The law protects religion. If the reason for Ms. Jones’ dreds were religious, the hair policy could not have lawfully been applied to Ms. Jones. The employer would have been required to make a religious ‘reasonable accommodation’ for Ms. Jones, or her lawsuit would have been successful. In this case, the Court found that the dreds were not a religious requirement, not even a culture-based choice, but her personal choice. The Court held that the fact of her race was moot. Dreds are not the only way African American’s hair can be worn in its natural state. Therefore, the 11th Circuit ruling was that the employer’s policy was not in violation of Title VII, it was not discriminatory, and it was not even particularly unique.