Salon Accused of 'Black Hair' Surcharge

wit>trope

Deity
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
2,871
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/dillard_s_salon_bias
An Alabama woman is seeking class-action status for a lawsuit against a Dillard's Inc. hair salon for allegedly charging black women more than white women.

Debbie Deavers Sturvisant alleges that a hair salon in a Tuscaloosa, Ala., Dillard's department store charged $35 to wash and set her hair, while white women paid $20 for the same service.

Sturvisant's lawsuit could bring a whole new level of attention to the general practice across the country of charging differently for hair care based on ethnicity.

Officials in Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland and Massachusetts have already addressed race- and sex-based pricing differences at hair salons.

"The stereotype is that all black hair is the same. But that's erroneous, just as all hair for Caucasians is not the same," said Patrick C. Cooper, a Birmingham, Ala., lawyer who plans to represent thousands of affected customers. Sturvisant's lawsuit was filed in February.

Cooper said the department store's "policy completely ignores hair length, which should be the real determining factor in how much they charge. Pricing ought to be based on reality, not stereotypes, and Dillard's needs to stop what they're doing."

But Little Rock-based Dillard's says that's an oversimplification that distorts its policy.

"Dillard's does not charge different prices based upon the race of the customer," the company said in a statement. "Prices for salon services are based upon the level of experience of the stylist, degree of service, amount of time required and the cost of materials provided to the customer."

Tom McArthur, an instructor and manager of ABC Barber College in Hot Springs, Ark., said different charges based on race and sex are typical. Training manuals routinely note major differences between "black hair" and other ethnic groups' hair, he said. Also, he said, additional skills must be taught to cut the coarse, tightly curled hair commonly called "black hair."

"It's a whole new way of cutting. Not everyone can do it. I cut both and I do it pretty fast, but I grew up in this business," McArthur said.

The more a stylist has to do with the hair, the more the customer can be charged. McArthur said that explains why women are generally charged about twice as much as men.

Still, civil-rights law expert Robert Belton said Dillard's could be in trouble if the pricing is determined solely on race, and not on other factors, like amount or style of hair.

"If they're saying that because of a person's color that it takes more time, then it's obvious that it's race," said Belton, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School.

He also said Dillard's could be hurt by past race discrimination cases, including a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that awarded $1.2 million to a black woman who alleged she was not allowed to sample cologne at a Kansas store.

But Dillard's is not alone in having to deal with new concerns about hair care. Eight women filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Hair Cuttery last year, saying the national salon chain unfairly charged black customers more. Also, Arizona, California, Massachusetts and Florida all passed new laws recently to curb pricing based solely on gender, according to a report in the Arizona Business Gazette.

Sounds to me like another frivolous lawsuit as silly as ones which complain of women being charged more than men. What do you all think?
 
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable policy. "Black hair" is more challenging to work with. They charge more money for people with challenging hair. Black women have "black hair" more commonly than white women.

It only seems "racist" because it is based on a stereotype; but this one is actually true.

The only way I can see the policy as racist is if they charge the fee to black women without "black hair", which I doubt they do.
 
Depend wether or not the salon is saying the truth.

If the Salon is saying the truth and the price is determined based solely on valid reasons (ie, hair length, coarseness, etc), then sure, it's a frivolous lawsuit.

If the salon has set prices for black customers due to stereotyping (ie, "all black customers have harder hair to cut") or anything like that, then they probably need taught a lesson.
 
Oda Nobunaga said:
If the Salon is saying the truth and the price is determined based solely on valid reasons (ie, hair length, coarseness, etc), then sure, it's a frivolous lawsuit.

If the salon has set prices for black customers due to stereotyping (ie, "all black customers have harder hair to cut") or anything like that, then they probably need taught a lesson.

I don't think they need to be taught a lesson. By your logic salons which charge higher for all women also need to be "taught a lesson." If the rule is that hair that is harder or more costly to cut has a higher price, then customers will argue and complain that they were unfairly charged, saying that they don't have "woman's hair" or "black hair" etc. But if they have a simple rule that women get charged more and that blacks get charged more then there are no arguments like that. If a woman clearly does not have "woman's hair" (like longer or whatever) and is like almost bald due to radiation therapy, then probably the salonist will make an exception and charge her the man's price. Same for the black person probably.
 
Negro women have coarse curly hair, but it's fashionable for them to wear it straight and dyed. Straightening hair is an extra process that requires additional time, tools and skills.

It would be pretty bad if people with straight hair were charged for having their hair straightened :dubious:
 
Back
Top Bottom