Context seems relevant here. What population (or segment of such) will the officer be dealing with? Much as I hate the stubble shaved-three-days-ago type of beard that's so popular now, the fact is that it might present no issues at all to people who patronize a concert, a bar, a college or perhaps a sporting event. It might not be well-received in some other venues.
For a proprietary security organization that serves a fairly predictable clientele, it should present no legal difficulties if the dress code for security officers comports with that of any other employees who interact with the public.
For contract services, the problem is compounded by the typical need to reassign officers from one account to another ad hoc, each of which might have different expectations. The congregation of a Christian church might be highly resistant to and/or offended by anyone who appears to be Muslim, a Sikh, etc. - and now what do you do? Could the membership of a southern country club prohibit or specify that there should be no contract officers who are black?
We live in an extremely litigious society for two reasons:
1. Our law schools produce far more lawyers than the country needs. The lawyer/citizen ratio in the United States is the highest in the world. All of these lawyers are looking for lawsuits to file.
2. ...and they can all file lawsuits willy-nilly, however frivolous and unfounded they may be, with no personal penalty to themselves or to their clients. There are few other nations in the world that do not impose a penalty of some sort on those who file frivolous lawsuits. In most countries, the loser, at the very least, is obliged to pay any and all legal expenses of the winner. When faced with that prospect, I can assure you that people think twice about filing lawsuits if they don't have a genuinely provable cause of action.
...and so, in the United States, even if your dress code does nothing more than require employees to comport with an appropriate standard based on the population you serve, you can be sued by anyone who claims that your dress code is intended to implement policies of discrimination, etc..
Welcome to Litigious America, where lawyers get rich and common sense dies.
Frankly, doing something about this disgraceful situation would probably stimulate the economy more than any tax reform.
For a proprietary security organization that serves a fairly predictable clientele, it should present no legal difficulties if the dress code for security officers comports with that of any other employees who interact with the public.
For contract services, the problem is compounded by the typical need to reassign officers from one account to another ad hoc, each of which might have different expectations. The congregation of a Christian church might be highly resistant to and/or offended by anyone who appears to be Muslim, a Sikh, etc. - and now what do you do? Could the membership of a southern country club prohibit or specify that there should be no contract officers who are black?
We live in an extremely litigious society for two reasons:
1. Our law schools produce far more lawyers than the country needs. The lawyer/citizen ratio in the United States is the highest in the world. All of these lawyers are looking for lawsuits to file.
2. ...and they can all file lawsuits willy-nilly, however frivolous and unfounded they may be, with no personal penalty to themselves or to their clients. There are few other nations in the world that do not impose a penalty of some sort on those who file frivolous lawsuits. In most countries, the loser, at the very least, is obliged to pay any and all legal expenses of the winner. When faced with that prospect, I can assure you that people think twice about filing lawsuits if they don't have a genuinely provable cause of action.
...and so, in the United States, even if your dress code does nothing more than require employees to comport with an appropriate standard based on the population you serve, you can be sued by anyone who claims that your dress code is intended to implement policies of discrimination, etc..
Welcome to Litigious America, where lawyers get rich and common sense dies.
Frankly, doing something about this disgraceful situation would probably stimulate the economy more than any tax reform.
Comment