Essay: Chick-fil-A’s Potential Violation of Title VII: Is the “No Beard” Policy Discriminatory?

A. Introduction
Institutionalised racism has gone under the political spotlight as issues such as Black Lives Matter, police brutality, and workplace discrimination come to the forefront of our nation’s eye. The U.S. enters a time where it must look at its own clockwork, analyzing its mechanisms to understand what systems leave different racial, religious, and gender groups at a disadvantage. In the workplace, this has meant taking a deeper dive into how the employment process is conducted.
As a fast food chain, Chick-fil-A’s unique faith-based and family-owned focused brand has been under the spotlight of controversy since June 2012 when its Chief Operating Officer, Dan T. Cathy, made public statements opposing same-sex marriage (Garfield, 2018). Recently, a “no beard” policy, held by Chick-fil-A, Publix, and other organizations, is under attack for being disproportionately discriminatory. This comes after findings suggest a majority of African American men find difficulty in shaving because of a condition known as Pseudofolliculitis Barbae, razor bumps (EEOC vs. Greyhound Lines Inc., 1979). The policy forces African Americans, and others who suffer from the same condition, to experience painful pimple-like sores as a result of shaving. These sores lead to an increase risk of infection (Pseudofolliculitis Barbae, 2018). Failure to abide by a “no beard” policy may place men who suffer from Pseudofolliculitis Barbae under direct violation of their company’s grooming standards, which may in turn, lead to disciplinary action. Therefore, African American men may be indirectly discouraged from seeking or continuing employment from companies that enforce the policy.
If this is the case, the purpose of this paper is to discuss whether Chick-fil-A may be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits workplace discrimination based on a person’s religion, sex, color, race, or national origin (EEOC and Title VII, 2018).
Furthermore, under the lense of deontology will be a discussion of the morality of the policy, particularly as it relates to the company’s duty to its customers, society, and the law.
Finally, the paper will explore Chick-fil-A’s social responsibility efforts, through its community outreach programs, and the company’s sustainability initiatives through its LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification program.
B. Legal Analysis
I. Introduction
Passed down by Chick-fil-A’s corporate office,  Chick-fil-A employees are required to come to work clean-shaven.  This is a policy that was just recently renewed after Chick-fil-A surveyed its customers regarding its tattoo and grooming requirements. In the survey, customers preferred clean-shaven team members, but they showed no significant preference for team members with visible tattoos. The clean-shaven grooming requirement was kept for all Chick-fil-A employees, while visible tattoos were allowed per operator discretion.
The legality of this (no beard) policy will be argued under the context of case law, EEOC vs. Greyhound Lines, which challenged and interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law centered around workplace discrimination. Title VII is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which challenges cases in which a person may be discriminated based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information (EEOC and Title VII, 2018).
II. Statement of Legal Principles
Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 was established to prevent workplace discrimination, including hiring, firing, compensation, promotion, recruitment, pay, and fringe benefits, etc, based off of sex, religion, race, color, or national origin. It, in general, applies to employers with fifteen or more employees. The act effects both the private and public sector, and it includes labor organizations. In application, neutral policies that have a disproportionate effect on minorities can also violate Title VII. For example, if a certain company primarily recruits from a local country club with a predominately white membership, the company may be in violation of Title VII because other minorities are disproportionately affected (EEOC and Title VII, 2018).
There is an exception to this rule known as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ,) an discriminatory qualification that is required for an essential job duty necessary for the operation of the business. For example, a casting director may choose to select an actor from a predominately black casting pool if the role is for Barack Obama on an upcoming movie about the former president (EEOC and Title VII, 2018).
Title VII established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which interprets, enforces, and challenges cases centered around workplace discrimination. To achieve its purpose, the EEOC holds hearings, provides leadership and guidance, administers educational materials, and conducts trainings amongst other actions (EEOC and Title VII, 2018).
