@risinghorizon wrote:
The cashier looked Caucasian and that was on my report. However, the couple times I was back, I learned she was actually of the same ancestry as myself but she had dyed her hair blonde. So, the same cashier became 'Other' in my next report. I really believe that basing a description on the race is not foolproof.
Don't worry about it. It's not meant to be foolproof. It's meant to identify to the client which of the employees working at that time it might have been. If there are three dark-brown-haired employees, and you think the one who helped you was Caucasian, they will likely know, for example, that it wasn't the Hispanic employee, or the African-American employee, who also have dark brown hair. No, it's not a perfect identifier, and I think they know it can't be.
I find the less I worry about what they want, and just report the facts, the easier my shops go. If a description is fuzzy, a best guess is almost always sufficient. I have never been questioned on the race description. If I was, I would say that "my best assessment was that the employee was (whatever race)." Because that is the fact. And we aren't doing DNA evaluation. Always, always, if there is any doubt, and if there is anywhere on the survey to comment to editor or MSC only, put a comment in there about it.
And don't worry about it!