County Council considers hair amendment

People won’t lose their jobs, homes or positions because of the way they wear their hair or its color if Allegheny County Council follows through on an amendment to the county’s nondiscrimination ordinance.

County Council on Tuesday heard a first reading of legislation that would clarify the applicability of the existing county rules to hairstyles and hair color.

Councilwoman Bethany Hallam, one of three council sponsors of the ordinance, said it was prompted by a number of factors, including a lawsuit filed last month against the county by Angela Sisko, 41, of West Mifflin, a former nurse at the Allegheny County Jail who claims supervisors at the jail told her to change her red hair color or be fired.

Also playing a role in the legislation, Ms. Hallam said, are instances where schools and sports teams have imposed arbitrary hair rules.

“Some of those situations discriminate against Black hairstyles,” she said, “and we want to set a precedent by adding hairstyles to the existing ordinance.”

The amendment states it is council’s judgment that a clear and comprehensive nondiscrimination ordinance should address “any systematic deprivation of educational, employment, housing or public accommodation opportunities on the basis of hair textures and styles that are commonly associated with race, national origin, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation or religion.”

Ms. Sisko’s lawsuit states she was hired in 2017 with “naturally appearing” red hair and did not change her hair color. In early 2020, supervisors told her she would be removed from the employment schedule if she didn’t change her hair to its natural color.

The jail health care services policy states that hair should be “kept clean, neatly trimmed and groomed” and “shall consist of only natural hair colors.” Extreme or faddish hair colors including “purple, pink, green, magenta ... are prohibited.”

The discrimination complaint, filed with the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh, alleges the policy was not applied equally.

The county has stated it does not comment on pending litigation as a matter of policy.