The EEOC challenged Greyhound Lines, an inner-city bus transportation business, on behalf of Jeffrey B. Ferguson, a 27 year old black male in 1979. Ferguson was released from employment because of his inability to comply with Greyhound Lines’ strict “no beard” policy. Ferguson suffered from pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB,) a skin condition known to create an inflammatory reaction after shaving by producing painful pimple-like sores. Ferguson proceeded with a medical evaluation in which doctors confirmed the most effective remedy was to discontinue any shaving. Greyhound Lines’ management team was made aware of Ferguson’s examination, yet, they did not make an exception (EEOC vs. Greyhound Lines Inc., 1979).
The jury concluded that 45-83% of black men suffer from PFB. Greyhound Lines’ presented insufficient evidence in defending the no beard policy as a bona fide occupational qualification. Therefore, the jury concluded that the seemingly neutral policy had, in fact, a discriminatory impact on black males. Because an exception for Ferguson was not made, the court decided to award the case to Ferguson who received compensation for his unemployment (EEOC vs. Greyhound Lines Inc., 1979).
III. Application of Legal Principles
Findings from EEOC vs. Greyhound Lines’ suggest that  45-83% of black males suffer from Pseudofolliculitis Barbae (PFB) (EEOC vs. Greyhound Lines Inc., 1979). It can then be argued that the condition is a characteristic of black males. Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination centered around race, including hiring, firing, promotions, and job availability (EEOC and Title VII, 2018). Therefore, like Ferguson in EEOC vs. Greyhound Lines’, Chick-fil-A cannot make a workplace decision based off of a black male employee or applicant’s inability to comply with a “no beard” policy as a result of PFB. This is because PFB can be considered a characteristic of his race. This is unless Chick-fil-a can provide sufficient evidence that their “no beard” policy is a bona fide occupational qualification, possibly under the argument of safety or quality concerns. While Chick-fil-A could allow exemptions based off of medical evaluations, in doing so, the company causes disproportionate undue hardship on a majority of black men who must now pursue a diagnosis, costing the employee or applicant money and time. This could be considered discrimination. White men wouldn’t have to pursue a diagnosis because PFB isn’t a characteristic of their race. Another potential remedy would be to allow exemption based off of medical concern, rather than a medical diagnosis. The employee or applicant would simply need to express concern to be warranted an exemption. Despite this, the policy itself, in all its forms, may naturally violate Title VII. The policy can still be proven, through data, to have a disproportionate effect on black men who may be discouraged from applying to a position within the company.
On an anecdotal point, as a previous Shift Leader of Chick-fil-A Hillsboro and Powerline, an employee of mine resigned, later opening up that the “no beard” policy was a part of his decision. He was a black man, and he experienced PFB, finding it painful to shave. It isn’t clear whether he brought up the condition with the restaurant’s supervisors, and if so, if he was allowed an exemption. However, he felt the policy gave him an ultimatum, either choose to comply and live in constant discomfort or refuse to shave and undergo a disciplinary process.
IV. Legal Conclusion:
In EEOC vs. Greyhound Lines’, the courts have already decided that the “no beard” policy disproportionately affected black men (EEOC vs. Greyhound Lines Inc., 1979), and while they resorted to awarding Ferguson compensation, not much as been done to address whether the policy can legally be enforced. However, in the context of Chick-fil-A, a plaintiff has serious grounds for challenging it under the umbrella of Title VII, especially with the surmounting evidence that PFB affects a significant majority of black men. Ultimately, it’s up to the courts to decide what genetic differences gain protection under the context of racial stigma, and with the political climate today, there’s still a lot of stigma to be combatted.
C. Ethical Analysis
I. Introduction
The gray area around the application of Title VII on Chick-fil-A’s “no beard” policy may exist because of the tricky moral reasoning required to justify or to criticize its existence.
Like most ethical dilemmas, individuals are left to define what principles must be upheld. This is morality, but morality comes in different perspectives because individuals value different principles. For example, are the disproportionate consequences related to a “no beard” policy enough reasoning to violate morality? If this is the case, then the principle of equality defines morality. What if duty defines morality? Does Chick-fil-A’s duty to its customers, its stockholders, and its community’s requests create enough moral justification for the policy? These questions form the foundation of ethical theory. An ethical theory creates a framework for what principles are upheld, valued, and made to be moral markers. The violation of such principles typically creates a moral violation. In the case of Chick-fil-A’s “no beard” policy, this paper will use Deontology to justify whether the policy is morally right or wrong.
