Is Justice Blind? The Beauty Bias at Work
We all know you “can’t judge a book by its cover,” but it seems human nature makes it very difficult to avoid doing so. Endless studies by various sectors have shown that attractive people often have an advantage in the workplace. But now at least one knowledgeable writer is suggesting “there ought to be a law.” Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode, in her new book, The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Law and Life, argues that we should expand discrimination laws, since “discrimination on appearance reinforces stereotypes and undermines basic equal-opportunity principles.”
Should there be stricter anti-discrimination laws to reflect this new awareness and sensitivity? As a firm with an active practice in litigation and employment law, we thought it would be interesting to present both sides of this issue, as we’ve done below.
PRO
A recent Newsweek poll found that in all facets of the workplace, from hiring to daily activities to promotions, looks matter, sometimes even more than education. And, not surprisingly, it’s worse for women.
Take, for example, the case of Debrahlee Lorenzana, who was recently fired from Citibank. Ms. Lorenzana was allegedly dismissed because she was “too good looking.” She has filed a sex discrimination suit which is currently in private arbitration. Since this is a pending matter, we need to await the outcome and keep an open mind as to the merits of either her case or her employer’s. However, the fact there is such a case demonstrates that the issue is starting to surface.
Anti-discrimination laws abound at federal, state and municipal levels. Generally, such laws bar discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin and ethnicity. Some jurisdictions have added sexual orientation. According to the Washington Post, only the state of Michigan and six locales have laws that protect against appearance discrimination. Professor Rhode cites research that proves, time and again, that unattractive people are less likely to be hired and promoted, and they earn lower salaries, even in fields in which looks have no obvious relationship to professional duties.
Professor Rhode contends that “stricter anti-discrimination laws could play a modest role in advancing healthier and more inclusive ideals of attractiveness.” Until these laws, are passed, however, the number of cosmetic surgeries performed may continue to rise, along with heel heights (perhaps this would explain the “heel walking workshops” and “Stiletto Strength” classes offered in gyms).
CON
Although Professor Rhodes’ survey probably does reflect reality, experience has shown that not all problems are amenable to a legal resolution.
First, how would you define a protected group? What if a “good-looking” person seeks to wrongly take advantage of the new, expanded laws? Are juries going to conduct beauty contests? Or, for that matter, reverse beauty contests?
Looks or appearance often give sub-conscious and not-so-subconscious cues as to legitimate, job-related characteristics. In some occupations, appearance matters. How will we allow for such judgments?
Will we be compelled to distinguish between “looks” and “appearance.” The latter implies factors like grooming and cleanliness, generally under the individual’s control while the former implies natural, uncontrollable characteristics. I suspect that every day we make judgments based on both and only rarely can we distinguish the two.
The survey and the whole subject is better suited for discussion in an educational, not a legal context. For individuals, self-help education can help them make the best use of what one has. For managers, these discussions can help them learn how to make personnel decisions more effectively.
image, courtesy news.com.au
