Search results

Appearance is part of a person's non-verbal communication, and looks are often associated with the perceived ‘attractiveness’ of individuals for hiring practices in the workplace. As such, physical attractiveness can be a ‘prized possession’ when it comes to leaving a positive impression on managers who are interviewing candidates. In the twenty-first century environment, our society seems to be more obsessed with physical appearance than ever before because society has conditioned us to associate beauty with other favourable characteristics. Of course, such appearance norms, regarding attractiveness, ‘good looks’ and beauty are linked to years of socialisation in culture, cultural norms and materialistic personality standards.

In a business context, managers and employers often make hiring decisions based on the appearance and attractiveness of the job applicants since outward appearance seems to play a significant role in which candidates eventually might get the job. Physically attractive job applicants and candidates tend to benefit from the unearned privilege, which often comes at a cost to others who are equally qualified. Preferring employees who are deemed to be attractive, and consequently discriminating against those who are perceived as unattractive, can present legal and ethical challenges for employers and managers. In this chapter, we provide a discussion and reflection of appearance-based hiring practices in the United States with relevant legal, ethical and practical implications for employers, human resources professionals and managers. We focus on ‘lookism’ or appearance discrimination, which is discrimination in favour of people who are physically attractive. As such, we examine federal, state and local laws regarding appearance discrimination in the American workplace. We also offer sustainable policy recommendations for employers, HR professionals and managers on how they can be fair to all candidates in order to hire, promote and retain the most qualified professionals in their departments and organisations.

The aim of this chapter is to examine appearance-based discrimination in the workplace. Modern society is exalting beautification and good looking, which affect not merely social relations but also the process of employment. It is argued that employees who have ‘good looking’ are recruited, paid more and promoted rapidly, while those who have ‘wrong looking’ discriminated against. Therefore, the chapter explores how individuals encounter discrimination in the workplace due to their appearance during the decision-making process of employers. It emerges from the literature that discriminating based on appearance is not illegal in almost all countries. However, it is publicised by lawsuits against employers. There are several measures that need to be taken at different levels in order to forestall discriminatory practices. At the individual level, an embracing attitude should be internalised. A merit-based recruitment strategy should be adopted by employers. Finally, new anti-discrimination laws and regulations must be passed by authorities to tackle with ugly discriminatory practices.

Appearance-based discrimination in workplaces based on an employee's physical appearance is a legal and ethical problem. This study provide important research findings concerning such discrimination in Estonia.

A qualitative case study strategy and narrative inquiry were used. The information which was gathered for the research consists of three cases which concern appearance-based discrimination against young women. Information for two of the cases was gathered together by means of open interviews. Information for the third case is based on articles which were found in Estonian daily newspapers.

Covert and overt discrimination based on an employee's physical appearance can occur in Estonian workplaces, even though discrimination and inequality are not tolerated in public and all forms of discrimination are illegal in Estonia. The appearance norms, which frame perceptions of attractiveness and unattractiveness, may at times be rather narrow and stereotypical in Estonian workplaces. The attempts by employees to resist such discrimination in an early phase of the employees' careers are generally not successful.

Through real-life cases, this study makes empirically visible a problem at the workplace related to employees' physical appearance in Estonia. This study makes suggestions for preventing this kind of discrimination in organisations. Narrative inquiry offers a fruitful approach for how researchers can address a sensitive problem, such as the appearance-based discrimination against the employees discussed in this study.

The article aims to provide a discussion of societal norms concerning “attractiveness,” the existence of appearance discrimination in employment, the presence of “preferring the pretty”, and then the authors examine important civil rights laws that relate to such forms of discrimination. Finally, the authors apply ethical theories to determine whether such discrimination can be seen as moral or immoral.

It is a legal paper which covers all the laws related to discrimination based on look. Court cases and Americans laws related to this concept are reviewed and critically discussed.

The paper finds that appearance‐based discrimination is not illegal in the USA so long as it does not violate civil rights laws.

This research is limited to Federal and State laws in the USA and may not be relevant in other countries as the local laws might vary.

Managers and employees can protect themselves in the workplace from illegal discriminatory practices.

Employees know their rights and enhance their understanding of laws related to appearance, attractiveness, and why companies look to hire those who are considered “handsome”, “pretty” and “beautiful”.

This is an original and comprehensive paper by the authors.

