Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23704
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- EEOC sued on behalf of Chastity Jones, a Black applicant whose job offer from Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS) was rescinded after she refused to cut her dreadlocks under a race-neutral grooming policy.
- CMS’s policy prohibited "excessive hairstyles or unusual colors" and was applied uniformly; human-resources manager told Jones dreadlocks were not hireable because they "tend to get messy."
- EEOC sought to proceed on a disparate-treatment Title VII claim (intentional discrimination), not a disparate-impact claim (no intent required).
- EEOC alleged dreadlocks are physiologically and culturally associated with Black people and argued discrimination against dreadlocks is discrimination "because of race."
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied leave to amend as futile; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the complaint failed to plausibly allege intentional race-based discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII bars denying employment due to dreadlocks | Jones/EEOC: dreadlocks are tied to race (physiology and culture); banning them is race discrimination | CMS: grooming rule is race-neutral and addresses mutable hairstyle choices, not race | Court: Dismiss—plaintiff failed to plausibly allege intentional race-based discrimination |
| Whether a claim based on hairstyle requires treating cultural traits as "race" under Title VII | EEOC: "race" includes cultural grooming practices; dreadlocks express racial identity | CMS: "race" protects immutable traits (ancestry/physical characteristics), not mutable cultural practices | Court: Title VII historically protects immutable characteristics; EEOC did not allege dreadlocks are immutable |
| Whether disparate-impact concepts can support a disparate-treatment claim here | EEOC relied on disparate-impact style evidence (burden on Black applicants) to infer intent | CMS: disparate-impact is a distinct theory and cannot substitute for intentional-discrimination pleading | Court: Rejected conflation; disparate-impact arguments insufficient for a disparate-treatment claim |
| Weight to give EEOC Compliance Manual interpreting "race" to include cultural traits | EEOC: Manual supports that grooming practices tied to race are protected | CMS: Manual conflicts with prior EEOC administrative decisions and case law | Court: Gave little deference to Manual (Skidmore); prior EEOC appeal and controlling precedent undercut it |
Key Cases Cited
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (describing intentional discrimination standard under Title VII)
- Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (2015) (clarifying burden-shifting in PDA context and limits on transplanting disparate-impact reasoning)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing burden-shifting framework for circumstantial proof of intent)
- Willingham v. Macon Tel. Publ’g Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975) (holding Title VII targets immutable characteristics; grooming/hair policies not protected)
- Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1980) (national-origin protection does not extend to cultural/linguistic traits like language preference)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (agency interpretations entitled to deference according to persuasiveness)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not accepted as true for pleading plausibility)