Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—M.D. Ga.: Black employee, fired under hair height policy, cannot advance race-based claims, (Oct 2, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The medical center’s grooming policy, applicable to all races, was race neutral.

A medical center in Georgia was entitled to summary judgment on the Title VII disparate treatment, disparate impact, and retaliation claims of an African-American employee who occasionally wore his natural hear in an afro and who was fired for failing to comply with the center’s “hair height policy.” His discharge, held the court, was not based on an immutable characteristic of his race, he offered no statistical data linking the policy to a racial disparity, and his demotion and termination were not retaliatory but were instead consequences of his repeated and acknowledged failure to comply with the policy (Bright v. The Medical Center Navicent Health, No. 5:23-CV-447 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. Sept. 25, 2025)).

Hired in 2016 as a patient account specialist, the employee was promoted four years later to Navigation Specialist Team Lead. Both positions required direct patient contact.

Personal appearance guidelines. During his employment, the medical center maintained personal appearance guidelines that prohibited, among other things, hairstyles over two inches in height and hair past shoulder length unless secured and held back. The guidelines were implemented in part to maintain infection control and ensure patient safety.

Hair out. In January 2021, the employee’s manager informed the employee that he had been photographed in the emergency room with his “hair out” and infection control had reported this as a safety concern. The employee was told he could not report back to work with his hair out of compliance. Prior to this incident, he had been counseled several times for his failure to comply with the guidelines.

Purportedly believing the policy was discriminatory, the employee did not report for his next shift. Nor did he inform his manager he would not be coming in. He also failed to report for his next two scheduled shifts.

Complaint. Four days after the discussion with his manager, the employee emailed the HR benefit manager complaining that the hair height policy “indirectly discriminates against African Americans” because “[m]ost African American hair naturally grows ‘up & out’ while most Caucasian hair naturally grows ‘straight & down.” Two days later, he was given an employee memorandum listing multiple infractions he had incurred and warning him that failing to comply with the hair height policy would result in termination. He was also demoted and placed on a 12-month probation.

Termination. When the employee reported for his next shift, he told his manager he would not comply with the hair length requirement. As a result, he was terminated.

Disparate treatment. As an initial matter, the court explained that to the extent the employee claimed the medical center’s hair policy was facially discriminatory, the claim failed. The policy, observed the court, which forbids employees of all races from wearing “[e]xtreme hairstyles such as excessive teasing (over 2” in height), mohawks or extreme hair coloring” at work, was neutral on its face and did not apply exclusively to a protected group.

As to his claim his termination constituted unlawful disparate treatment, hair height, said the court, like hair length is mutable and thus a termination based on hair height is not a termination based on race. Even if his claim was actionable, there was no evidence the medical center treated similarly situated employees outside of the employee’s protected class more favorably. Though he pointed to an unnamed Caucasian nurse who had long hair, he admitted she complied with the requirement that she bind it and also admitted he was unaware of anyone whose hair exceeded the threshold of the hair policy and failed to comply.

Nor could he show the medical center’s stated reason for terminating him—his failure to comply with the guidelines—was pretextual, said the court, granting summary judgment against this claim.

Disparate impact. While the employee also contended that the policy had a disparate impact on African-American employees, he failed to offer any statistical data or factual support linking the guidelines to a racial disparity, and his conclusory assertion the guidelines “racially discriminated against him and African Americans (in general)” was insufficient.

Moreover, said the court, even if the employee could establish a prima facie case, he could not rebut the medical center’s explanation that the guidelines serve a legitimate, nondiscriminatory business objective as they were implemented to establish system-wide personal appearance standards, promote workplace safety, and maintain infection control standards in accordance with healthcare industry practices. Noting that excessive hair length that is not pulled back can cause problems for patients in sterile environments, the court granted summary judgment on this claim as well.

Retaliation. Addressing finally the employee’s claim he was terminated for complaining that the guidelines were discriminatory, the court pointed out that he was warned that failing to comply with the guidelines would result in termination four days before he complained and warned that he could not return to work until he complied. “The record,” said the court, “makes clear Plaintiff’s reprimand on January 8, 2021, demotion on January 14, 2021, and termination on January 18, 2021, were not retaliatory, but instead were consequences of his repeated and acknowledged failure to comply with the Guidelines—a policy he was aware of, had been previously warned about, and in which he previously complied with on multiple occasions.” Accordingly, this claim also failed on summary judgment.

The case is No. 5:23-CV-447 (CAR).

Judge: Royal, C. A.

Attorneys: Matthew Warren Bright, pro se. Whitney J. Jackson (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings) for Medical Center Navicent Health.

Companies: The Medical Center Navicent Health

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge GeorgiaNews