A 21-year-old Black man from Carson who is suing the In-N-Out Burger chain for at least $3.2 million, alleging he was wrongfully fired in 2024 for complaining about what he believed to be discriminatory treatment by management concerning his hairstyle, must take his case before an arbitrator rather than a jury, the company argues in new court papers.
Elijah Obeng’s Compton Superior Court lawsuit alleges wrongful termination, race discrimination, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination or retaliation. On Wednesday, In-N-Out attorneys filed court papers with Judge Michael B. Wilson seeking to compel arbitration of Obeng’s causes of action in a hearing scheduled Jan. 22.
According to the company’s lawyers, Obeng signed an agreement to arbitrate employment disputes when he began his employment at the Compton store.
“Plaintiff has ignored the contractual requirement by filing this lawsuit in which he seeks relief for claims arising from his employment with INO,” the firm’s lawyers contend in their court papers.
Obeng was hired after he graduated from high school. According to his suit brought June 11, In-N-Out requires employees to wear hats with their hair tucked underneath.
As Obeng’s hair grew longer, management told him to comply with the company’s policy and make sure it was contained within the headwear, the suit states. Obeng began braiding his hair so as to conform with the policy, but supervisors still told him he needed to remove his sideburns, which were part of his cultural identity, and so he found the order humiliating and biased, the suit states.
After Obeng determined he would resist the hair policy, he began receiving disparate treatment, including being disciplined for matters that were overlooked when committed by other employees, according to the suit. Obeng’s work also was scrutinized more and he was denied chances for promotions, the suit further states.
Obeng’s supervisor sent him home on May 25, 2024, to remove his sideburns, which again left the plaintiff feeling humiliated because his co-workers were watching, the suit states. Rather than abide by what he believed was a discriminatory directive, Obeng told his boss he would return for his next scheduled shift, according to the suit.
Obeng was fired a few days later, and he was told it was because of past write-ups he had been given, but the plaintiff believes the real reason he was terminated was for resisting alleged discriminatory orders, the suit states.
Obeng has suffered emotional distress as well as damage to his reputation, the suit states.
But in separate court papers filed Thursday, In-N-Out attorneys deny Obeng’s allegations and cite multiple defenses, including a claim that any actions taken concerning Obeng were for “legitimate, nondiscriminatory business purposes” and without “malicious intent.”