In 2010, a woman named Chastity Jones applied for a job as a customer service representative at a company called Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS) in Mobile, Alabama. She passed all parts of the interview process and was told she got the job. But during the final step—orientation—a manager noticed something that changed everything.
Ms. Jones, a Black woman, wore short dreadlocks. The manager told her that she would need to cut her dreadlocks to follow the company’s grooming policy. When she asked why, the manager reportedly said, “They tend to get messy, although I’m not saying yours are, but you know what I’m talking about.”
Chastity Jones refused to cut her hair. The company then took back the job offer. She had lost the opportunity—not because of her skills, but because of her hair.
The company had a rule about how employees should look. It said, “All personnel are expected to be dressed and groomed in a manner that projects a professional and businesslike image while adhering to company and industry standards and/or guidelines. [H]airstyle should reflect a business/professional image. No excessive hairstyles, or unusual colors are acceptable.”
Even though this policy seemed neutral it didn’t consider the importance of hairstyles like dreadlocks to many Black people. That’s why the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC, decided to get involved.
A Legal Battle Begins
The EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of Chastity Jones. They said that CMS’s grooming policy was a form of racial discrimination, which is not allowed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Title VII says it’s illegal to discriminate against someone because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The EEOC argued that dreadlocks are not just a hairstyle—they are “physiologically and culturally associated with people of African descent.” By asking Ms. Jones to cut her dreadlocks, they believed the company was discriminating against her for being Black.
In their court papers, the EEOC stated, “A prohibition of dreadlocks in the workplace constitutes race discrimination, because dreadlocks are a manner of wearing the hair.”
The EEOC wanted the courts to see that race isn’t just about skin color. It also includes things like cultural traditions and natural features that are linked to racial identity.
What the Courts Decided
The case was first heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. That court dismissed the case. They said the EEOC did not prove that CMS had shown clear racial discrimination. The court’s reasoning was that Title VII mostly protects people from being treated unfairly because of things they cannot change—like the color of their skin. But a hairstyle, the court said, is something a person can change. So, it didn’t count as illegal discrimination, as documented by Justia Law.
The EEOC did not give up. They took the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. But in 2016, the appeals court agreed with the lower court. They also ruled that dreadlocks were not an “immutable characteristic.” That means something a person is born with and cannot change.
One judge on the case, Judge Adalberto Jordán, admitted that it wasn’t a simple issue. He said, “The distinction between immutable and mutable characteristics of race can sometimes be a fine (and difficult) one.” Still the court decided that CMS’s action was legal under current laws.
The Bigger Picture
Even though Chastity Jones did not win the case, her story caught national attention. Many people including civil rights groups and legal experts, felt that the court’s decision ignored how important hair is to Black identity.
Some critics said the law was being used too narrowly. Just because someone can change something doesn’t mean they should have to especially when it’s tied to their culture. As Britannica points out dreadlocks are more than a fashion choice—they are part of a long tradition and natural way of wearing Black hair.
This case also started bigger conversations about how rules regarding “professional appearance” can often be unfair. Many of these rules were created without thinking about people from different racial or cultural backgrounds.
Why It Still Matters
The case of EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions is still talked about today. It shows how difficult it can be to balance workplace rules with people’s right to express their culture. It also shows that the law is still catching up when it comes to protecting against all types of discrimination.
While Ms. Jones didn’t win in court, her case helped spark movements across the country. Some states have now passed laws like the CROWN Act to ban discrimination based on hair texture or styles that are tied to race. These laws help make sure that no one loses a job or opportunity just because of how their natural hair grows.
For many people this case wasn’t just about a job it was about being treated with respect, no matter what you look like or where you come from.
