Trich and the law

This is not official advice, it is an answer by a parent after a question asked on the TTM mailer.  The question was what our rights as trichsters are when we are not employed, because of the state of our hair.

Answer by Mike Grant

I have had to deal with this issue in regards to my daughter's high school which is covered by both the American with Disabilities Act as well as other education special anti-discrimination laws.

It is my understanding, as a lay person, that some matters of appearance fall into a gray area when it comes to the American with Disabilities Act. In the absense of state laws to the contrary, schools and employers are free to establish and enforce grooming standards, even ones which are seemingly unreasonable and discriminate according to gender, with any requirement to justify such standards.
For example, a Federal District Court judge found The Citadel, a state sponsored military college in South Carolina, could set whatever haircut standards it pleased for its female cadets, even requiring
shaved heads if they chose to do so. In that particular situation, The Citadel elected to require only short haircuts. It has long been established that schools and employers are free to require haircuts of
men and not women, or to require the hair of either gender be worn in a prescribed manner, such as off the collar, which is a common requirement of police officers, nurses, and other female professionals. However, all of these situations deal with voluntary   choices in appearance, that is, one can chose whether or not to cut or arrange his or her hair in a requirement manner even though it may not
be to his or her liking. The gray area is where there is an involuntary component to the person's appearance such as the lack of hair beyond the individual's control, such as hair loss resulting from
trichotillomania, chemotherapy, or alopecia areata.

The American with Disabilities Act primarily addresses the employer's obligation to make reasonable accommodations with which the prospective employee can perform the essential functions of a given
position. In some circumstances, I suppose a person's appearance could be considered part of the essential function of a position that involved interfacing with the public. In such a circumstance, a
person would be obliged to follow his or her employer's direction in regards to any grooming or dress requirements. In regards to hair loss, it might not be unreasonable for an employer to require the
person wear a wig, which might be considered a reasonable accommodation, particularly if the employer paid for it. A employer would seem to be within their rights to prohibit an employee from shaving his or her head unless directed to do so by a physician.   Otherwise, the assumption is the person is shaving his or her head because they feel it looks better than the alternative of missing clumps, etc.. In the latter situation, the employee could offer to abstain from shaving at the employer's behest long enough for the
employer to reach the same conclusion and release the employee to being shaving again.

In the situations I have dealt with in regards to my daughter, I have found trying to understand the organization's concerns, be it a school or an employer, and looking for a compromise to the most effective approach. This is one area where the law does not favor the individual and most people do not have the legal and financial resources to enforce the few rights they may have.

Mike Grant