A former beauty salon owner is speaking out after a federal judge rejected a lawsuit she filed in May alleging the industry discriminates against black and brown people.
Sara Dye, a Black Lives Matter activist, claimed that the salon she owned in Los Angeles, Black Laundry, failed to treat customers who had been arrested or victims of crime.
“It’s not an excuse, it’s a fact,” Dye said in a statement.
“There is an actual and significant racial discrimination that occurs in the industry.”
In a ruling issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska said the plaintiffs were not alleging intentional discrimination, and that she was not ruling on whether the defendants were negligent.
She said the case had no merit, and it would be “difficult to find a single, unobjectionable, substantive basis” for plaintiffs’ claims.
Dye and other plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Black Lydies have failed to properly treat clients accused of crimes, and have charged them exorbitant fees if they don’t pay.
In 2015, Dye sued the Los Angeles-based Black Liddes, alleging the company failed to adequately educate its staff on how to properly handle the treatment of black and other minorities, and failed to provide employees with proper training.
The company denied any wrongdoing and said Dye had made allegations that it had not done.
An initial complaint filed in March 2015 alleged that Black Leddys treatment of customers was “inhumane, discriminatory, and in direct violation of the U.D.A. Equal Employment Opportunity Act.”
The complaint also alleged that the Lydys were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
In a motion for dismissal Thursday, Preska rejected the plaintiffs’ allegations and said the lawsuit had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The ruling said the suit was not meritless because it alleged “a pattern or practice of discriminatory treatment by the defendant,” and that Dye’s claims had not established a “factual basis” to prove that her complaints were true.
Preska said in the ruling that Dies claims were not substantiated by other plaintiffs and that her case was not a test of whether the company has been negligent in its treatment of its employees.
While the Laundys have not yet filed any response to the ruling, Dyrd’s attorney, Michael A. Tompkins, said his client plans to appeal the ruling.
This case is going to go to trial, but we have no idea how long it will take, he said in an email to The Associated Press.
“This is going right to the Supreme Court.”