II. Statement of Ethical Principles
Deontology  is an ethical framework that distinguishes right from wrong based off of independent moral rules or duties (Deontology, 2018). Developed by Immanuel Kant, Kant argued that the “highest good” was a good will centered around a sense of duty. As such, deontology defines the morality of a situation based on the action that caused it, as opposed to the actual situation/consequence itself (consequentialism) or the character of those engaged in the action (virtue ethics). What makes a situation “right” depends on whether the action leading up to the consequence adhered to the individual’s moral obligation. Deontology is sometimes referenced as “duty ethics” or “obligation-based.” The root “deon,” in greek, means “duty,” while “logos” means “study.” Moreover, in deontology, the action itself isn’t of moral value without the actor’s individual belief that it is his/her moral duty to perform it (Deontology, 2018).
As an example, a deontologists would always adhere to his/her promises, because in making the promise s/he creates a moral obligation to keep it. Similarly, a deontologist wouldn’t knowingly violate the law because, as a citizen of his/her country, s/he has been given a moral obligation to follow it (Deontology, 2018).
Furthermore, if a murderer were to ask the location of his next victim, a strict deontologist, who believes lying is immoral, finding an obligation to tell the truth, would give up the location of the potential victim. This is where criticisms of deontology arise. It, at times, forbid actions that may create the most good (Deontology, 2018).
III. Application of Ethical Principles
Under deontology, the morality of Chick-fil-A’s “no beard” policy depends on where the corporation feels its morally obliged to, whether that be the law, the company’s customers, God, or all of the above. According to Chick-fil-A’s, its corporate purpose is “[t]o glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us [Chick-fil-A] and to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with Chick-fil-A” (Who We Are, 2018). At first, there’s an obligation to God. The second line states that the obligation entails having a “positive influence” (Who We Are, 2018) on all who come into contact with Chick-fil-A. Under deontology, if studies revealed a “no beard” policy has a negative influence on black men, then Chick-fil-A would be in violation of its corporate purpose, its duty. The action of enforcing a “no beard” policy would then be immoral.
However, Chick-fil-A not only established a duty to God, but a duty, as an employer in the United States, to abide by the nation’s laws. As such, if the company’s “no beard” policy were to be announced as a violation of Title VII, Chick-fil-A, under deontological ethics, would have to abandon the policy altogether, not only in seeking legality, but in seeking to be morally “right.”
With that said, Chick-fil-A also has a duty to its customers who altogether support the entirety of the business. The “no beard” policy is a result of customer preference revealed by a recent corporate survey about the grooming requirement. Under deontology, it would be morally wrong to abandon the policy because, in doing so, Chick-fil-A would be abandoning its duty to its customers preference for a certain team member appearance. Simply put, in deontology, one never accepts abandoning duty as a morally right alternative.
IV. Moral Conclusion
In conclusion, under deontology, Chick-fil-A abandoning its “no beard” policy as a result of a court’s decision to outlaw it would be morally right and wrong. Chick-fil-A would be violating its duty to its customers, but in doing so, uphold its duty to the law. Ultimately, this is where another issue of deontology lies. The ethical theory doesn’t take into account the complicated nature of of our duties, nor acknowledge the system in which we, as individuals, prioritize those duties. The simplest example of this struggle can be found in the typical american household. Parents of children have a duty to provide for the family, to work, but they also have a duty to invest time into their families, so now the question becomes how one can strike a work-life balance, balancing a duty to their profession and a duty to their children.
