Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—S.D. Ind.: Black food service worker fired for violating facial piercings policy gets bias suit tossed, (Nov 19, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

Other employees who violated the piercings/jewelry policies were told to remedy their violations, and they either did so promptly or separated from the hospital before further disciplinary action might have been taken.

A hospital Black food service associate, who was fired after repeatedly violating jewelry and piercing policies that applied to all hospital staff and food service workers in particular, failed to present sufficient comparator evidence to infer her manager selectively enforced the policies against her based on her race and color, a federal judge ruled in dismissing her Title VII race discrimination claim on summary judgment. The uncontroverted evidence showed only that the hospital consistently applied the policies to staff members—both Black and non-Black—who were observed violating those policies, and nothing in the record indicated that her disciplinary warnings or termination were motivated by discriminatory animus (Tarrance v. Franciscan Alliance Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00317-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Nov. 17, 2025)).

The employee, who has both ear and cheek piercings, began working in the hospital’s food service department in March 2021. She worked in the hospital café, and her duties included greeting customers, making and stocking food, and cleaning.

Hospital’s policies and IDOH regulations The hospital’s dress code policy, which applied to all employees, provides that “jewelry of any type which may present a safety hazard to patients, coworkers or equipment should not be worn. Facial jewelry, including tongue, lip, eyebrow, or nose jewelry are to be removed.” The hospital’s hygiene code, which applies to food service workers like the plaintiff, similarly provides that “[i]n the food service areas of the department where food or dishes are handled... no jewelry except for a simple, smooth ring may be worn. This restriction covers all forms of jewelry (i.e.,... earring, facial piercings,... etc.).”

The applicable Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) regulations likewise provide that “[e]xcept for a plain ring, such as a wedding band, food employees may not wear jewelry.... while preparing food.” Notably, while the hygiene code permits “non-visible body piercing and/or tattoos,” the hospital’s dress code and the IDOH regulations do not.

Masks hide cheek piercings. When the employee began working at the hospital, a COVID-19 mask mandate was in place and her cheek piercings were not visible under her mask. As a result, her department manager did not notice the piercings until January 2023, when she observed the employee remove her mask while working in the café.

Ordered to remove piercings. On January 30, the employee’s direct supervisor asked her and a Black coworker to remove their earrings. Both complied, but an hour later, the employee put her earrings back in. The supervisor and manager counseled her on the hospital’s policies and IDOH regulations, and also advised her that her facial piercings needed to be removed. In response, the employee stated that she would need a month to have them removed. Later that same day, she complained to HR that she was being singled out for violating the hospital's policies.

Warnings and firing. On February 1, the manager told the employee that she had 30 days to remove her facial piercings, and also issued her a written warning on February 8. The employee did not comply by the March 2 deadline and received a second written warning. She then stated that she needed to travel to have the piercings removed, and the manager extended the deadline to March 10. After she again failed to comply, she received a final warning that gave her until March 17 to have the piercings removed. She missed that deadline as well, and on March 24, the hospital terminated her for refusing to comply with its policies and IDOH regulations.

Lawsuit. She sued, claiming that the manager selectively enforced the piercing policies against her because of her race and color. The hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing that it applied its food safety policies equally to all staff, and that it disciplined and ultimately terminated the employee because she refused to comply with those policies.

Not meeting expectations. The hospital first argued that the undisputed evidence showed the employee repeatedly refused to comply with its policies on jewelry and facial piercings, and therefore she could not make her McDonnell Douglas prima facie showing that she was meeting its legitimate performance expectations. The court agreed.

Admitted policy violations. The employee argued that she did not violate the policies because her piercings were covered by her mask. However, she admitted that there were at least three occasions on which her mask was removed and her facial piercings were uncovered. Moreover, to the extent her cheek piercings were “non-visible” piercings under the hygiene code, those types of piercings were still prohibited by the hospital's dress code policy and IDOH regulations.

She also admittedly failed to remove her piercings after receiving several requests, warnings, and extensions of time to do so. Thus, because it was undisputed that she repeatedly failed to comply with the jewelry and piercing policies, no reasonable jury could find that she was meeting the hospital’s legitimate job performance expectations.

No disparate treatment. The employee also argued that several coworkers received more favorable treatment. However, those individuals were not similarly situated to her since they were either disciplined by the hospital or were not observed violating its policies. In particular, when the manager observed a white coworker wearing nail polish in 2023, she asked her to remove the nail polish, and the coworker promptly complied. The employee also claimed that a Hispanic coworker who had a nose piercing never received discipline. However, the manager did ask her to remove the nose jewelry, but because she resigned without notice shortly thereafter, the hospital did not have time to begin progressive discipline for failing to remove the piercing.

The employee also claimed she was treated unfairly compared to her Black coworker who was purportedly allowed to wear false eyelashes, but the record showed that the coworker was asked to remove the eyelashes, and shortly thereafter was terminated for a different reason. The court emphasized that even if the Black coworker had not been disciplined, that fact would weigh against the employee. Moreover, the employee testified that she thought her discipline was motivated by her type of piercing or by a personal grudge the manager had against her, rather than her race or color.

Consideration of all evidence. Finally, the court found that based on the totality of the evidence, no reasonable jury could surmise that the employee was disciplined or terminated because of her race or color. Indeed, even her own deposition testimony showed that these adverse employment actions were the result of her continued refusal to adhere to the hospital's policies regarding jewelry and piercings.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-00317-TWP-TAB.

Judge: Pratt, T.

Attorneys: Marilynn E. Tarrance, pro se. Amy Joan Adolay (Krieg Devault) for Franciscan Alliance Inc.

Companies: Franciscan Alliance Inc.

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge IndianaNews