Friday, November 17, 2023, 4:19 pm News Flash Archive

Last Wednesday, United States District Court Judge Debra M. Brown dismissed a lawsuit filed against Greenwood Leflore Hospital and its HR Director by a former employee, Qunteller Gomiller.

As first reported by The Taxpayers Channel, Ms. Gomiller filed suit against GLH and its HR Director Margaret Buchanan in late April 2023, claiming that GLH fired her because she was wearing extreme, artificially colored red hair, which Buchanan claimed violates hospital personnel policy.

Ms. Gomiller claimed that the hospital discriminated again her because of her race, and then retaliated against her when she filed for unemployment.

Both Gomiller and the HR director are Black. Ms. Gomiller is represented by Grenada attorney Carlos Moore.

GLH has a personnel policy banning the wearing of "extreme hair colors." Gomiller claims she was instructed not to return to work as long as her hair remained the same extreme artificial red color.

When she didn't return to work after several weeks, GLH took the view that she had quit her job as a "no call/no show." Apparently, the Mississippi Department of Employment Security agreed with the hospital's view, and denied Gomiller's claim for unemployment benefits. Gomiller claimed that GLH made false statements to cause her unemployment benefits to be denied, and that amounted to "retaliation."

To see our original detailed reporting on this lawsuit, view here:

Woman claims Greenwood Leflore Hospital fired her because her hair was too red

"Red hair" firing lawsuit against Greenwood Leflore Hospital awaits federal judge's decision

GLH filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that Gomiller had failed to point to non-black employees who were allowed to wear unnatural hair colors when she was not, thus failing to offer any evidence of discrimination based on race.

GLH also argued that Gomiller did not present her retaliation claim to the EEOC, and is therefore barred from pursuing it now in court.

In analyzing Gomiller's claim that she suffered racial discrimination in her termination, the Court agreed with GLH's argument, that while her race is a "protected class," her hair color is not a "protected class," and Gomiller failed to argue that persons of other races were allowed to wear extreme hair colors, or that she was replaced by a person of a different race.

In its opinion, the Court wrote:

Here, the defendants [GLH and Buchanan] do not dispute that Gomiller is a member of a protected group, was qualified for the position, or suffered an adverse employment action. Rather, they argue hair color is not a protected characteristic and that Gomiller fails to identify replacement or similarly-situated comparators outside her protected group.

The Court agrees. The complaint does not allege facts regarding any such comparators. And while Gomiller's EEOC charge alleges "several Black employees . . . have been allowed to wear extreme hair colors in shades of blonde, orange, grey/purple and they are still employed" at GLH, they are not outside Gomiller's protected class.

Consequently, Gomiller fails to allege sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII and under Section 1981 . . . .

So the motion to dismiss will be granted with respect to the race discrimination claims against GLH.

As to Gomiller's claim of retaliation, the Court agreed with GLH and Buchanan that she had failed to complain about any retaliation in her EEOC complaint:

Gomiller's EEOC charge makes no reference to retaliation.

The full text of its narrative portion states:

"I was hired on September 30, 2021, as a Medical Lab Assistant. On September 15, 2022, I was discharged. I was informed that I was discharged for violation of company policy as it relates to extreme hair color. I believe that I have been discriminated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended based on my race (Black). There are several Black employees who have been allowed to wear extreme hair colors in shades of blonde, orange, grey/purple and they are still employed. I was allowed to wear my strawberry red hair color for approximately three months before the HR Director terminated my employment."

Since Gomiller's EEOC charge does not reference her retaliation claims, she has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for her retaliation claims . . . .

Gomiller's retaliation claims against GLH are properly dismissed.

Gomiller had asked for permission to amend her complaint, but had done so improperly. The Court considered the matter, and wrote:

. . . courts "should provide at least one opportunity to cure pleading deficiencies before dismissing a case, unless it is clear that the [plaintiff] . . . [is] unwilling or unable to amend in a manner that would avoid dismissal" . . . .

Gomiller has not previously amended her complaint. But she is unable to amend to avoid dismissal of her retaliation claims because, as explained above, the time has passed to properly exhaust administrative remedies for those claims by filing an EEOC charge.

Consequently, Gomiller's retaliation claims against GLH and Buchanan will be dismissed with prejudice.

However, Gomiller's race discrimination claims against GLH and Buchanan will be dismissed without prejudice with Gomiller given an opportunity to seek leave to amend them . . . .

Within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order, Gomiller may seek leave to amend her complaint with respect to her race discrimination claims.

If Gomiller does not seek leave to amend or if the Court ultimately determines amendment would be futile, the claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

To view the Court's order dismissing Gomiller's lawsuit, see here: Order and Opinion Dismissing Complaint

---

To review our reporting on GLH and its financial woes, please see here: Index of Greenwood Leflore Hospital news articles

John Pittman Hey
The Taxpayers Channel

News Flash Archive