21-Year-Old Elijah Obeng Sues In-N-Out Burger for $3 Million After Being Fired Over Hairstyle

Elijah Obeng, a 21-year-old Black man from Compton, California, Sues In-N-Out Burger for over $3 million in a high-profile case that has drawn attention to workplace discrimination and cultural identity. According to the civil lawsuit filed and obtained by the Los Angeles Times, Obeng alleges that he was wrongfully terminated after being repeatedly singled out by store management over his hairstyle.

His claim suggests that In-N-Out’s grooming policies were enforced in a discriminatory manner that ultimately led to emotional distress, the denial of promotions, and eventual termination. Obeng had been working at the Compton In-N-Out location for nearly four years when the issues reportedly began.

As his hair grew, he claims managers began to target him, requesting that he adjust his hairstyle to remain compliant with the company’s appearance policy. Though he initially made efforts to comply, including braiding his hair to fit under the company-issued hat, the situation escalated when he was ordered to shave his sideburns—an element he considered essential to his cultural identity.

When he refused, Elijah Obeng says he experienced increased scrutiny, exclusion from advancement opportunities, and public humiliation that culminated in his firing.

Allegations of Discrimination and Cultural Targeting

According to the lawsuit, In-N-Out maintains a strict grooming policy for employees, which includes wearing a company-issued hat with hair tucked in and a requirement for male employees to be clean-shaven. Obeng doesn’t dispute that he was aware of the company’s rules but argues that his hair and sideburns were disproportionately targeted, especially in comparison to other employees who were not held to the same standard.

The tension reportedly started when Obeng’s hair grew longer. He says he was instructed to ensure that it remained tucked under his hat. In response, Obeng braided his hair, believing he had found a solution that both met company requirements and respected his personal expression.

However, management then turned its attention to his sideburns, demanding that he shave them. For Obeng, this crossed a cultural line. He considered the sideburns to be an integral part of his identity, and felt that being asked to remove them went beyond basic grooming policy into personal discrimination.

Despite his efforts to navigate the situation respectfully, Obeng alleges that he began to be treated differently. The lawsuit states he was criticized more frequently than his coworkers, denied opportunities for promotion, and made to feel isolated.

Read : 78-Year-Old Aymara Corbo Sues Scandinavian Airlines for $10 Million After Flight Attendant Spills Scalding Hot Coffee on Her Lap

One incident in May 2024 reportedly involved a manager instructing him, in front of his coworkers, to go home and shave his sideburns. Feeling publicly humiliated, Obeng did not comply but did inform his supervisor via text that he intended to return to his next shift. A few days later, he was fired.

Read : Family Sues NASA for $80,000 After Space Debris Falls On Their Home in Florida

In-N-Out has defended the termination by pointing to prior disciplinary write-ups in Obeng’s file. However, Obeng believes these were not only unrelated to his hair but that the dismissal was an act of retaliation for resisting discriminatory grooming enforcement. His legal team argues that such retaliation violates both federal and state employment laws.

Legal Grounds and the CROWN Act

At the center of Elijah Obeng’s legal argument is the CROWN Act, a California law enacted to protect individuals from discrimination based on natural hair and hairstyles associated with race. The CROWN Act—short for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”—explicitly prohibits employers from making policies that penalize employees for hairstyles such as braids, locs, afros, and twists, which are common among Black communities.

By requesting that Obeng modify his natural hairstyle and shave his culturally significant sideburns, the lawsuit alleges that In-N-Out violated the CROWN Act. His attorneys argue that even though In-N-Out may enforce dress code policies for uniformity and hygiene, these rules cannot infringe on expressions of cultural and racial identity.

Elijah Obeng’s legal filing demands over $3 million in damages for emotional distress, lost wages, lost promotional opportunities, and the impact on his personal dignity. He claims the experience left him with “anxiety, humiliation, and a loss of dignity” that affected both his mental health and professional reputation.

The case also raises broader questions about the enforcement of appearance policies in workplaces that are racially diverse. While corporate grooming standards often aim to create a standardized look for brand identity and cleanliness, critics argue that these policies can unintentionally or systematically discriminate against people of color. The CROWN Act was created specifically to address this imbalance, and Obeng’s lawsuit may serve as a test case for how seriously these protections are upheld.

Corporate Response and Public Repercussions

As of now, In-N-Out has not issued a public comment in response to the lawsuit, though the company has reportedly stated that the termination was based on previous disciplinary issues. It remains unclear whether those prior incidents had any connection to grooming violations or were performance-based. Still, Obeng’s legal team suggests that even if infractions existed, the final straw was clearly related to the sideburns—a personal feature tied to identity.

This case is likely to have reverberations not just for In-N-Out but across the wider service industry, where uniform policies are common. Legal experts and activists have pointed out that Black employees in particular have long faced implicit and explicit discrimination when it comes to hair.

From school dress codes to military regulations, there has been a consistent trend of certain hairstyles being deemed “unprofessional” or “noncompliant”—a judgment that often overlooks their cultural relevance. Public reaction to the lawsuit has been mixed, with many expressing support for Obeng and others questioning the limits of workplace policy.

On social media, some have highlighted the importance of corporate accountability and cultural inclusivity, while others argue that private companies should retain the right to set their own appearance standards. However, the law is clear: any policy must align with anti-discrimination laws, including those that now protect natural hairstyles.

The outcome of the lawsuit could influence not only In-N-Out’s internal policies but also serve as precedent for other companies grappling with similar cultural and legal dynamics. If Obeng is successful in his claim, it could lead to a wave of internal reviews at major companies to ensure grooming and appearance policies are not only consistent but equitable across racial and cultural lines.

Elijah Obeng, meanwhile, has taken a courageous step by bringing his experience into the public eye. His legal battle is not just about a haircut or a job; it’s about the right to be treated with respect and dignity in the workplace, regardless of cultural expression. As the case progresses, it is sure to prompt further discussion about how far companies can go in enforcing uniformity—and whether such enforcement unintentionally reinforces outdated and discriminatory norms.

The Compton native’s lawsuit arrives at a pivotal time in the conversation around diversity, equity, and inclusion. For many, it’s a reminder that systemic change doesn’t only come from top-down policies or diversity training, but from the everyday experiences of individuals like Elijah Obeng who challenge the status quo. Whether or not the court rules in his favor, his actions have already ignited an important national conversation.