D. Social Responsibility Analysis
I . Chick-fil-A’s Social Responsibility Efforts
Social responsibility is the principle that business organizations have a responsibility to their communities, and as such, must engage in activities that benefit society (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2014). Chick-fil-A defines its social responsibility efforts by a calling that states “[e]veryone’s job at Chick-fil-A is to serve. No matter our title or job description, our reason for coming to work is to generously share our time and talents. Whether it’s treating customers like friends, or serving our communities like neighbors, we believe kindness is a higher calling” (Giving Back, 2018). The company serves through its Remarkable Futures Scholarships program having helped nearly 46,700 team members since the program’s inception (Meet the Scholars, 2018). In 2018, Chick-fil-A awarded $14.65 million to its team members in an effort to help them achieve their educational goals; I was one of those team members (Meet the Scholars, 2018). Furthermore, Chick-fil-A promotes social responsibility through its Shared Table program, which allows operators to donate food that would have been wasted to those in need. In the first month of the programs inception, operators donated 1,800 meals (Shared Table Program, 2016)! Local impact is also a core philosophy of Chick-fil-A as operators are encouraged to make a positive difference within their own communities. At times, that means local Chick-fil-As are hosting fundraisers, inviting guests to special events like Daddy Daughter Date Night or Stuffed Animal Sleepover (Giving Back, 2018). As a previous Chick-fil-A Shift Leader, I even had the opportunity to host a month-long fundraiser in partnership with Susan G. Komen for October, Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In collaboration with our team members and our guests, we were able to raise over $3,000 for Susan G. Komen!
II. Chick-fil-A vs. Marriage Equality
Despite Chick-fil-A’s dedication to social responsibility. The company has had a contentious relationship with the LGBT+ community after reports indicated the Winshape Foundation, an affiliate to Chick-fil-A, donated millions of dollars to non-queer friendly organizations (Garfield, 2018). The most notable donation, a $2 million contribution, went to the Marriage & Family Foundation. The company received further backlash when its CEO at the time, Dan Cathy, publicly opposed same-sex marriage in 2012 claiming it “invites God’s judgement.” Recently, after much criticism, Chick-fil-A has retracted such public opposition to same-sex marriage. In 2016, David Farmer, Chick-fil-A’s Vice President, made a statement. “We are not engaging. Chick-fil-A is about food, and that’s it.” In 2017, Chick-fil-A has halted most of its donations to anti-LGBT causes/organizations, and has asked franchisees to refrain from making public political statements (Garfield, 2018). LGBT+ employees or applicants can rest assured that Chick-fil-A is an Equal Opportunity Employer, which means sexual orientation doesn’t play a role in their business decisions .
III. A More Effective Social Responsibility Strategy
While Chick-fil-A has made a significant impact amongst its team members and local communities, it hasn’t done an effective job at repairing the damage from its CEO’s comments in 2012 (Garfield, 2018). As a result, today, pro-LGBT activists are protesting Chick-fil-A’s expansion into Canada. Ultimately, in my opinion, Chick-fil-A should make more of a public effort in re-establishing its image as an Equal Opportunity Employer, especially in a time where the LGBT+ community faces extreme backlash, hate, and discrimination. Moreover, I think Chick-fil-A should financially support an LGBT youth center, or a similar organization that promotes development in the LGBT community. In following these suggestions, Chick-fil-A might be able to set the standard for what it means to be socially responsible and inclusive.
E. Sustainability Analysis
I. Introduction to Sustainability
Sustainability, in the context of business, is the organization’s effort in consuming its resources without placing those resources at risk of permanent unavailability (Cavico & Mutjaba, 2014). Acting on principles that promote sustainability allow us, as a global society, to equip a better future.
II. Chick-fil-A’s Sustainable Practices
Chick-fil-A’s mindful of where it can implement sustainable practices into its operations. For one, Chick-fil-A’s uniform shirts, in partnership with OOBE, are made entirely from upcycled plastic bottles, sourced from the United States (Greenway, 2016). The program keeps 2.6 – 2.9 million plastic bottles out of landfills. To date, more than 5.3 million plastic bottles have been repurposed into uniform shirts (Greenway, 2016). The company extends its sustainability practices to its buildings as well through LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification. In essence, buildings are now being build or being updated with sustainability in mind through installing water reducing faucets, energy efficient fixtures, and sustainable building design (Chick-fil-A Location Receives LEED Certification, 2012).
