Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23704, 852 F.3d 1018, 130 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 228 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title VII, an employer's race-neutral grooming policy that prohibits a mutable characteristic, such as a hairstyle like dreadlocks, does not constitute intentional racial discrimination, even if that hairstyle is culturally associated with a particular race. Title VII protects against discrimination based on immutable characteristics of race, not mutable cultural practices.
Facts:
- In May 2010, Chastity Jones, a black woman, applied for a customer service representative position at Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS).
- Jones attended an in-person interview with her hair styled in short dreadlocks.
- Following the interview, CMS's human resources manager, Jeannie Wilson, informed Jones that she was hired.
- In a subsequent private meeting to discuss scheduling, Wilson asked Jones if her hair was in dreadlocks.
- Upon Jones' confirmation, Wilson stated that CMS could not hire her 'with the dreadlocks' because 'they tend to get messy.'
- Wilson informed Jones that she would have to cut off her dreadlocks to comply with the company's grooming policy and be hired.
- Jones refused to cut her hair.
- As a result of her refusal, Wilson rescinded the job offer.
- At the time, CMS maintained a race-neutral grooming policy that required hairstyles to project a 'business/professional image' and prohibited 'excessive hairstyles.'
Procedural Posture:
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Chastity Jones against Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, a federal trial court.
- The EEOC's complaint alleged intentional racial discrimination in violation of Title VII.
- The district court granted CMS's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The EEOC then filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint, which the district court denied, concluding the proposed amendment would be futile.
- The EEOC, as appellant, appealed both the dismissal and the denial of leave to amend to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's decision to rescind a job offer to a black applicant for refusing to cut her dreadlocks, pursuant to a race-neutral grooming policy, constitute intentional racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Opinions:
Majority - Jordan, Circuit Judge
No. Rescinding a job offer based on a race-neutral grooming policy that bans dreadlocks does not constitute intentional racial discrimination under Title VII. The court's reasoning is based on binding precedent establishing that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on immutable characteristics, not mutable ones. The court distinguishes between hair texture, an immutable trait of race, and hairstyle, which is a mutable choice. While dreadlocks are culturally associated with black people, they are not an immutable characteristic of the black race and are therefore not protected under a disparate treatment theory of discrimination. The court also rejected the EEOC's argument to expand the definition of race under Title VII to include cultural characteristics, stating that such a change is a matter for the democratic process, not the judiciary. Finally, the court found the EEOC's own Compliance Manual unpersuasive, as it contradicted prior EEOC administrative decisions and the overwhelming weight of contrary case law from other courts.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between immutable characteristics and mutable cultural practices in Title VII race discrimination claims, particularly within the Eleventh Circuit. It affirms that employers can enforce race-neutral grooming policies that may disproportionately affect certain racial groups, as long as the policy does not discriminate based on a trait that an individual cannot change. The ruling explicitly rejects the 'race as culture' legal theory, placing a significant barrier for plaintiffs wishing to argue that discrimination based on cultural expression is a proxy for racial discrimination. This case signals to litigants that expanding the definition of 'race' under Title VII is a legislative task for Congress, not an interpretive one for the courts.
