## Facts

- Alan Willingham applied to Macon Telegraph Publishing Company for a display or copy layout artist position.
- The employer maintained a grooming policy prohibiting long hair for male employees while permitting long hair for female employees.
- Willingham, a male applicant with long hair, was not hired solely because of the length of his hair.
- Willingham filed an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination under Title VII; the EEOC found reasonable cause and issued a right-to-sue notice.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the employer; a Fifth Circuit panel reversed and remanded, but the court reheard the case en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer violates Title VII by enforcing different hair-length standards for men and women that apply uniformly within each sex.

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit vacated the panel decision and affirmed summary judgment for the employer.
- The court held that the hair-length policy did not constitute discrimination “because of … sex” under Title VII.
- The court declined to treat sex-differentiated grooming codes as within Title VII’s core prohibitions absent a showing of unequal employment opportunity or a materially unequal employment burden.
- The court gave limited, nonbinding weight to the EEOC’s contrary view.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII targets employment practices that create unequal employment opportunities or materially unequal conditions of employment, not every sex-based difference in appearance standards.
- Sex-differentiated grooming rules that are applied evenhandedly to each sex are not, by themselves, actionable sex discrimination under Title VII.
- Agency interpretations (including EEOC positions) may be considered but are not controlling; courts may reject them when unpersuasive or inconsistent with statutory purpose.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that an employer’s policy requiring short hair for men but not for women did not violate Title VII, because the rule was treated as a permissible grooming regulation rather than a practice that denied equal employment opportunity on the basis of sex.


Willingham v. Macon Tel. Publ’g Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc)