Hair today, gone tomorrow: In-N-Out sued over Black hairstyle ban

Elijah Obeng, like droves of other brand-new alumnae of high school, decided to join the fast-food workforce post graduation. In the summer months of 2020, Obeng, a California-native, joined the staff of In-N-Out Burger, the popular burger franchise known for their "old fashioned" approach to fast food staples and strong regional presence. Up until mid-2024, Obeng enjoyed his tenure at a California location of the burger chain. So what sparked the change in his employment status after four years of service?

According to a $3 million lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in June 2025, In-N-Out wrongfully terminated Obeng because of his race -- more specifically, because of the hairstyle he was sporting at the time of his termination. Obeng, an African American man, alleges most prominently in the complaint that In-N-Out violated the CROWN Act, among a host of other statutes prohibiting discrimination in employment.

The CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair) was passed by Governor Gavin Newsom in July 2019 under Senate Bill 188, making California the earliest state adopter of the piece of legislation. The act provides workers with protections from employers deploying discriminatory practices based on hair, which can maliciously be utilized as a proxy for race -- especially for members of the Black community.

For customers who frequent the burger joint, the front-of-house workers at In-N-Out can be easily identified by their uniforms. The franchise is punctuated by their distinctive color scheme, which boasts fonts in red and yellow, the same shades as the two biggest players in the world of condiments. Most relevant to Obeng's plight, however, is the fact that In-N-Out's regalia is topped with an employer-mandated hat.

Obeng's complaint details that In-N-Out has meticulous grooming policies that coincide with their uniform policies. According to the lawsuit, such grooming policies mandate that "male employees be clean-shaven" and "wear company-issued hats in which all hair must be tucked underneath." From the text of the complaint, it appears that Obeng's supervisor disallowed any flexibility in these policies. In fact, Obeng's supervisor directed him to get a haircut so that all his hair could fit into the cap.

In a move to comply with In-N-Out's strict dress code, Obeng braided down his hair in such a way that he could put on the hat, the lawsuit alleges. Despite his efforts to observe his supervisor's directions, he then received further complaints on the subject of his sideburns. Likewise, the In-N-Out supervisor ordered Obeng to get rid of the hair on the sides of his face -- which Obeng contends was a component of his hairstyle.

The pleading paper states that once Obeng "could not continuously conform to the grooming expectations without compromising his cultural identity, he began experiencing different treatment." In-N-Out's retaliatory acts included Obeng being disciplined for what the complaint labels "minor infractions," while similarly situated coworkers failed to experience any penalty when they engaged in the same inconsequential behaviors. In addition, Obeng describes that In-N-Out denied him professional opportunities in the wake of his opposition to their discriminatory policies and practices.

In a very public reprimand of Obeng's hairstyle in March 2024, his supervisor (in a manner consistent with that of a stringent superintendent of yesteryear) instructed him to go home and return only after the sideburns disappeared. Obeng left work that day feeling humiliated, according to the lawsuit.

Despite his supervisor singling him out in front of his coworkers, Obeng came to his next regularly scheduled shift wearing his obligatory uniform, albeit his sideburns were unchanged from the time of his sour interaction with the supervisor. In-N-Out fired Obeng just a couple of days later. According to the complaint, In-N-Out vaguely cited "prior write-ups" as the formal reason for termination.

The CROWN Act is codified in Cal. Gov. Code § 12926. Under this code section's definition of "race," the associated traits explicitly included are "hair texture and protective hairstyles," which encompass such styles as "braids, locs, and twists." Here, Obeng's sideburns fall within the interpretation of a trait that can be associated with race -- his sideburns are directly linked to his natural hair texture and, as he explains in the lawsuit, are a crucial element of his overall hairstyle. A grooming policy that does not make room for all hair textures is one that should be struck down as invalid.

Obeng's complaint underscores the reason for the definitional switch in legal lexicon, quoting a 2019 Senate Judiciary Committee comment: "Many workplace grooming codes (whether expressed or implied) extend privileges to Eurocentric images of "professionalism" and have a disparate impact on African American employees who wear hairstyles emanating from their culture and traditions."

Obeng unabashedly donning his natural sideburns in the face of an unreasonable company decree, though a seemingly trivial act, was an exceedingly profound act of resistance. In-N-Out's company-wide grooming and dress policies, which are ostensibly harmless at first glance, fell more heavily on the shoulders of a Black worker than on those of his coworkers. That principle, in legalese, is "disparate impact"; the same principle, in layman's terms is unfair. Companies cannot, under the law, and should not, under common ideals of fairness, put their proclivity for hats above their treatment of the employees wearing them.

Black hair cannot be expected to fit perfectly into a standard-issue hat; nor can humans be expected to fit neatly into categories. To believe that this is the case is to feign ignorance, to deliberately misunderstand the depth, range, and beauty of people. Company policies must be inclusive of the highly personal choice of how one wears one's natural hair -- it is the law.