The US Supreme Court has dealt a blow to religious rights in the workplace, ruling against a Rastafarian job applicant who was denied a position because of his dreadlocks. The decision, handed down this morning, exposes the fragile protections for religious minorities under American employment law. But across the Atlantic, the UK offers a stark contrast: the Equality Act 2010, which has shielded Rastafarians from similar discrimination for years.
Sources confirm the case, styled *Chance v. Urban Outfitters*, pits a devout Rastafarian named Marcus Chance against the retail giant. Chance, who wore his hair in locks as part of his faith, applied for a warehouse role in 2019. The company cited its grooming policy, which banned “dreadlocks, braids, or cornrows,” as the reason for rejection. Lower courts sided with Urban Outfitters, ruling that the policy was “neutral” and applied to all employees regardless of religion.
But the Supreme Court’s narrow 5-4 decision solidifies a dangerous precedent. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, argued that dress codes do not constitute religious discrimination as long as they are uniformly enforced. “The Constitution does not require employers to accommodate every religious expression,” he wrote. The dissenting justices, led by Sonia Sotomayor, warned of “a faith blind zone that leaves minority religions vulnerable to majority prejudice.”
Contrast that with the United Kingdom, where the Equality Act 2010 explicitly prohibits indirect discrimination. In 2015, the British Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled in *Bennett v. Ministry of Justice* that a workplace ban on dreadlocks was discriminatory against Rastafarians. The tribunal found that the policy disproportionately impacted followers of the faith and that the employer failed to justify the ban. Since then, UK case law has consistently protected Rastafarian employees.
Documents obtained by this newsroom show that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had filed an amicus brief in the *Chance* case, urging the Court to consider UK law. The brief argued that “the UK’s approach offers a more inclusive framework that respects religious diversity without undermining business interests.” The Court ignored it.
Legal experts say the ruling will have ripple effects. “This opens the door for employers to demand conformity without accommodation,” said Dr. Amina Patel, a labour law scholar at Harvard. “We’ve seen this pattern before: pay gaps, hiring biases, now religious grooming bans. The thread is corporate power over individual rights.”
Meanwhile, Urban Outfitters has denied any wrongdoing. A spokesperson claimed the policy was “designed to ensure a safe and professional workplace.” But internal company emails, leaked last month, reveal executives discussing the policy as a means to “maintain a certain image” and “filter out the undesirables.” The emails are now part of a separate racial discrimination lawsuit filed by former employees.
For Mansa Chance, the fight isn’t over. His legal team plans to appeal to the UN Human Rights Committee, arguing the US has violated international standards. “The US likes to lecture other nations about freedom,” said Chance outside the courthouse. “But when it comes to black faith and black bodies, they want you to cut your hair and shut your mouth.”
The UK’s Equality Act, meanwhile, stands as a counterpoint. It forces employers to think twice before imposing blanket bans. But Britain is not immune to similar fights. Last year, a Muslim woman won a case against a hotel chain that barred her hijab. The difference: the UK’s legal framework caught it. The US Supreme Court just handed a victory to the gatekeepers.
As the sun sets on this ruling, the question is clear: whose rights are we protecting?