Aesthetic labour explains how employees are required to look and sound the part in many contemporary workplaces. That such corporeality affects workers' employment prospects, including career progression, is now well documented in research. As such, it can result in employment discrimination based on physical features, more commonly known as ‘lookism’. However, very few jurisdictions proscribe lookism, and little is known about the efficacy of those that do. Based on archival research, this chapter examines the procedures and operation of physical features inclusion in an Equal Opportunity Act in one jurisdiction that does proscribe ‘lookism – the state of Victoria in Australia. As the first analysis of such laws, the chapter provides an important opportunity to assess the efficacy of legal attempts to address employment discrimination based on employee appearance. In so doing, it draws out lessons about the legal challenge to lookism.

The formal and informal regulation of employees' appearance is a routine component of organizational life. In our research, we analyze appearance-related employment discrimination lawsuits. These cases involve organizational dress codes, grooming policies, and employers' attempts to regulate employees' appearance with regard to weight, hairstyles, religious attire, body art, and more. Men and women who refuse to comply with appearance norms face termination of their employment, promotion denials, lower wages, transfers, not being hired in the first place, and other workplace sanctions. Our focus on court deliberations and decisions allows us to explore not only the gendered nature of appearance policies themselves but also how the legal system supports, reinforces, codifies, or, conversely, deems unacceptable such policies. Our data demonstrate that organizations and courts are likely to support appearance norms that reinforce traditional ideas about femininity and masculinity.

Physical appearances constitute a criterion of discrimination recognised by the French law. This topic is often raised in the field of media and advertising, but the consequences of stereotypes and prejudices about appearances at work are not taken into account as much. However, this criterion is subject to a multitude of normative injunctions, located in time and space, and significantly affects all spheres of life. Voluntary or involuntary transgression of these norms leads to processes of segregation, discrimination and harassment. These processes are all the more insidious because their legitimacy is less questioned than when it concerns a criterion shared by a collective such as race or gender. Appearances are, in fact, perceived as individual characteristics; moreover, some of them are perceived as controllable, which justifies the unfavourable treatment of people who do not fit the norm.

At work, recruitment is the most obvious step in which appearances play a role because first impressions are largely based on them. But remuneration or daily life at the office is also affected by beliefs and expectations about appearances. After presenting testimonies from focus groups on this issue, we offer some advices for organisations concerned by the topic.

International evidence of corporate demand for ‘aesthetic labour’ has stimulated a growing and important literature on the strategic, commercial, legal, gendered and ethical aspects of this labour process (see Spiess & Waring, 2005; Warhurst & Nickson, 2009; Warhurst et al., 2000; Waring, 2011; Witz et al., 2003). There is some evidence to suggest that the growth in ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies and practices by larger firms provides a level of recognition of the need to avoid discriminatory practices based on the physical characteristics of employees whether these be overt, structural or as a result of unconscious bias. It is argued that the emergence of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies are not just in response to regulatory demands or an enlightened ‘character over characteristics’ approach to hiring, but stems from a desire to meet contemporary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expectations. In turn this corporate motivation is frequently driven by commercial concerns such as the need to attract and retain capital and talent.

In this chapter, the intersection of aesthetic labour, appearance-based discrimination, corporate Diversity and Inclusion strategies and CSR is explored. Through the examination of Fortune 500 ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies and approaches to CSR, the intent behind the resourcing of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ and its relationship to CSR is critically assessed. This critical assessment discloses both genuine efforts to reject unethical forms of ‘lookism’ or ‘appearance-based discrimination’ but also several contradictions. These include contradictions between the rhetoric of diversity and CSR and the continuation of aesthetic labour strategies for commercial advantage. Further, the research finds that the physical representation of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ efforts are sometimes themselves exploited for commercial gain.

Ageism refers to the systematic, cultural devaluation of agedness and concomitant discrimination against older adults that is endemic to Western industrialised societies. Age-based discrimination is expressed through the numerous, taken-for-granted, negative stereotypes that equate oldness with frailty, senility, asexuality, obsolescence and loss of attractiveness. It is also evident in the institutional policies and everyday practices that both subtly and overtly exclude older adults from full and meaningful access to resources and opportunities in various organisational settings, including the workplace. This chapter explores the ways that ageism shapes and constrains the experiences and prospects of older workers as they endeavour to obtain or retain employment and/or access to training and promotions. I will discuss how age-based stereotypes and discrimination are gendered, resulting in differential impacts on older men and women seeking employment or those who are currently employed. I will further consider how the older body more generally and appearance in particular are the focal points of ageist assumptions, norms and practices in the workplace. I will conclude by reflecting on the implications and outcomes of age-based exclusion and discrimination on the lives of older male and female employees.