## Facts

- Renee Rogers, a Black woman, worked for American Airlines as an airport-operations agent, a job involving extensive passenger contact (e.g., greeting passengers, issuing boarding passes, checking luggage).
- American Airlines maintained a grooming policy that barred employees in certain positions from wearing an “all-braided” hairstyle, including cornrow-style braids.
- Rogers wore her hair in cornrow braids and was told she could not wear the all-braided style at work; she was required to cover the braids with a headpiece while on duty.
- Rogers claimed the restriction intruded on her rights and discriminated against her as a woman and as a Black woman.
- After exhausting administrative remedies and receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter, Rogers sued American Airlines and also named its president (R. L. Crandall) and a manager (Robert Zurlo).
- Rogers sought damages and injunctive and declaratory relief under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Thirteenth Amendment.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether American’s grooming rule banning an all-braided hairstyle for certain employees states a claim under the Thirteenth Amendment as a “badge or incident of slavery.”
2. Whether the grooming rule is facially discriminatory on the basis of race under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
3. Whether the grooming rule is facially discriminatory on the basis of sex under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
4. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleges that the rule, though facially neutral, was applied in an uneven, discriminatory manner so as to survive a motion to dismiss.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the Thirteenth Amendment claim.
- The court dismissed the Title VII and § 1981 claims to the extent they alleged the grooming policy was discriminatory on its face based on race or sex.
- The court denied dismissal to the extent the complaint alleged the policy was applied or enforced in an uneven and discriminatory manner.
- The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

## Legal Principles

- The Thirteenth Amendment reaches slavery and practices that function as its badges or incidents, but it does not provide a general vehicle for ordinary employment-discrimination claims where the plaintiff does not allege compulsion to remain employed or loss of the freedom to leave.
- A grooming policy that applies to employees of all races is not facial race discrimination under Title VII or § 1981 when the challenged feature is treated as changeable rather than a racial trait that cannot realistically be altered.
- Title VII does not necessarily forbid sex-differentiated appearance rules where the employer imposes appearance limits on both men and women and the complaint does not plausibly allege that the overall scheme places an unequal burden on one sex as an employment classification.
- Even if a grooming rule is facially neutral, a plaintiff may proceed under Title VII and § 1981 on a theory that the employer applied the rule selectively or disparately on the basis of race or sex.

## Conclusion

Rogers held that American Airlines’ ban on an all-braided hairstyle did not state a Thirteenth Amendment claim and was not facially discriminatory under Title VII or § 1981 as race or sex discrimination, but the court allowed Rogers to go forward on a narrower theory that the airline enforced the grooming policy in an uneven and discriminatory way.


Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc., 527 F.Supp. 229 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)