Go to any barber shop and you will see the same amount charged for a kid with a full head of hair as the old guy that's balding. Big deal...
If I'm treated unfairly over a hair cut, I just don't go back.If they had a problem with the price that should have been settled beforehand.
So, the result of the lawsuit will be that Dillards will raise the price of services for non-"Black Hair", so everything's equalized. Problem solved.
"Officials in Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland and Massachusetts have already addressed race- and sex-based pricing differences at hair salons."
How?
Why is this even news that different racial types require different practices?
Hmmm O.K. It's not a big deal. My wife (who is black) has been told by numerous hairdressers that they can't do her hair not because she's black but because they do not have enough experience to do it correctly.
At first we got all our hackles raised but one hairdresser calmly expalained that we'd be alot more angry if he screwed up her hair than if he just refused and refered us to someone who could do a better job.
So I can see why someone would charge more, nothing to do with racism at all.
Nothing to see here.
Good choice in who she's deciding to sue. Dillard's has VERY deep pockets, and owns a HUGE chunk of the up-scale retail in this country. (They'll probably just settle to shut her up.)
If you look at this link, you'll see that Dillard's has either had a long string of plain old Bad Luck, or they really are a shoddily run organization:
Discrimination: In May 2001, Dillard's was ordered by a jury to pay $800,000 in a wrongful death trial in a Houston state court. The case involves the death of a man who Dillard's alleges was psychotic. Police officers were called in to the store to handle the man who had become belligerent. An employee claims she saw officers beating the handcuffed man, who died two days later after being on life support. Source: The Houston Chronicle, April 12, 2001
Health and Safety: Dillard's has a policy of hiring armed, off-duty police officers to provide security. Since 1994, at least six people have died after confrontations with Dillard's security officers. In all cases but one, the victims were minorities. None of the victims had weapons. Source: New Pittsburgh Courier, 1-1-03/Houston Press, 1-04
Discrimination: Dillard's pulled advertising from some CBS affiliates after the network's "60 Minutes" featured a story about Dillard's alleged discrimination against minorities. The show described a lawsuit against Dillard's and some security guards who allegedly harassed and beat black customers, leaving one person dead. The company did not pull ads from ABC or NBC affiliates. Source: The Associated Press, April 11, 2001
Ethics: In January 2003, a Texas district judge ordered Dillard's not to destroy security personnel notebooks and logs that plaintiffs in lawsuits against the retailer claim may show systematic targeting of minority and low-income shoppers for surveillance and intimidation. According to documents given to an attorney for a plaintiff in a discrimination suit against the store, a Dillards official in May 2000 ordered that all security officer notebooks, logs and other documents be sent to corporate headquarters and that no copies be retained by local stores. An internal e-mail dated July 2001 stated that "All unauthorized forms or notebooks containing narrative information of non-arrest activity must be destroyed." Source: New Pittsburgh Courier, January 1, 2003
Health and Safety: In 2005, Dillard's paid $15 million to settle a lawsuit brought on behalf of a 5 year old girl whose fingers were amputated in a defective escalator at the company's St. Petersburg, Florida store. At the time another lawsuit against Dillard's was under consideration in Iowa. In that case another child also lost fingers. Source: Tampa Tribune, Feb. 13, 2005
http://www.responsibleshopper.org/basic.cfm?cusip=254067
I report. You decide.
Fifteen more dollars to do black hair? It's not THAT bad. Sheesh. Good for her. Sue them.
This is bull... my wife had to pay more to have her hair permed because it was so very long/thick when we first married (3 kids later, the hair has gotten shorter). Not all hair is equal, get over it... some requires more time, others not.. I get paid by the hour, hairdresses should charge by the hour too.
Now I swear, I had a black woman tell me her hair was stronger, fuller, and less oily than a white woman's hair.
She even called over one of her friends to prove it by asking her the same questions, and her black friend confirmed that a Black woman's hair is different than a white woman's hair.
The main difference is the oils in the hair. Black women do not have to wash their hair as often, and can go as long as 3 weeks without washing their hair.
How any of this is related, I am not sure, why this difference might be considered a reason to charge more, but, Ill let the hairdressers refute the claim.
Unless it is outright racism of course...
Having little left on top, I've always thought about asking for a discount.
Clearly a case of racial 'fro-filing.
This is why I now do my own hair at home. No salon, white or black,can get it right.
Easy solution. Itemize the bill based on the materials used and the time per client. That would be the fairest method.
I have no problem with this practice as long as they charge everyone of any race extra to deal with their tight curly hair.
Why don't stores charge more for larger sizes? My wife is a petite, and she pays the same for pants or a shirt as an XXL, and those have like twice the material. Not only that, but they clearly weigh more and take up more volume, all adding costs to production and shipping.
WHY?
I DEMAND JUSTICE!
(yes, I am freaking kidding....but curious)
I think the quoted line reveals the problem with what Dillard's is doing.
NOT ALL BLACK HAIR IS THE SAME!
A lot of the posters in this thread are saying this practice is sensible because if you have thicker, longer, coarser hair, you will naturally be charged more than someone with easier hair.
But according to this article, Dillard's is charging higher rates just because the customer is perceived to be black, regardless of that individual person's actual hair.
My mother has soft, very manageable, easy hair to deal with. She can be in and out of the salon. If they charge my mother more money than a white woman it is not fair at all! Some white women have oily, damaged hair, why should they pay less than my mother just because they are white and she is black?
You can say that Dillard's should have the right to charge whatever they want, and if a customer doesn't like it they should go somewhere else. I know there are a number of people on this website who think businesses should be able to discriminate on the basis of race, and I am not going to argue with that viewpoint.
I am saying that just because they MAY have the right, that doesn't make it right to do so. It's not right to charge someone more money because of their race, just because some OTHER people of the same race had "difficult" hair.
I have never let a white person do my hair. ever.... I have let my husband wash my hair in the shower and thats as close as it gets. But to have a white stylist relax and style my hair...... ummm no... I know it sounds awful but its true. It seems to me that allot more Black stylist are able to do white hair than the other way around.
from the headline, I assumed salon.com was the culprit.