Opinion ID: 2183369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facial Hair Regulations

Text: The Department's regulation regarding facial hair for male employees provides: The face shall be left clean shaven, except that a well-trimmed mustache is permissible. If worn, the mustache shall not extend more than ¼ inch beyond the corners of the mouth. Mustaches shall be trimmed in such a manner as to leave the upper lip visible and no portion extending beyond the corners of the mouth shall fall more than ¼ inch below a line parallel with the bottom of the lower lip. Handlebar mustaches, goatees, and beards are not permitted, except that officers and members suffering from folliculitis barbae ... may wear a beard ¼ inch in length and neatly trimmed.... No facial hair that would interfere with the proper seal of the airmask facepiece or oxygen mask mouthpiece shall be permitted. Article XXI § 20(c) of the District of Columbia Fire Department Order Book (emphasis added). The hearing examiner heard testimony from Kennedy, Fire Chief Theodore R. Coleman, Deputy Fire Chief Hubert Clarke, Safety Officer Captain Darl McBride, and Local No. 36 President, Sergeant William Mould. In their respective capacities as members of the Department, each testified whether the grooming regulations promoted the safety or reasonable business objectives of the Department. The reasonable business objectives were further delineated into the subcategories of uniformity, esprit de corps, and morale. In its defense of the facial hair regulation, the Department stressed that its prohibition on facial hair is necessary because of the potential that such hair could interfere with the proper seal between the firefighter's face and the facemask of the firefighter's self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). The testimony was uniform that an adequate seal is imperative to protect the firefighter from smoke, vapors, toxic gases and other contaminants. Further testimony at the hearing cited scientific studies which suggest that the presence of facial hair increases the likelihood that an effective seal of the facial masks and the attached breathing apparatus will not be maintained. Moreover, the manufacturer of the facial mask includes a warning that the masks are not to be used with facial hair. The evidence further demonstrated, however, that of the approximately twenty firefighters who were afflicted with pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) and were allowed to wear short beards, there were no reported incidents resulting from improperly secured face masks in the past seven years. Moreover, department regulations demand that each SCBA be tested twice daily to ensure a proper seal on the individual firefighters. During this test, a firefighter places the mask on his face, closes off the intake hose and inhales. If the mask adheres, a proper seal has been achieved. In fact, during the hearing, Kennedy performed such a test and demonstrated that he could obtain a proper seal despite the presence of his beard and handlebar mustache. [8] Regarding uniformity, esprit de corps and morale, the evidence revealed that the Department's grooming regulations are not uniformly applied and, in fact, vary from one engine company to another and from one officer to another. For example, there was unrefuted testimony that, in addition to those firefighters with a medical exemption, at least two Department members sported beards. The testimony also indicated that the public has little difficulty in identifying firefighters. While engaged in firefighting activities, the firefighters wear coats, hats and shoulder patches emblazoned with Departmental insignia. There has only been one reported incident where a member of the public failed to recognize a firefighter because of his beard. Significantly, no evidence was adduced indicating that the public would not respond to the directive of a firefighter with facial hair. Regarding esprit de corps and morale, the Department's senior management testified that strict enforcement of the uniform and grooming requirements promote a necessary team spirit. To the contrary, Kennedy and Union President Mould testified that members of the department disagreed with this assessment. They testified that because members of the Department view the grooming regulations as silly and inconsistently enforced, the regulations result in undermining Departmental morale and diminishing respect for Departmental authority. This sentiment is supported by the firefighter's union which promotes an equally applied rule that permits all Department members to wear a neatly-trimmed beard irrespective of medical condition. After reviewing the above regulations and the evidence presented at the hearing, the examiner concluded that a prima facie case of employment discrimination had been proven. In particular, the hearing examiner held that [t]he entire safety justification is undercut in part because of the differential treatment between those with pseudofolliculitis barbae and those without it, because the legitimate medical rationale for this treatment has no relationship to the seal. Moreover, [i]f the seal is the basis for the rule concerning the mustache, and it appears to be, then in the direct evidence before me in the proceeding it must fall because Mr. Kennedy was able to secure a seal.... Addressing the District's position that the Department's grooming regulations foster discipline or an esprit de corps, the hearing examiner found that the grooming regulations specifically undermine the sought team spirit and respect for authority within the Fire Department. [9] Despite the Department's asserted safety justification for the regulation, the Fire Chief conceded that a firefighter with a one-quarter inch beard would be reasonably safe in wearing his face mask in a contaminated atmosphere. In addition, Kennedy demonstrated at the hearing that he was able to safely secure his oxygen mask in spite of his beard and moustache. Significantly, only the management level of the Department adopts the posture that grooming regulations boost morale. The hearing examiner chose to give more credence to the contrary testimony of the firefighters and their union representative. It is settled that due deference must be accorded the credibility determinations of the examiner who heard and evaluated the evidence. Gunty, supra, 524 A.2d at 1197 (emphasis added); see also Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 496, 71 S.Ct. 456, 468-69, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). In the instant action, such deference is warranted. The hearing examiner took pains to render a finding on each material fact necessary to support the conclusions of law[,] Newsweek, supra, 376 A.2d at 784 ( citing Dietrich v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 293 A.2d 470, 473 (D.C. 1972)), allowing for meaningful review, and these findings support the end result in a discernible manner. Dietrich, supra, 293 A.2d at 473. We conclude, therefore, that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing examiner's conclusion that the Department's facial hair regulation was discriminatory as applied to Kennedy and that this conclusion rationally flows from these findings. See Greater Washington Business Ctr., supra, 454 A.2d at 1337; 4934, Inc., supra, 605 A.2d at 53. [10] This does not, of course, preclude the Department from promulgating a reasonable grooming regulation, equally applied to all, requiring beards to be neatly trimmed.