III. Suggestions for a More Sustainable Chick-fil-A
While Chick-fil-A has certainly acknowledge the need for more eco-friendly business, the company still uses styrofoam cups. Styrofoam is made of polystyrene, a possible carcinogenic. Expanded polystyrene is non-biodegradable and toxic, if consumed. Because of styrofoams fragility, small pieces can end up in animal digestive systems leading to blockage and sometimes death. Moreover, as a result of its lightweight nature, styrofoam its accumulated as one of the largest causes of marine debris (Kinhal, 2018). Ultimately, styrofoam isn’t a sustainable option for a cup, and as of yet, Chick-fil-A hasn’t made any plans to mitigate its damaging effects. As such, I would recommend that Chick-fil-A transitions into compostable paper cups. Compostable paper cups, for one, biodegrade more efficiently than styrofoam. Moreover, they’re less toxic, meaning unsuspecting animals may be less at risk of being poisoned should they encounter one’s paper cup outside a recycling bin (Styrofoam vs. Paper Cups, 2016). Lastly, with regards to sustainability, I would suggest that Chick-fil-A transitions some of its restaurants to solar power. While, no doubt, a high upfront cost, the transition does tend to pay itself overtime, specifically with the help of federal tax benefits (Zientara, 2018). Moreover, using solar might set a new standard for restaurant sustainability initiatives across the globe, which in turn, would encourage competitors to do the same.
F. Conclusion
In conclusion, Chick-fil-A has the potential to be an industry leader when it comes to legal, ethical, social, and sustainable issues. The company’s controversial “no beard” policy has yet to be challenged in the courts. The question remains whether Chick-fil-A will abolish the policy before a significant court case arrives forcing the company, under deontological ethics, to abide by its duty to the law. However, while Chick-fil-A has a traditionally lacked the foresight to see where it can differentiate itself, the company could use the abolishment of a “no beard” policy to promote its inclusivity under the grounds that it discriminated against its black applicants and employees. Furthermore, Chick-fil-A, while socially responsible through its community outreach and scholarship programs, must mend its relations with the LGBT+ community, publically, if it is to every desire to be socially progressive. Lastly, as an industry leader, the company must do more with regards to its sustainability efforts in making its restaurants more eco-friendly, possibly through the abolishment of styrofoam cups and the adoption of solar power.
Ultimately, however, the possibility for progressive change, whether that be at Chick-fil-A or another organization, depends on the power of the consumer and his/her dollar. It is us, as customers, guests, patrons to use our dollar and our voice to demand  more socially, sustainable, legally, and ethically conscious businesses.
Resources
Cavico, F. J., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2014). Business Law for the Entrepreneur and
Manager. Davie: ILEAD Academy, LLC.
Chick-fil-A Location Receives LEED Certification. (2012, February 17). Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/6644-chick-fil-a-location-receives-leed-certification
Deontology. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_deontology.html
EEOC and Title VII. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
EEOC v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 481 (E.D. Pa. 1979). (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/494/481/2150096/
Garfield, L. (2018, July 27). Pro-LGBTQ-rights consumers vow to boycott Chick-fil-A after it announces it’s opening in Toronto. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/chick-fil-a-lgbt-twitter-jack-dorsey-apology-marriage-equality-2018-6
Giving Back. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://www.chick-fil-a.com/About/Giving-Back
Greenway, T. (2016, October 28). Video: Sustainable Style. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://thechickenwire.chick-fil-a.com/Inside-Chick-fil-A/Video-Sustainable-Style
Kinhal, V. (n.d.). How Styrofoam is Bad for the Environment. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/How_Styrofoam_is_Bad_for_the_Environment
Meet the Scholars. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://www.chick-fil-a.com/Remarkable-Futures-Scholarships
Pseudofolliculitis Barbae. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://www.aocd.org/page/PseudofolliculitisB
Shared Table Program Donates Leftovers to the Salvation Army. (2016, November 22). Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://www.chick-fil-afoundation.org/news-events/shared-table-program-donates
Styrofoam vs Paper Cups – Which One Should I Use? (2016, February 25). Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://driftaway.coffee/styrofoam-vs-paper-cups/
Who We Are. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://www.chick-fil-a.com/About/Who-We-Are
Zientara, B. (2018, July 03). How long does it take solar to pay itself back? Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/affordable-solar/how-long-does-it-take-solar-to-pay-itself-back/