i was off for two weeks and grew out my beard when i came back to work my boss told me i had to shave it. then one of my coworkers said that as long as i grow it when i am not working and it is well groomed they cannot make me shave it off. is that true?
Mr. Chen's response is thorough and accurate. I write to address the eligibility for unemployment benefits in the event that this leads to a termination.
In the 1960s and '70s, lots of employers passed "anti-hippie" rules and policies about long hair and beards. As you can imagine, many of the anti-establishment rebels chose not to conform to these rules, and so lots of employees were terminated for being "poorly groomed" (i.e., having long hair and/or beards). Some of these cases made their way to court, and after countless hours and literally tons of paper, the ultimate ruling in California was that having a beard is "symbolic speech" entitled to First Amendment protection. Indeed, a California Court held, "A beard, for a man, is an expression of his personality. On the one hand it has been interpreted as a symbol of masculinity, of authority and of wisdom. On the other hand it has been interpreted as a symbol of nonconformity and rebellion. But symbols, under appropriate circumstances, merit constitutional protection..." (Finot v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education (1967), 250 Cal. App. 2d 189, 201.)
As you'll undoubtedly remember from 4th grade civics, however, the First Amendment only protects against governmental intrusion of (among other things) the freedom of speech. Therefore, if the employer is a governmental entity, the no-beard rule is only valid if: "the political restraints rationally relate to the enhancement of the public service, (2) [...] the benefits which the public gains by the restraints outweigh the resulting impairment of constitutional rights, and (3) [...] no alternatives less subversive of constitutional rights are available." (Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966), 65 Cal. 2d 499, 501-502.)
This test does not apply to private employers (which means they can terminate you for having a beard, unless of course that raises a discrimination issue as outlined in previous responses).
Thankfully, however, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (which makes the ultimate decisions on eligibility for unemployment benefits) is a governmental entity. Consequently, "[t]ranslated to the area of private employment, the Bagley test requires evidence (1) that the restraint upon the protected right rationally relates to the enhancement of the employer's business, (2) that the benefit to the employer outweighs the resulting impairment of constitutional rights, and (3) that no alternatives less subversive of constitutional rights are available. A finding that the Bagley test was not met would not necessarily mean that the private employer could not fire the employee but would mean that the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board would have to find that the employee was discharged because of personal action which is constitutionally protected."
Therefore, if wearing the beard gets you fired, the employer will have to satisfy the three-part test articulated above before you'll be ineligible for unemployment benefits. If the employer does not satisfy the test, this issue should not disqualify you for benefits.
If you're ultimately terminated (and especially if you're denied unemployment benefits), I recommend that you get together with an experienced employment law attorney without delay to discuss your rights about options.
I wish you luck.
Unless you have a written agreement to the contrary, employement in California is "at will". You can be fired for any reason or for no reason, but not for an impermissible reason (race, religion, national origin, etc.) Your employer cannot make you shave, but he can terminate you.
It depends upon your particular employer's employee policies.
In California, employers have a lot of discretion in what they can require their employees to wear to work and their employee's appearances. However, employers cannot discriminate.
Race discrimination claims can be difficult to prove since the employee must show that the employer’s dress code has a disparate impact on a protected class of employees. One limited area where race claims have had some success is in challenges to "no beard" policies. A few courts have determined that a policy that requires all male employees to be clean-shaven may discriminate if it does not accommodate individuals with pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), a skin condition aggravated by shaving that occurs almost exclusively among African-American males.
Sometimes, no-beard rules may violate disability discrimination laws.
When an employer has a dress or grooming policy that conflicts with an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, the employee may ask for an exception to the policy as a reasonable accommodation.
Your co-worker is wrong. Employers have the right to have grooming policies and this can include no facial hair policies if that is the image they want to project. The best example of this is Disneyland, which has a strict policy of no facial hair on its employees because of the clean-cut image they desire (which is kind of ironic since Walt Disney had a mustache). There is nothing unlawful about that, as long as it is not done on a discriminatory basis as Mr. Chen explains. If a person cannot shave for medical reasons, an employer may have to find a way to accommodate that person but that does not appear to be the case here.
