Case Study 1-2 Grooming Standards at Southwest Airlines

Ramp agents of Southwest Airlines load and unload baggage from aircraft and also collect baggage from customers as they board the aircraft. The union states that Grievant B, a ramp agent with 13 years of experience, is being discriminated against because management at its Love Field Operation in Dallas, Texas, requires him to wear his long hair tucked beneath a cap, but female ramp agents and male maintenance employees are not required to wear caps. At an arbitration hearing, the company testified that its grooming rules have been enforced on a uniform basis. All male ramp agents have been treated the same, and all female ramp agents have been treated the same. The company argues that discrimination is permissible as long as it is not unlawful and as long as differences in grooming standards that do not unreasonably inhibit work opportunities are permissible under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The company also states that the issue of an alleged discrimination with respect to male maintenance employees is beyond the scope of this grievance because a separate labor agreement exists between maintenance employees and the company.

Questions

1.How realistic is the company's argument regarding grooming standards?

2.Can an employer unilaterally impose a grooming rule over the objections of its employees or their bargaining agent?

3.How valid is the company's argument that the labor agreement with maintenance employees is "beyond the scope of this grievance"?