Not sure exactly how this one escaped our notice last year: a Pennsylvania federal judge has ruled (or, really, observed) that whatever other advantages blonds may enjoy, they are not a protected class under Title VII federal employment discrimination law. Brigitte Shramban had sued Aetna claiming that her boss had made various tasteless and disparaging remarks which belittled her on account of her sex, race, national origin, religion and blondness. Aside from noting that the last-named flower could not properly be included in the Title VII bouquet, the judge dismissed the case as a whole because the improper remarks were not sufficiently severe, pervasive, or bothersome to a reasonable listener. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Offensive Behavior Not Necessarily Harassment”, The Legal Intelligencer, May 23, 2003). It seems doubtful that a case could be made out that discrimination against those with fair tresses operates as a “proxy” for bias against those of certain ethnic origins; thanks to modern technology, blonds (as the Census says of Hispanics) “may be of any race”.

Filed under: harassment law, Pennsylvania, workplace