The Elijah Obeng In-N-Out lawsuit is a race and hair discrimination case filed in June 2025 by a former employee of the chain’s Compton, California location, who alleges he was fired because of his natural hairstyle and sideburns in violation of the California CROWN Act. Obeng seeks more than $3 million in damages. In January 2026, a Compton Superior Court judge ordered the dispute into private arbitration, so the underlying claims will now be decided outside open court.
What Obeng Says Happened at the Compton Store
Obeng, 21 at the time of filing, worked at the Compton In-N-Out for a little less than four years after high school.1Los Angeles Times. In-N-Out Former Employee Files $3 Million Lawsuit Saying He Was Fired Over His Hairstyle According to the complaint filed June 11, 2025, in Compton Superior Court, he wore his hair in a natural style he described as tied to his racial and cultural identity, and managers repeatedly pressured him to cut or alter it so it would fit under the standard employee hat.2KFI AM 640. Black Former In-N-Out Employee Says Bosses Pressured Him to Change Hair Obeng braided his hair to comply. Supervisors then focused on his sideburns and told him to remove them.3KTLA. Former In-N-Out Employee Files $3 Million Lawsuit Accusing Company of Alleged Discrimination Over Hairstyle
After he pushed back, Obeng says he was scrutinized more harshly than coworkers, reprimanded for minor infractions others got away with, and passed over for promotion.4NBC Los Angeles. Compton Man Sues In-N-Out for Alleged Discrimination Over Hairstyle
The turning point came on May 25, 2024. A supervisor sent Obeng home in front of coworkers and told him to shave before returning. Obeng says he had no facial hair other than his natural sideburns, felt publicly humiliated, and texted the supervisor that he would return for his next scheduled shift instead.1Los Angeles Times. In-N-Out Former Employee Files $3 Million Lawsuit Saying He Was Fired Over His Hairstyle A few days later, In-N-Out fired him.3KTLA. Former In-N-Out Employee Files $3 Million Lawsuit Accusing Company of Alleged Discrimination Over Hairstyle
The Legal Claims and the $3 Million Demand
The complaint brings causes of action for wrongful termination, race discrimination and harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation.5SFGate. Calif. Man Sues In-N-Out Over Hairstyle The core theory is that In-N-Out’s grooming policies violated the California CROWN Act by targeting braids and sideburns, traits the suit describes as historically associated with Black identity. The CROWN Act, effective January 1, 2020, amends the Fair Employment and Housing Act to define race discrimination as including discrimination based on hair texture and protective hairstyles such as braids, locks, and twists.6The Crown Act. California
Obeng is seeking more than $3 million: $1 million in general damages, $2 million in non-economic damages for emotional distress, and $200,000 in back pay.5SFGate. Calif. Man Sues In-N-Out Over Hairstyle
In-N-Out’s Response
In-N-Out has denied the allegations. The company says Obeng was terminated because of prior write-ups on his employment record, not because of his hair.1Los Angeles Times. In-N-Out Former Employee Files $3 Million Lawsuit Saying He Was Fired Over His Hairstyle
Why the Case Went to Arbitration
Soon after the lawsuit was filed, In-N-Out moved to compel arbitration, pointing to an employment and dispute resolution agreement Obeng signed when he started at the Compton store. The agreement required employment disputes to be resolved through private arbitration rather than in open court.7LA Sentinel. In-N-Out Seeks Arbitration of Black Former Employee’s Hair Discrimination Suit
Obeng opposed the motion on two grounds. He argued he was only 17 when he signed and, as a minor, was entitled to disaffirm the contract. He also argued the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because its terms were unfairly weighted in In-N-Out’s favor.8Patch. Black Former In-N-Out Employee Ordered to Arbitrate Hair Discrimination Suit
On January 22, 2026, Judge Michael Wilson of the Compton Superior Court granted the motion. He called the minor-disaffirmance argument “unconvincing,” noting that one of Obeng’s parents had co-signed the employment agreement, which undercut the claim that it could be voided on account of Obeng’s age. On the unconscionability challenge, the judge found Obeng had shown “at best only minimum rather than substantive unfairness” in the agreement’s terms.8Patch. Black Former In-N-Out Employee Ordered to Arbitrate Hair Discrimination Suit
Where the Case Stands Now
The court stayed the lawsuit and sent the dispute to private arbitration. Judge Wilson scheduled a post-arbitration status conference for August 31, 2027.8Patch. Black Former In-N-Out Employee Ordered to Arbitrate Hair Discrimination Suit The discrimination claims themselves are unresolved. Because arbitration is a private process, the substantive fight over In-N-Out’s grooming rules and Obeng’s firing will play out largely outside public view unless and until the case returns to court.