Having that said, her hair colour, as far as I can see in the photos, IS in the realm of "natural hair colour" in accordance with the dress code expressed. I've seen quite many natural fiery red-haired woman in my life. And have seen most natural shades of red in between. And I've seen malnurished dark- and light-skinned children with dark hair and splotchy red marks throughout.

I believe it was a mistake of management to leave such decisions of vagueness until "after the fact". Certain considerations should have been taken into account. Her having worked for 2 years should encourage management to change dress code policy to be more specific (which in turn might make managment more liable - something they think they're trying to avoid by being vague), but then simply advised, not warn, her of their concerns. Clearly she wasn't being insubordinate. Unnatural colours, blue, green, bright purple, or even streaks of bleached hair against a natural brown- in other words - styles which may draw too much attention or be associated with gangs or offensive in nature to the general public - should be enforceable if against dress code.

In fairness, employees have a responsibility to abide by the needs of management and, before spending $200 on a hairstyle or colour, check with management for their approval. This idea, is rarely considered by an employee, with dire consequences for that oversight. This employee was laid-off for 10 days, for example.

Unfortunately, as her redish/maroon colour IS found naturally, I feel management IS considering "ethnic" hair to only be naturally found in a black or dark range and making an assumption on race that she is of an ethnic background. Without DNA testing, I confess, I wouldn't know if she's "african" or "asian" or "caucasian" decent. Again, it's of no matter. Making an assumption that "ethnic" hair (a misnomer in itself) is always black is not true as there are genetically born blonde/red-haired/greeneyed/negro-featured people in this world. That consideration by managment, therefore, would be a false assumption based on "race" alone (or use of skin colour and body features alone) and thus actions supported by that assumption, I feel, could be unlawfully discriminative. Foretunately, this is only an opinion and not legally sound by my profession. IOW, I'm not an attorney.

Mountain of a molehill. Let her work. Warn all employees of the new rule: "Use or change of Hairstyles and colour, style of dress, make-up, accessory, personal hygiene which may be considered questionable for whatever purpose by managment should be discussed with managment before their undertaking. Failure to do so can constitute temporary or permanent dismissal by managment" That way, its the lack of notifying management that gets you dismissed and NOT what you did or which colour something is, that does it.

I've seen 6 new movies there this months and would like to see that employees smiling face the next movie I come to see.