In-N-Out Burger Being Sued for $3.2 Million
As of March 2025, In-N-Out has 418 locations across the United States. Most are in California and the West Coast, but the company has started to venture out to Texas as well.
Unfortunately, In-N-Out is being sued for a whopping $3.2 million by one former employee, and the reason is because of his hairstyle, per Annie Goodykoontz of The Los Angeles Times.
"In-N-Out Burger is being sued for at least $3 million by a former employee for alleged racial discrimination involving the employee's hairstyle, according to a Los Angeles County Superior Court filing," the report stated.
"According to the suit, 21-year-old Elijah Obeng, who is Black, said he experienced severe emotional distress after he was unfairly targeted by the burger chain's dress code. The dress code requires its employees to wear company-issued hats with their hair tucked in, and male employees must be clean-shaven, the lawsuit says."
Obeng worked at the Compton In-N-Out store for nearly four years, and the report stated that the company took exception to his hairstyle and his sideburns with him even being sent home in May 2024 to shave his sideburns.
Based on Obeng's lawsuit, the Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair (CROWN Act) is what the company is in violation of, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their hairstyles and hair textures. The former employee's experience caused him 'anxiety, humiliation, and loss of dignity,' per the lawsuit.
Moreover, In-N-Out responded and said that it was due to prior write-ups, but Obeng believes it was a discriminatory act resulting in his resistance against the dress code policy.
From a financial aspect, a $3.2 million lawsuit is a small number compared to the $2 billion per year the company brings in, but dealing with this will likely bring negative attention to the well-known burger joint.In-N-Out Burger Being Sued for $3.2 Million first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 20, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
30 minutes ago
- Fox News
Putin made a 'business pitch' to Trump in his statement: Edward Lawrence
FOX Business White House correspondent Edward Lawrence analyzes Russian President Vladimir Putin's 'business pitch' to President Donald Trump in Alaska.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
High Yield and Low Stress: 2 Dividend ETFs That Are Built for Passive Income
Key Points Statistical evidence supports the idea that these two ETFs can simultaneously grow capital and generate income. Maximum monthly drawdowns are less than the benchmark's performance, and so is the risk as defined by standard deviation. These ETFs do relatively best when benchmark indexes are highly volatile but still make money in bull markets. 10 stocks we like better than JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF › The JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF (NYSEMKT: JEPI) and JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF (NASDAQ: JEPQ) have garnered significant investor attention, in part due to their trailing-12-month dividend yields of 8.2% and 11.2%, respectively. Moreover, they offer monthly income, making them a favorite among passive income investors. As such, it would be interesting to share some modeling of their performance to see if they do offer investors a way to a relatively low-volatility strategy that practically guarantees a monthly income. (Keep in mind dividends can always be cut.) Introducing two JPMorgan ETFs The first thing to understand about these two exchange-traded funds is that they are not tailored to invest in dividend stocks. Instead, they both follow the same strategy of investing up to 80% of net assets in equities (stocks), with the only difference being that the Equity Premium ETF focuses on S&P 500 stocks while the Nasdaq Equity Premium ETF focuses on stocks in the Nasdaq-100. As noted above, the stocks are not explicitly selected for their dividend yield, an essential point because high-yield equity-focused ETFs often involve concentrating holdings in sectors with high yields. The remaining net assets, up to 20%, are invested in equity-linked notes (ELNs) that follow a strategy of selling call options on the indexes that the two ETFs benchmark -- S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100, respectively. A call option is the right to buy shares of the index at a specified price (the strike price) and is bought by bullish investors. The seller of the call options (in this case the ETF) receives a premium from the buyer. However, if the index increases significantly, the option is exercised, and the ELN typically incurs a loss. Conversely, when the index experiences a small gain, stays flat, or loses value, the option isn't exercised. The idea is that an anticipated net profit in premiums collected from the ELNs, combined with some dividend income from stock holdings, will generate sufficient income for distributions to be paid to shareholders under any condition, particularly in the event of a substantial increase in the index. And note that the upside is limited (gains less than the market), but the downside is also restricted. This table lays out how the portions of the ETFs will perform based on how the underlying index performs in a month. Monthly Index Performance Strong Gain Moderate Gain Moderate Loss Strong Loss Equities (At least 80% of the ETF assets) Strong Gain Gain Loss Strong Loss ELNs (Up to 20% of the ETF's assets) Loss Profit Profit Profit Overall Gain, but less than the market Gain, but less than the market Slight profit/slight loss Loss, but less than the market Author's analysis. What the ETFs need to do to demonstrate they work Before I throw charts at you, it's worth noting that the proof of the strategy working includes: The ETF should have a lower volatility than the index (measured here by the standard deviation of monthly returns). The ETFs should have relatively low maximum monthly drawdowns because passive investors usually do not want to lose a significant amount in any one month. The strategy should demonstrate a high coefficient of determination, or R^2, indicating that the independent variable (in this case, the benchmark index) is primarily responsible for determining the outcome. Performance consistent with the outcomes outlined in the table above. That said, here are the charts comparing the monthly index performance to the ETF's performance. Both sets of data include reinvestment of dividends. First, here's the JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF. And now the JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF. A few conclusions can be drawn from the data, along with some additional calculations. The monthly standard deviation of the S&P 500 over the period is 4.7%, compared to 3.1% for JEPI, indicating lower volatility returns. The monthly standard deviation of the Nasdaq-100 over the period is 5.7%, compared to 4.2% for JEPQ, indicating lower volatility returns. Both ETFs exhibit high R^2 values, indicating a consistency of outcome from the strategy. The three most significant monthly drawdowns for JEPI are -6.4%, -4.2%, and -4.1%. The three most significant monthly drawdowns for JEPQ are -8.7%, -6.8%, and -6.6%. In general, the strategy is effective, generating a collection of positive returns when the indices report moderate gains and losses. The downside is limited compared to the index when the market declines significantly, and the upside is limited when the indexes perform well. What it means to passive investors Both indices have performed very well over the periods, with an average monthly gain of 1.5% on the S&P 500 and 1.8% on the Nasdaq; therefore, the ETFs have understandably underperformed. However, there's no guarantee that these conditions will continue, and these ETFs have demonstrated lower volatility returns while maintaining substantial dividends for those seeking monthly income. As such, they are excellent options for those seeking to generate passive income across a range of market conditions. Should you invest $1,000 in JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF right now? Before you buy stock in JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $663,630!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,115,695!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,071% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 185% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 JPMorgan Chase is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends JPMorgan Chase. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. High Yield and Low Stress: 2 Dividend ETFs That Are Built for Passive Income was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Investors react to US-Russia summit reaching no deal
NEW YORK (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin did not reach an agreement to resolve Moscow's war in Ukraine after a nearly three-hour summit in Alaska, though he characterized the meeting as "very productive." "There were many, many points that we agreed on," Trump said at a joint press conference with Putin. "I would say a couple of big ones that we haven't quite got there, but we've made some headway. So there's no deal until there's a deal." COMMENTS: CAROL SCHLEIF, CHIEF MARKET STRATEGIST, BMO PRIVATE WEALTH, MINNEAPOLIS: "The only news was absolutely no news out of it. Not sure there will be any market impactful portions - geopolitical issues in general do not tend to preoccupy market attention for very long if at all." "Markets are at new highs despite this conflict going on for three years. Markets care more about consumers, inflation and commentary from Wyoming next week." MICHAEL ASHLEY SCHULMAN, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, RUNNING POINT, EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA "At this point, it has been three years into the war, so it really shouldn't have much effect. I think markets will take it as status quo, but I think there's only upside from here." ERIC TEAL, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, COMERICA, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA: "The fact that there were no economic sanctions is a positive and markets should breathe a sigh of relief, but it doesn't appear as though a deal is in hand." "If anything, we see opportunity in the energy sector, as oil prices are at pretty low levels here and the prospect of sanctions on oil did not bear out. There could be a relief rally and that would be an opportunity to invest in energy as we head into higher seasonal demands and economic growth beginning to re-accelerate." "Gold and precious metals are likely to sell off because of being an asset class good for safety. Given concerns about inflation, they are a good buying point as well if any weakness." EUGENE EPSTEIN, HEAD OF TRADING AND STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, NORTH AMERICA, MONEYCORP, NEW JERSEY: "I don't think anybody expected it to be particularly specific or substantive. It's essentially a first step towards potentially something more. They both kind of said everything diplomatically. But it's more about the significance of the meeting as a whole, as opposed to the content of what they're saying." "Again, I don't think anybody really expected them to suddenly within a couple of hours come up with a very specific set of plans or any kind of blueprint to something. It basically was just showing their willingness to have continued talks to arrive at a conclusion that is beneficial for all parties. And I think this is just the first steps, and many more to come." TOM DI GALOMA, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF RATES AND TRADING AT MISCHLER FINANCIAL IN PARK CITY, UTAH "Basically, President Trump needs to go back to the European Union and relay what Putin has said. And then he's got to negotiate with Zelenskiy. For the most part, I think they've laid the groundwork for a deal. And my feeling is that it will probably get done, but there's probably a couple more steps. I'm thinking one of those steps will be Trump, Putin and Zelinski all meeting in the next month." "They will probably reach a deal in 30 days. I was kind of surprised that they didn't take any questions. So there's a little bit of disappointment in that, but until a deal is done, you can't really take any questions." "Overall, the markets will like it marginally because I think they've made some progress. But I don't think we will be up 400 points in Dow futures on Sunday night." JAMIE COX, MANAGING PARTNER, HARRIS FINANCIAL GROUP, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: "Without Ukraine at the table, there was little chance for a peace accord. That Putin attended at all was significant, but he can't be seen ending the conflict while on American soil meeting with Trump." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
