Looks Won’t Mean a Lot if Anti-Bias Law Is Approved

New rumblings are coursing through Santa Cruz, where businesses have been operating out of huge tents since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake toppled much of downtown. This time the disturbance is man-made.

The eclectic city--known for hippies, surfers and its UC campus mascot, the banana slug--has been in an uproar since Jan. 14, when the City Council voted 5 to 2 to tentatively approve an ordinance that would ban discrimination in employment or housing based on how someone looks.

If approved Feb. 11 after what promises to be a lively public hearing, the “personal appearance” law will be the first in California and apparently the most far-reaching anti-discrimination law in the country.

Unfortunately for its supporters, local and national newsmongers have latched on to this as yet another wacky tidbit from the land of fruits and nuts, a.k.a. California.

In a widely circulated account, an Associated Press reporter interviewed Cooper Hazen, who said he had been fired as a psychiatric aide because of the post in his pierced tongue, which apparently proved to be too much for his boss on top of the purple hair, five earrings and nose ring. Or, to put it Hazen’s way: “Thith ith wha gah me thierd.”

The reporter speculated that, had the ordinance been in effect, Hazen’s job might have been saved.

Some townspeople fret that such coverage has made Santa Cruz, a coastal city of 51,000 about 75 miles south of San Francisco, a laughingstock.

“The ordinance is so far-fetched,” said Councilman John Mahaney, who voted against what he calls the “ugly” ordinance. “This tends to make Santa Cruz seem a little flaky, like Berkeley.”

In addition to prohibiting discrimination based on long-recognized factors such as age, race, color and religion, the ordinance also protects according to “sex, gender, sexual orientation, height, weight or personal appearance.”

The gender designation is intended to protect transsexuals, or “transgendered individuals,” as the law describes them. Height and weight were borrowed from a Michigan law, and personal appearance from a 15-year-old Washington, D.C., ordinance.

Debate over the measure has pitted the Chamber of Commerce, which fears that the measure could become an expensive burden on businesses, against labor unions, the National Organization for Women and other groups.

City Councilman Neal Coonerty, a bookshop owner who sponsored the law, cannot fathom why some people are acting so aggrieved. The ordinance, he pointed out, would not ban dress codes. It allows for workplace restrictions on grooming and cleanliness when safety and health are concerns, as long as they are applied to all employees. It also requires that complaints first be submitted for mediation before any legal action is taken.

“The media have focused in on the most extreme things,” Coonerty said. “What this ordinance is really saying is, hire the best-qualified person.”

Coonerty said he got the idea for the measure from a Santa Cruz group called the Body Image Task Force. Gov. Pete Wilson’s veto in September of a measure that would have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation spurred the effort.

Dawn Atkins, an anthropologist and member of the task force, said discrimination based on personal appearance is a big but largely undocumented problem, with older and overweight women the prime victims. Much of the bias, she said, stems from “simple bigotry.”

The measure has been closely watched in San Francisco, where businesses and the Board of Supervisors often square off over regulations aimed at employers. Until the Santa Cruz hubbub prompted her to back off, Supervisor Carole Migden had been considering introducing a similar ordinance.

Larry Brinkin, a San Francisco Human Rights Commission employee who enforces the city’s ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, said personal appearance is occasionally an issue in complaints filed with him.

In one recent case, a female bellhop at a prestigious San Francisco hotel was ordered by a new manager to shave her facial hair because, he said, she was scaring tourists. The woman argued that the hair, particularly her mustache, was important to her identity and that there had been no complaints during the 12 years of her employment. The case was settled before a complaint was filed.

Lawyers say the Santa Cruz measure could prove tough to enforce.

“The real problem is that it’s so difficult to establish what factors influenced a person’s decision on hiring,” said William C. Anderson, a San Francisco lawyer who specializes in labor and employment law. “It really opens the door to a lot of potential claims, some of which will have merit and some of which won’t.”