Discrimination in the Workplace: Appearance and Assimilation

Though issues of discrimination regarding sexuality and gender illuminate major flaws in the way the U.S. deals with equality on the job, homophobia and transphobia are not the only instances of mistreatment  in the workplace. A lesser known trend in the issue of workplace discrimination is appearance-based discrimination. Though there is not one specific group of individuals that is subject to discrimination based on either personal grooming practices or natural features, women as well as religious and ethnic minorities often receive the brunt of appearance-based discrimination in the workplace.

It is no secret that aesthetics play a huge role in how goods, services, and people are appraised. This phenomenon is commonplace- if I’m in the market for an apple, I am going to pick the shiniest, reddest, most firm looking fruit. Similarly, if I am interested in getting my car repaired, I am going to choose a nice, clean, welcoming shop over one that appears dank and dingy. This same principle applies when considering the value of  humans; according to a study done by researchers Kenneth Dion, Ellen Berscheid, and Elaine Walster at the University of Minnesota  in 1972, humans are more likely to associate positive personality traits with people who are physically attractive. The study, which asked Minnesota undergraduate students to pair varying personality traits with faces they presumed to possess those traits, also found that people have a tendency to associate negative personality traits with faces that are not physically attractive. Researchers consider this study proof of the “beauty is good” stereotype. Fifty-five years prior to the study done in Minnesota, Edward Thorndike coined “the halo effect.” In accordance with the findings of Dion, Berscheid, and Walster, Thorndike determined that the human tendency to appraise others was not without bias. Using police officers and their subordinates as an example, Thorndike suggested that people tend to appraise a person’s individual traits based on their opinion of one trait. In other words, first impressions dictate how a person, or an object or service, is valued. Therefore, should a boss find a subordinate’s appearance to be preferable, he or she could mistakenly consider all of the subordinate’s traits to be positive. The contrasting “horns effect” could ensure that employers develop a steady distaste for an employee that doesn’t look appealing.

In terms of the workplace, both studies reveal an inherent problem with the way employers and employees interact: human nature dictates that individuals are judged according to the way they look. This issue is of particular relevance to women, whose role in society has been historically confined to that of maintaining a very superficial type of value. According to research done at the University of Colorado Denver, the way a woman looks determines whether or not she will see success in a specific field of work. For example, women who appear to be traditionally feminine in their appearance are more apt to succeed in traditionally female jobs, such as that of a secretary. On the other hand, traditionally feminine women who attempt to work in job fields that are dominated by men face difficulty. Debrahlee Lorenzana, a thirty-three year old single mom and former banker for Citibank, sued her former employers on the grounds that she was unjustly fired. Though Citibank stated that they were dissatisfied with Lorenzana’s performance on the job, Lorenzana maintained that she was fired on the basis of her physical beauty being a distraction to her coworkers. Lorenzana reports being banned from wearing certain types of clothes- turtlenecks, pencil skirts, three-inch heels, or form-fitting suits- even as her bosses made no such restrictions on other female employees. Lorenzana says she was told her ultra-feminine, curvy body type made her exceptionally distracting in the office and that her appearance justified the special treatment. Citibank has refused to comment on the issue, and the case will be settled by an arbitrator instead of a judge due to stipulations outlined in Lorenzana’s contract with Citibank.

Though stereotyping based on beauty is nearly impossible to relegate due to the fact that the “beauty is good” model can be considered a subconscious element of human psychology, the propagation of discrimination based on appearance can be stopped. A massive outlet for appearance-based discrimination exists within the appearance guidelines that many businesses adhere to. It is, of course, not feasible to consider appearance guidelines as a whole a violation of personal liberties. However, certain traditions in mandating workplace attire unknowingly perpetuate discrimination. The majority of companies in the U.S. adhere to appearance guidelines that are unbendingly Anglo-Saxon in their origin. While never explicitly stated, rules exist that force employees to assimilate into a specific standard in appearance that aligns exclusively with white norms and customs. For example, certain standards in hair style might put individuals with non-white hair textures at a disadvantage. Outside the scope of dress regulations, employers simply prefer seeing individuals who look “nice” and “neat” and “professional.” In the U.S., this ideal is almost exclusively based on traditionally white customs in grooming. Hair pulled back into a traditional style, a clean-shaven face, and a simple outfit are considered most professional and attractive by employers. However, these standards in beauty are also traditionally characteristic of Caucasians.

Like the issue of discrimination based on sexuality and gender in the workplace, the issue of appearance-based discrimination is not protected under any specific legislation. Though laws exist to protect employees on the basis of age, disability, or ethnicity, those who are affected by workplace discrimination face the task of proving that their case fits neatly under one of the aforementioned types of legislation. While appearance-based discrimination can occur in tandem with another type of discrimination, as in the instance of a worker who is unable to wear a hijab or a kente based on workplace regulations, appearance-based discrimination can occur on its own. Without any laws to specifically prohibit unfair treatment on the basis of appearance, whether with regards to clothing, grooming, or natural features, individuals will continue to be mistreated regarding something as trivial as appearance. As in the instance of sexuality-based discrimination, employees are in desperate need of protection.

2 thoughts on “Discrimination in the Workplace: Appearance and Assimilation

  1. This was a very interesting insight into how humans associate naturally good things with good looking people. While good looking is subjective, there are some basic things such as symmetry, or cleanliness, etc, that most everyone can agree are attractive. This is a problem that women face far more than men, and it’s evident in many STEM fields today. I don’t know how to solve any of this, but I guess that’s on you. Very well written.

  2. Wow–although I knew it was a problem, I honestly never realized the extent of appearance based discrimination. Even more than needing laws to prevent this, I think we also need some sort of societal reform. I was at a Paterno Fellows lunch a few weeks ago, and we had a long discussion about how in art and literature, the “bad” or “evil” characters are always portrayed as ugly (there’s one painting of the Last Supper where this is particularly obvious in Judas’s face, but of course I can’t find the one it is; for an example, you can also look at pretty much any fairytale.) It’s so sad that we associate aesthetic pleasure with goodness as a person, especially since it’s not the case at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *