Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions

Citations: 11 F. Supp. 3d 1139; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50822; 122 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 758Docket: Civil Action No. 13-00476-CB-M

Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama; March 27, 2014; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court, presided over by Senior District Judge Charles R. Butler, Jr., has addressed a motion to dismiss from Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS) regarding a complaint by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC claims CMS engaged in racial discrimination by implementing a policy that prohibited employees from wearing dreadlocks, which it enforced against Chastity C. Jones. CMS's grooming policy emphasizes a professional appearance and prohibits excessive or unusual hairstyles. CMS allegedly conditioned Jones's employment on her cutting off her dreadlocks and withdrew the offer when she refused.

The EEOC asserts that this application of the policy discriminates against Jones based on her race, depriving her of equal employment opportunities, and was done with intentional malice or reckless indifference to her rights. The Court noted that a complaint must provide a clear statement of the claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), supported by enough factual matter to suggest the necessary elements of a cause of action, as established in *Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly* and further refined in *Ashcroft v. Iqbal*. The Court concluded that the complaint did not meet the threshold requirements necessary to survive the motion to dismiss, as it lacked sufficient factual allegations to establish a plausible claim for relief.

CMS has filed a motion to dismiss the EEOC's Complaint, arguing that it lacks sufficient factual support for a claim of intentional discrimination based on race. The EEOC alleges that CMS refused to hire Jones due to her race, asserting that CMS's grooming policy, which prohibits dreadlocks, is racially discriminatory. CMS counters that such a policy pertains to a mutable characteristic (hairstyle) and does not constitute racial discrimination. 

The EEOC responds by arguing that CMS's pleading standards are excessively stringent and that it is not obligated to specify a legal theory in the Complaint. However, the court emphasizes that while legal theories need not be explicitly stated, the Complaint must include sufficient factual allegations to support a viable claim. Citing case law, it clarifies that merely presenting conclusory statements is insufficient for survival against a motion to dismiss.

The EEOC further asserts that a different, less rigorous standard applies to claims involving intent, referencing the Iqbal decision. However, the court refutes this claim, explaining that the Iqbal ruling does not provide a basis for a relaxed pleading standard regarding intent and reiterates that parties cannot merely state the elements of their claims without adequate factual support.

The court also highlights established precedent indicating that grooming policies fall outside the scope of Title VII protections, as seen in Willingham v. Macon Tel. Publ’g Co., which clarifies that non-immutable characteristics, such as grooming choices, do not constitute discrimination under Title VII. The court concludes that employees may choose to accept grooming codes or seek employment elsewhere, reinforcing that such policies are more related to business operations than to employment equality.

Many courts have found that policies limiting hairstyles do not constitute discrimination. In **Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc.**, the court dismissed a complaint challenging a grooming policy that banned an "all-braided hairstyle," ruling that such hairstyles are easily changed and not an impermissible basis for employment distinctions, even if culturally linked to a race. Similarly, in **Eatman v. United Parcel Serv.**, the court rejected claims of racial discrimination based on a policy requiring drivers to cover "unconventional" hairstyles, asserting that "locked hair" is not unique to African-Americans and that Title VII does not protect against discrimination based on this hairstyle. In **Pitts v. Wild Adventures, Inc.**, the court upheld a grooming policy prohibiting Afro-centric hairstyles, determining it was facially neutral since such hairstyles are not immutable characteristics. The **EEOC** argues that hairstyle can determine racial identity and that existing case law is overly narrow in its definitions of race. However, the court finds that hairstyles, regardless of cultural significance, are mutable characteristics and thus not protected under Title VII. The EEOC’s attempts to broaden the definition of race to include cultural traits are criticized for potentially leading to illogical outcomes. Consequently, the Complaint fails to present a viable claim for relief.

A policy banning dreadlocks is considered discriminatory if it applies selectively based on race; however, such a policy would not inherently discriminate against African-Americans. Culture and race are distinct, with culture representing behavioral characteristics that differ from immutable racial traits. The EEOC's stance that the distinction between immutable and mutable traits should be disregarded is countered by the law, which prohibits discrimination solely based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, not on personal traits. The EEOC criticizes courts for allowing employers too much discretion in grooming policies, but fails to demonstrate how the specific grooming policy at issue was applied in a discriminatory manner.

The EEOC seeks to present expert testimony to support its claims, asserting that dreadlocks are primarily worn by Blacks and that they represent an important cultural identity. However, it notes that since dreadlocks are not exclusively worn by Blacks, the claim of racial discrimination fails. Additionally, while expert testimony may suggest that dreadlocks are a practical way to manage Black hair, a hairstyle itself is not immutable, regardless of its cultural significance. The court concludes that the EEOC's complaint does not adequately state a plausible claim for racial discrimination, leading to the dismissal of the case. The EEOC has the authority to bring actions under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and other factors, but the complaint lacks factual support for discriminatory application of the grooming policy.