Pubdate: Thu, 25 Jun 2015
Source: Trentonian, The (NJ)
Column: NJ Weedman's Passing the Joint
Copyright: 2015 The Trentonian
Contact:  http://www.trentonian.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1006
Author: Ed Forchion, NJWeedman.com For The Trentonian

BENEFICIAL BANK: NO DYED HAIR FOR BLACK EMPLOYEES

I had a great Father's Day with four of my five children. My one 
child, Ajanea, doesn't communicate with me. Her mind was poisoned by 
her scorned mother, who refused to allow me to bond with my daughter 
for 15 years. The Burlington County Family Court judges helped her 
with this by preventing me from having a relationship with my 
daughter because I publicly spoke THE TRUTH about marijuana. Free 
speech didn't exist in family court for me, and it ruined my 
relationship with my daughter. I hear I'm a grandfather, too, but I 
don't know thanks to Judge Bell and her bigoted co-judges. I don't 
hate too many things, but I'll tell anyone who'll listen: I hate the 
Burlington County Family Court judges, especially Judge Maria S. 
Bell. If you think Blackmen get the short end of stick in the 
criminal system, take a look at family court.

Since becoming a columnist for The Trentonian and being viewed as a 
champion underdog by the community, I've been inundated by people 
presenting me with their problems and asking me to write about them. 
I have for a few and feel bad for others I haven't worked in, but 
here are a couple.

The family of a state parolee who doesn't want his actual name in the 
paper (I'll call him J.) contacted me about his parole officers. The 
family claim J.has an apartment here in Trenton, hasn't gotten into 
any trouble, and is in compliance with everything the parole officers 
have ordered him to do until now. He successfully adjusted to the 
community. But when his parole officers visited his residence 
recently they claimed they smelled weed coming from a neighbor's 
place and ordered him to take a pee test, which he passed. But why 
did he have to take a test? And he's been ordered to move under 
threat of re-imprisonment. They claim he is in proximity to criminal acts.

What! I'm writing from my business, NJWeedman's Joint (across the 
street from City Hall), while smoking a joint: Weed smoking is 
everywhere, get real parole officers. The guy doesn't have any money 
and hasn't done anything wrong, yet you create this hardship for him.

It even happens in my personal life. While out at Father's Day dinner 
my third daughter Daeja said to me, "Dad, you know how you haven't 
cut your dreads in 15 years despite everyone telling you to. Well, my 
boss at Beneficial Bank (in Burlington), said my hair color 'wasn't 
natural,' and if I don't color my hair back to black I'd be seeking 
employment elsewhere. She gave me until June 22 to change it. I don't 
want to change my hair color, but my boss is threatening to fire me. 
What should I do?"

I totally feel for this issue, whether it's coming from my daughter 
or anyone else because it is so true; so many times I've had people 
(usually white people) tell me they'd take me more seriously if I cut 
my hair. Like my words would sound different if only I had hair white 
people could respect. From personal appearance I've found that white 
people at times don't like or respect the ethnic, religious 
significance of the dreads I wear. I said to Daeja, "New Jersey is a 
right-to-hire state, but they can't fire you for that. Plus, you were 
hired with your hair that color back in April."

In fact, back in April I read about a similar case with a black 
Hooters employee. So I asked if this was company policy or this 
manager's personal peeve. We looked in the employee handbook and 
there was nothing about hair color. I gave her a letter of warning to 
give to the manager.

Here's what the Beneficial Bank employee handbook says about hair: 
Employees must be well groomed at all times. Hair must be clean, 
neat, and styled in a professional and conservative manner.

Two years ago, just before my Daeja enrolled at Indiana University, 
she changed her hair to a mild maroon or auburn color usually worn by 
white women. She said she just wanted to re-invent herself. I 
personally liked it - it's not a wild party color and looks 
professional to me. I never imaged she'd be fired for it, or have her 
job credentials questioned based on this color. I see plenty of white 
women wearing this coloration. My daughter and I concluded if she 
were fully white this wouldn't be an issue. I told her to prepare to 
cut her hair or file a lawsuit.

We felt this threat was a blatant act of racial discrimination. My 
daughter is mixed; her mother is half white, and I'm not the darkest 
"Negro" myself. There are white women at Beneficial Bank with colored 
hair, and it's a discriminatory practice to allow white women to dye 
their hair blond, red or auburn but not black women.

My daughter is a very nice suburban kid; she got good grades in high 
school, is attending college, and has never been in trouble. She's 
the daughter of NJWeedman and she doesn't even smoke weed! Yet as I 
sat down to write this week's column about J., the parolee, Daeja 
called me and told me she was in fact fired when she showed up for 
work Wednesday with her non-negro colored hair.

I called Beneficial Bank, identified myself as a writer for The 
Trentonian, and attempted to ask the manager these three questions:

If a white woman had hair this color, would she be fired?

Why isn't hair color addressed in the handbook?

Was this firing a personal decision of the branch manager, or company policy?

After I told her why The Trentonian was calling, she said "no 
comment" and hung up, so I'm encouraging others to ask her and I'm 
seeking a lawyer for my daughter, so pass this joint to a barrister you know.

This reminds me of the recent Hooters Hairgate.

The restaurant chain Hooters doesn't mind skimpy attire but 
apparently draws the line at black women with colored hair. 
African-American waitress Farryn Johnson was fired from her Baltimore 
restaurant because "Hooters prohibits African-American Hooters Girls 
from wearing blond highlights in their hair because it is not a 
natural color for African-Americans," as the lawsuit claimed. Johnson 
claimed racial discrimination was the root cause of the 
discriminatory practice that allowed white women to bleach their hair 
blond, but not black women.

A labor arbitrator awarded Johnson $250,000 in lost wages and 
attorney compensation after she was fired for having blond highlights 
in her hair. Hooters denied the allegations but paid as I predict 
beneficial will.

Johnson, who worked at the restaurant for over a year before a 
manager approached her about her highlighted hair, says, "The manager 
at the time literally said, 'You can't have blond because black 
people don't have blond hair.' I was shocked."

Johnson refused to dye her blond locks but soon noticed her hours 
were being slashed and her shifts cut. She received several written 
warnings about her hair before she was ultimately fired from the 
Baltimore location in August 2013.

Daeja is making a trip to Baltimore tomorrow to meet with Andrew 
Levy, Ms. Johnson's attorney.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom