Of course it's a black girl
I (a middle-aged white woman) have dyed my hair black, red, blond for decades and not even one single time has anyone suggested that those aren't "natural colors" even though they were obviously not MY natural brown hair color.
It's even worse than it sounds: according to the article, she didn't have an unnatural hair color, a supervisor said she had 'blond' in her braids, but her hair wasn't even artificially colored and she didn't have blond in her hair.
sigh This kind of ignorant discrimination goes on a lot in Japan too. A small percentage of ethnically Japanese people do NOT have black hair, but it is very much a standard. Some schools make kids dye it!
There are areas in Asia where people have blond or red hair. I assume those kids have ancestors in those regions.
Of course it's jealousy because these people tend to look awesome.
I know. I wish I had all red hair. I only have like 2 streaks in my beard.
For me it's only my moustache area. It's funny trimming my beard and seeing the color change. Everyone jokes with my uncle that he's adopted, as the only red head in the family, but there's clearly some ginger genes in there
As someone with 77% Mayan and native blood, I find it really fucking offensive that a Mohawk is deemed inappropriate. It's literally one of the most accepted hairstyles in my culture.
I could see it being maybe a problem since the company sells food, depending on how large a mohawk we're talking. Not like it isn't easy enough to set a height limit just so it still fits in a hairnet.
I know damn well I'm not the only one that would actually be put more at ease if the guy selling me a car or whatever had dark teal liberty spikes and a nose ring. It would make them much more human and personable than "smiling snake in a suit," and therefore I would be more likely to have a favorable opinion of them and maybe buy something.
There's also nothing that says you have to actually spike your hawk up every day for work. As you noted, there are plenty of practical reasons not to when you're working. Most people I've known with substantial hawks only spiked it up in their free time. One guy I knew only did it when he was going to concerts.
It takes a lot of effort to get liberty spikes to set. And then you have to maintain it. I think it's been close to a decade since I last put mine all the way up into spikes. It's just not practical.
I had a mohawk, that wasn't even culturally appropriate to my background during my teenage years and I didn't get sacked from where I worked.
Times have changed and not all for the better.
I can’t read the article from the uk. Here’s a photo of her hair at the time for anyone interested. 
That looks like incredibly an common hair style to me, also in the UK.
It looks great.
And it's her natural color! Tons of black Americans have brown and even blonde hair, largely as a result of slavery. Penalizing her for her lighter hair color is just the cherry on the shit sundae of what we've put black people through in this country.
Yeah I thought my friend was bullshitting me when she told me she didn't bleach it or anything. "Come on, my ancestors were slaves. Do the math"
Wow, I was picturing some crazy color (which wouldn't have anything wrong either), but this is a "normal" hair color!
16-year-old Harrisburg Chick-Fil-A worker sent home over ‘unnatural’ hair color
by: Shaquira Speaks Posted: Jul 31, 2023 / 10:21 PM EDT Updated: Aug 1, 2023 / 03:08 PM EDT
HARRISBURG, N.C. (QUEEN CITY NEWS) — 16-year-old Autumn Williams says she’s still trying to understand how the blonde hair color in her braids was deemed unnatural at her Chick-Fil-A job.
She says she felt singled out and embarrassed. She’d only been working at this Chick-Fil-A in Harrisburg for three months before she was pulled aside for an apparent uniform violation. What she was told caught her caught off guard.
“She was like, ‘Hey, one of our supervisors came by and said they noticed blond in your hair, and he asked that you leave and come back when it’s taken out since it’s an unnatural color to you,'” Williams said.
This is the color Williams says she had at the time:
(Photo: Autumn Williams)
“I don’t know what blond is in my hair because my braids were brown, and there wasn’t blond in them, and my natural hair color is blond,” Williams said. “And the guy, when I had orientation, he never said anything about my hair color or it being an issue.” She claims other coworkers also had unnatural hair colors, but she was singled out.
When she asked her human resources supervisor for clarification about unnatural hair colors, he referred Williams to the employee handbook. But the handbook doesn’t specify what unnatural colors are.
(Chick-Fil-A Handbook)
She says the lack of clarification led to her quitting. Chick-Fil-A responded to our request for comment, saying: “The operator reached out to (Autumn) Williams today and had a good conversation.
In further detail, the operator explained that the policy was misinterpreted and said Williams was not terminated and she’s more than welcome to come back and work at the restaurant.”
“I was glad that I didn’t have to change myself to fit into someone else’s idea image of what it’s like to be a Chick-Fil-A worker,” Williams said. “I could still have my braids, which I felt there was nothing wrong with, so I was just glad that I was able to just stay true to myself and move on and find somewhere else to work; that’s fine with how I look.”
“It’s a protective style for us,” said her mother, Nina Burch. “There was nothing eccentric about the color that was in her hair. So I think maybe there needs to be some sensitivity training about what people can and cannot look like. But that just sounds so crazy to say because who’s to say what anybody can look like based on their race?”
North Carolina does not have the C.R.O.W.N Act law in place; however, the Act doesn’t protect against hair color. Since her decision to quit, Williams says she’s filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
"...unnatural color to you"
that wording might just get this girl's college paid for.. then she wouldn't have to work for peanuts (well, until after she graduates, anyway).
I have interviewed probably a thousand people, hired and managed many teams, though not retail I have to admit. I have had precisely one conversation about hair in all of that time. I was interviewing a guy who had a very large number of thick braids. I said, "the job sometimes requires wearing a hardhat. Is that a problem?" He said no, that he did it all the time, he just needed to tie them back. I should emphasize this dude had a truly impressive amount of hair so I really did doubt he could get it in a hat, but I hired him and he did.
I've also had to have conversations about long nails and body odor. It's not comfortable, but we should not be afraid of these topics ONLY if they are directly relevant to the job. I see nothing in this story where her hair interfered with the job, unless the job is pleasing bigots. Oh.
The Chick-fil-A near me has people with pink and blue hair, but they are both white, so no one's complaining.
Lame US only link
I don’t live in the US, so it’s not US-only. Couldn’t tell you why your country can’t access it.
Probably as they want to track people without consent, and that’s not allowed where I live.
It's always small, local news sites that just block EU traffic because the GDPR is so vague and broad they don't want to spend the resources to ensure compliance.
Sites have violated GDPR by simply using the wrong fonts
Sure. This is probably why there’s no local news sites in EU. All the small ones had to close when GDPR came into action
Sarcasm, right?
Yes, sarcasm. There are plenty of smaller news sites, but (at least in Sweden) many are struggling due to lack of paid subscribers or ad revenue, not due to explaining whether they have tracking or third party cookies.
Oh right, cause the coders and lawyers are free 🤦♂️
Turns out the most expensive part of a business and one of those pesky facts on your trip to profitability is to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars a years on supporting compliance. Who knew!!?!
Probably… Or perhaps there is no small sites in EU anymore as they’d get closed because of wrong font. Or maybe that part was made up and small networked news channels like to track what you read. It’s really hard to tell sometimes when there’s so many credible reasons for blocking just the countries that disallows tracking without consent.
Money. It cost money and takes time to follow gdpr, so obviously small sites outside of eu won’t do it. But I haven’t seen any site inside the eu that had to close because of gdpr, at least in my country.
I was just using fonts as an example that it is easy to accidentally violate the GDPR. Small sites outside the EU will just decide it's not worth the hassle. Most of the time, people in the EU won't have any interest in viewing local news content, so it doesn't matter anyway
More like "EU countries are a tiny audience of our specific site, we are not spending the resources on it. Just block EU ip addresses and move on"
Probably because they're in the EU and some American websites just cut us off entirely rather than deal with GDPR issues.
Blocked in Europe
As a frequent customer of CFA, I've quite often seen teens and young adults with various "unatural" colors in their hair. But it looks like the policy was "misinterpreted by the operator" and she was able to come back without changing her hair color.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.