Connect with us

LAWSUIT: Gay Hair Stylist Fired After Revealing His HIV Status

Gay Issues/Rights

LAWSUIT: Gay Hair Stylist Fired After Revealing His HIV Status

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Want living proof that you can work hard night and day for “the man”, even confide in your co-workers, and they still will get drop you at the drop of a dime?

Here’s a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union regarding their lawsuit for Brandon Smith against Hair Cuttery in Baltimore, Maryland for the discrimination against him.

BALTIMORE –Troubled that a stylist who worked his way up from receptionist to assistant manager of a hair salon in Greenbelt was fired because of his HIV status while he was still struggling to come to terms with his diagnosis, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland today filed a formal Charge of Discrimination on the man’s behalf with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the Hair Cuttery and its multimillion-dollar parent company. The ACLU also sent a letter to the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation requesting a clarification that state regulations may not be invoked to justify unlawful discrimination.

“You don’t get HIV by having your hair cut, and we cannot allow unfounded fears and misconceptions to drive workplace discrimination against Marylanders living with HIV,” said Deborah Jeon, Legal Director for the ACLU of Maryland.

Jeon continued: “The Ratner Companies, which owns and controls all Hair Cuttery salons, talks a good game about its corporate values – saying it is committed to relationship building, trust, communication, teamwork, and quality of life for its employees. But instead of following those values, and supporting Brandon Smith at one of the most difficult moments of his life, Hair Cuttery fired him, in direct contravention of civil rights laws as well as the companies’ professed values.”

In January 2012, Brandon Smith was hired by the Hair Cuttery Salon at the Greenbelt Center as a part time receptionist, while attending school to become a hair stylist. In February 2013, he was promoted to a position as a stylist, and in October of 2013, he became one of the salon’s two assistant managers. He had an excellent employment record, got along well with clients and colleagues, and loved working there.

On July 24, 2014, Smith learned that he had tested positive for the HIV virus. He went to work the same day and his manager, Christina Stewart, found him crying in the break room before he started his shift. Smith confided his condition when she asked what was wrong, thinking he should be honest. She responded coldly, asking, “What have you been doing?” Unbeknowst to Smith, Stewart promptly reported his illness to corporate managers.

When he arrived at work on August 5, Smith was confronted by two individuals from the Ratner Companies. They took him to the Subway sandwich shop next door and explained to him that his employment was being terminated. They said the reason for this was that he had HIV, explicitly confirming this in writing.

“This experience has been extremely traumatic, like they kicked me when I was down,” said ACLU client Brandon Smith. “Since then, I am having trouble paying my bills and feel betrayed and hurt in a way I have never felt before. That is why I am stepping up to help anyone else who might have the same thing happen to them.”

In addition to its EEOC filing, the ACLU is requesting clarification from the state agency that oversees cosmetology licenses and regulations because Smith’s termination letter invokes state regulations to justify its discrimination. Such an interpretation of this rule, the ACLU argues, would violate federal and state civil rights laws, and so must be incorrect. Courts have repeatedly ruled that, where the risk of HIV transmission in a particular setting is unsupported by medical evidence, a person’s HIV status cannot be used as grounds to exclude them. Moreover, in the field of cosmetology, the U.S. Department of Justice has issued specific guidance advising that exclusion of HIV-positive individuals from school or licensing “because of unfounded fears or beliefs about risks of transmission of HIV during work as a cosmetologist would violate the [Americans with Disabilities Act].”

Do you think Brandon will win his case?

Comment below!

Image via WA Blade

Continue Reading
You may also like...


  1. Dean

    October 12, 2014 at 4:58 pm

    I have no idea of whether he will win his case. It depends on what the facts are and what the applicable law is. I don’t know those things. I do know that an employer can generally fire a person for “no reason” or a “good reason” but not a “bad reason”. Whether HIV infection is a “bad reason” (under federal or Maryland state law) I don’t know. The employer apparently thought so and so included that reason in the letter to Brandon. Time will tell.

    On a related subject, I do know that in many states there is no protection from being fired for being gay. So in some states, an employer can fire a person for being gay and the person will have no recourse. That I know.

  2. David Thornton

    October 12, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    As a civil rights professional I see a straight out violation of the ADAA. This would constitute discrimination and the company is then liable for the resulting damages.

    • Ronald Matters

      October 12, 2014 at 5:32 pm

      I’m so confused because if this is a totally obvious violation of a rule/law why couldn’t Brandon just file a form at the local unemployment office and get this handled instead of filing a lawsuit? Is he making this a criminal case compared to a civil one?

      • Rodd Smunk

        October 12, 2014 at 6:19 pm

        No Question
        Both are are to considered and filed !


    October 12, 2014 at 7:07 pm

    He will prevail….

  4. theny

    October 13, 2014 at 4:37 am

    He will he didnt do nothing wrong to tell hes boss about he was poz pleoi am with hes side

  5. Ray

    October 13, 2014 at 8:59 am

    I believe if there is a possibility, however remote, that in the line of his professional duties, he may expose someone to the virus, then there is grounds to terminate him. HOWEVER, according to the ADA, they must first make an effort to offer a “reasonable accommodation” which will not pose an undue financial hardship on the company. If they can show that some aspect of his duties as a stylist (using scissors, razors, etc) could potentially expose a customer, then they have grounds. They COULD, accommodate him by offering him a position that doesn’t pose a threat. That would be a reasonable accommodation.

    However, the fact that they have already terminated him has created a hostile work environment, and even if he did regain his employment, it wouldn’t be pleasant for him to work there. So getting his job back is probably not the correct response.

    Should he even prevail, I don’t know if there are any punitive damages that will be awarded. His suit may be limited to actual damages (back pay). It’s a tough situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in Gay Issues/Rights

To Top