A former In‑N‑Out employee is suing the fast‑food chain, alleging he was wrongfully terminated due to discrimination over his natural hair, spotlighting California’s CROWN Act and raising questions about grooming policies in the workplace.
At a Glance
- Elijah Obeng, who worked at In‑N‑Out from 2020 until May 2024, was reportedly sent home and later fired after refusing to shave his sideburns, which were part of his natural, braided hair
- He alleges he was subjected to harsher scrutiny for minor infractions and denied promotions because of his hairstyle
- Obeng claims the termination violated California’s CROWN Act, which bans race-based hair discrimination; he is seeking up to $3 million in damages and $200,000 in lost earnings
- In‑N‑Out contends the firing was due to “prior write-ups,” but Obeng’s lawsuit argues he true reason was his race and hairstyle
- The case has been filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court; a court date has not yet been set
Context & Legal Stakes
According to New York Post, Obeng’s attorney argues that he complied with grooming policy by braiding his hair under the required company-issued hat but was then singled out for his natural sideburns, which he regards as part of his cultural identity. He alleges he was told to shave them publicly, which caused him humiliation and emotional distress.
California’s CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair) bans discrimination based on hairstyles typically associated with race, including braids and locs. Violation of the law can result in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees.
Broader Implications
If successful, this lawsuit could influence how grooming policies are structured across service industries. Companies may need to update appearance codes to ensure they do not infringe upon protected characteristics like hair texture and cultural expression.
The case highlights a broader conversation about balancing corporate image standards with employees’ rights to wear natural hairstyles. Its outcome could set new legal and social precedents for workplace inclusion.
