Endometriosis Lawsuit Claims Excluded From Hair Relaxer MDL

If you used chemical hair relaxers and were diagnosed with endometriosis, you do not currently have a viable hair relaxer endometriosis lawsuit in the federal litigation. The judge overseeing the consolidated cases has excluded endometriosis and other non-cancer claims from the proceeding, and dismissed them with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled there.¹

What the Court Actually Ruled

The federal litigation is consolidated as In re: Hair Relaxer Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3060, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Mary M. Rowland.² More than 11,700 lawsuits are pending in the federal MDL as of June 2026.³

The court issued an order confirming that non-cancer claims, including fibroids and endometriosis, would be dismissed with prejudice.¹ Dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar. A woman whose only diagnosis is endometriosis has no path forward in the federal proceeding.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have also been actively moving to dismiss previously filed non-cancer cases, and the total case count has dropped by hundreds as claimants with ineligible diagnoses have opted out.⁴

Why Endometriosis Was Left Out

The exclusion tracks the underlying science. The two major studies driving this litigation looked at uterine cancer, not endometriosis.

The first, published in October 2022 by researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, drew on the Sister Study, a cohort of 33,947 women followed for nearly 11 years. Women who used chemical hair straightening products more than four times in the previous year were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer as non-users.⁵ The estimated risk of uterine cancer by age 70 rose from 1.64% for women who never used straighteners to 4.05% for frequent users.⁶

The second, published in 2023 through the Boston University Black Women’s Health Study, followed nearly 45,000 Black women for up to 22 years. Postmenopausal women who used relaxers more than twice a year or for longer than five years faced a greater than 50% increased risk of uterine cancer.⁷⁸

Plaintiffs allege that chemicals in relaxers, including formaldehyde, parabens, phthalates, and bisphenol A, act as endocrine disruptors and can be absorbed through the scalp, potentially at higher rates when the products cause burns or lesions.⁶ Phthalates have been studied in relation to endometriosis in other research contexts, but the evidence linking hair relaxer use specifically to endometriosis is far weaker than the evidence for uterine cancer. That gap is what the court’s exclusion reflects.

Which Diagnoses Do Qualify

The MDL is restricted to women diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, or non-serous ovarian cancer. If your diagnosis falls in one of those categories and you have a documented history of chemical hair relaxer use, you may be eligible to file within the MDL. If your diagnosis is endometriosis, fibroids, or another non-cancer condition, you are not.

It is worth being precise here because endometriosis and endometrial cancer sound similar but are different conditions. Endometrial cancer, a form of uterine cancer, is within the litigation. Endometriosis is not.

Why Some Firms Still Advertise Endometriosis Consultations

Some plaintiff firms continue to accept consultations from women with endometriosis, on the view that the legal picture could shift if new scientific evidence emerges or if the scope of the litigation changes. Under the current court order, though, these claims have no path forward in the federal MDL, and attorneys have been withdrawing non-cancer cases rather than pursuing them.⁴

If a firm offers to sign you up for a hair relaxer case based on an endometriosis diagnosis alone, ask directly where they intend to file, whether the claim is being brought in the MDL or elsewhere, and how they plan to overcome the court’s exclusion order. The answers should be specific.

Where Endometriosis Claims Can Succeed

Endometriosis has been the basis of successful legal claims outside the hair relaxer context, in two areas in particular.

Workplace Discrimination Under the ADA

In 2025, Christian “Cece” Worley, a former Juvenile Court Counselor Trainee at the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, secured a near six-figure settlement in what was reported as the first ruling in North Carolina to recognize endometriosis as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Worley had asked to work remotely on the first day of her menstrual cycle and sought time off for fertility appointments. Her supervisors characterized the requests as evidence of “poor work ethic” and threatened disciplinary action, and she left the job in May 2022. She represented herself in court after attorneys told her the legal framework around endometriosis and the ADA was too undeveloped to succeed.⁹¹⁰

Medical Malpractice

Endometriosis also gives rise to medical malpractice claims, typically centered on delayed diagnosis or surgical errors during laparoscopic procedures. The condition is frequently misidentified as uterine fibroids, pelvic inflammatory disease, or irritable bowel syndrome, and diagnostic delays can allow it to progress and cause permanent organ damage. Surgical malpractice claims have alleged complications including accidental nerve damage leading to permanent incontinence and injuries to nearby organs.

Where the Hair Relaxer Litigation Goes From Here

For readers tracking the MDL for other reasons, the federal case is in what the court has described as a “science-driven” phase. In January 2026, the court held a “Science Day” hearing where the parties presented evidence on epidemiology, toxicology, and general causation.³ Next comes Daubert briefing, in which defendants challenge the admissibility of plaintiffs’ expert testimony. Judge Rowland gave defendants up to 100 pages to challenge up to ten plaintiffs’ experts, with matching space for plaintiffs to respond.¹¹ The court’s Daubert ruling will determine whether plaintiffs’ scientific evidence is admissible.

No settlements have been reached and no trials have occurred. Federal bellwether trials are not expected to begin until at least 2027. Ellen K. Reisman has been appointed Special Master to oversee settlement discussions running in parallel with the bellwether track.¹¹ In April 2026, the court rejected several proposed bellwether cases with complicating factors to keep the trials focused on clear cancer claims.³ None of that changes the answer for a searcher with an endometriosis diagnosis: the door in this MDL is closed.

1
Yost Legal Group. Hair Relaxers Causing Cancer
2
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. MDL Details: In Re Hair Relaxer Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
3
TorHoerman Law. Hair Straightener Cancer Lawsuit
4
Vogelzang Law. Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Updates
5
National Institutes of Health. Hair Straightening Chemicals Associated With Higher Uterine Cancer Risk
6
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Use of Straighteners and Other Hair Products and Incident Uterine Cancer
7
Boston University School of Medicine. First Large Study of Hair Relaxers Among Black Women Finds Increased Risk of Uterine Cancer
8
PMC/National Library of Medicine. Hair Relaxer Use and Risk of Uterine Cancer in the Black Women’s Health Study
9
USA Today. ADA Workplace Discrimination Lawsuit Endometriosis
10
Black Enterprise. Law Student Wins Ruling Recognizing Endometriosis as Disability
11
Lawsuit Information Center. Hair Relaxer Lawsuit