer has to provide a safe work place. As per your post (flippant or not) if the employer doesn't provide a safe workplace, i.e. protection, then, yes, the employee can get compensation. Getting a hair cut is not a requirement to make conveyors safe and if the employer fails in their duties then the employee cannot be made responsible, even in the wild west....


ps insurance manager is interesting. Some of us also do regulation and safety for a day job.