I need someone to revise my essay and format it!

Typically when you go to work you expect to do what is expected, and that is simply just to work. You expect everyone to ride the same wave and stick to daily tasks. You do not engage in small talk and occasionally someone might ask you to engage in mediocrity that they’re oblivious of. You come to work and expect make your money and go home, but that also requires some sort of stipulation. There are rules and guidelines you must adhere to under the umbrella of the company you represent. Every company has some sort of code of ethics and regulation you must oblige to. To say regulation alone would be vague, so to piggyback off of that there are so many regulations. I can talk about uniform regulations or grooming standards. They all have codes that you must adhere to even if there is a level of prejudiceness.

Based off of my personal experience in my work place we had to abide by hair regulations that were almost discriminatory. The issue was with the hair of African Americans. Specifically wearing dreadlocks was one of the main issues. According to the hair regulations, dreadlocks were considered matted and unnatural. Another lame excuse was that they are fused or coiled strands of hair that cannot be easily combed out. There are few things that conflict with those regs. Wearing dreadlocks in the African American community is wearing out hair in our natural state. That alone is defamation and a lack of knowledge. Secondly, wearing dreadlocks is actually a part of a religion called Rastafarian, so that goes completely against a person’s beliefs and culture. That is an act of discrimination. That created an A-type conflict because most African Americans felt like it was a personal attack.

So there had to be a conflict strategy initially you want to a boycott state of mind, but then you realize it is kind of hard to do that when you work for the department of defense. So a lot of African American females went into two phases of conflict resolution which was avoiding consequence and accommodating the grooming standard. That way was to simply cover up their dreadlocks with a wig. Sure it looked silly, but it was in regulations and that by far was the best solution.

Another common thing that seems to be a big topic in a workplace is politics. Every company has a policy that protects an individual’s level of comfort. So opinions about certain issues going on in today’s society are discouraged to speak upon and against company’s policy in a workplace. Sounds fair, but it does not stop people from expressing their opinions. There was a conversation going on about the Sandra Bland incident in the lounge area and these group women had very strong opinions about it. Long story short in a nutshell they said it was her fault that she basically lost her life. The manager overheard their conversation and was enraged by their comments. At this point this incident had become an A type conflict and a type C conflict. So she had to figure out how to tactfully approach this situation because she was moved. She also had to reinforce the rules which gave her leadway to bring up company policy. The manager could have reacted to any kind of way, but instead she came up with a collaborating/problem-solving angle and a competing/forcing angle. She told them that there was no tolerance of type of discussion and if they wanted to talk about it that would be outside of the workplace. Making sure she kept a level of professionalism.

I do not think that there is any way you can avoid conflict. However there is a way you can go about it professionally, tactfully and taste fully. The manager said that, "Dreadlocks have a tendency to get untidy, in spite of the fact that I'm not saying yours are, but rather you hear what I'm saying." At the time, CMS's preparing strategy expressed that representatives were "relied upon to be dressed and prepped in a way that tasks an expert and systematic picture." Further, wearing "inordinate haircuts or bizarre hues" was regarded unsuitable on the grounds that one's "hairdo ought to mirror a business/proficient picture."

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), keeping up that Jones had been victimized under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, took her case to a region court. Following quite a while of dissents against Jim Crow, Congress passed Title VII to keep bosses from separating in view of somebody's "race, shading, religion, sex, or national birthplace," and the EEOC contemplated that the "idea of race includes social attributes identified with race and ethnicity, for example, dreadlocks, which, it noted, are "normal for dark individuals and appropriate for dark hair surface." (Although it's not known how broad the training is, different managers have picked not to contract or have let go workers for having dreadlocks and different haircuts.)

The locale court agreed with CMS in the spring of 2014, and the EEOC claimed soon thereafter. This September, when the Court of Appeals for the eleventh Circuit administered looking into the issue, it consistently maintained the lower court's choice that CMS was inside its rights to offer Jones a final offer in view of her haircut and decided that dreadlocks are not a settled or "unchanging normal for dark people." The choice implies that organizations can lawfully terminate workers or dismiss work candidates basically to have dreadlocks. The interests court found that CMS did not plan to oppress every single African American, but rather the judges would not consider whether the clothing regulation strategy disparaty affected African Americans. In the court's view, anybody can settle on a decision to have dreadlocks, and having them implies tolerating a diminished likelihood of getting procured for certain jobs.How was CMS ready to win a government court's endorsement to dismiss crazy a hairdo that such huge numbers of African Americans wear? By depending on some entrenched legitimate points of reference and additionally some obsolete ideas of race.

While, organically, racial gatherings don't exist, it is imperative to perceive the ways individuals trust them to exist as a mix of changeless (natural) and alterable (social) qualities. The interests court judges who heard the EEOC's case clarified that they knew race to be socially developed and even refered to some scholastic talks by driving social researchers in their decision. In any case, while the judges recognized that race "has no natural definition," they went ideal back to announce that "race" in Title VII just covers unchanging elements. They established that dreadlocks were controlled or made as a piece of one's way of life—not one's science—and thusly the privilege to wear them constantly couldn't be legitimately secured under the Civil Rights Act. This thin perspective of equivalent insurance under the law overlooks that efficient and individual demonstrations of victimization certain racial gatherings are frequently in view of both physiological and social characteristics related with one's supposed "race." The risk here is that a government court has now approved a few types of such separation, and its decision will stand unless the EEOC chooses to seek after the case facilitate with expectations of an inversion.