Rastafarian can seek trial on religious discrimination, court says

BOSTON (RNS)-Massachusetts’ high court on Tuesday (Dec. 2) ruled that a Rastafarian man is entitled to a trial on possible religious discrimination for refusing to cut his hair or beard to comply with Jiffy Lube’s policy on grooming. The state Supreme Judicial Court ruled for Bobby T. Brown, a Rastafarian and former lube technician at […]

BOSTON (RNS)-Massachusetts’ high court on Tuesday (Dec. 2) ruled that a Rastafarian man is entitled to a trial on possible religious discrimination for refusing to cut his hair or beard to comply with Jiffy Lube’s policy on grooming.

The state Supreme Judicial Court ruled for Bobby T. Brown, a Rastafarian and former lube technician at a Jiffy Lube in Hadley, Mass., owned by F. L. Roberts & Co. Inc. of Springfield.


Brown, who has a full beard and dreadlocks, said that his religion forbids him from shaving his beard or cutting his hair. Rastafarianism is a religious movement among Jamaicans that teaches the eventual redemption of blacks and their return to Africa. It employs the ritualistic use of marijuana and forbids the cutting of hair.

The company launched a new policy in January 2002 that required employees to be clean shaven and to have neatly trimmed hair if they work with customers. Brown was permanently assigned to work in a lower bay of the oil change business.

Brown filed suit against F. L. Roberts & Co. in 2006, saying that under state law, the company discriminated against him because of his religion.

Associate Justice Roderick L. Ireland, of the state Supreme Judicial Court, wrote that under state law, an employer is required to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s religious needs unless there is an “undue hardship” on the company.

The company failed to prove that it would suffer an undue hardship, Ireland wrote.

“We … conclude that an exemption from a grooming policy cannot constitute an undue hardship as a matter of law,” Ireland wrote.

Claire L. Thompson, lawyer for F. L. Roberts & Co., said she was disappointed in the high court’s decision. The policy affected everyone who had facial hair, she said.

“The policy had absolutely nothing to do with religion,” Thompson said.

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!