Latest news with #CROWNAct
Time of India
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Helen Hunt and Dan Bucatinsky reject Jimmy Kimmel's answer, walk away with $125K on ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire'
Hollywood actors Helen Hunt and Dan Bucatinsky took home $125,000 for charity on Wednesday's (August 13) episode of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire Season 4, opting to walk away rather than risk losing the money. The winnings were split between St. Joseph Centre , which focuses on feeding and housing the homeless, and The Trevor Project , an organization supporting suicide prevention for LGBTQ+ youth. The celebrity duo faced a crucial decision when they reached the $250,000 question. Despite host Jimmy Kimmel offering his suggestion, Hunt and Bucatinsky chose to quit, securing the $125,000 prize instead of risking a drop to $32,000. Their careful strategy and confident early play proved to be the winning formula. Hunt and Bucatinsky demonstrated impressive knowledge during the game, answering their first eight questions correctly without using any lifelines. They first tapped the 50/50 lifeline at the $16,000 level on a question about the CROWN Act, and then called former Jeopardy! champion Tim Lopez for a $64,000 question, which he answered almost immediately. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 Most Beautiful Female Athletes in the World Click Here Undo By the time they reached the $250,000 question, their only remaining lifelines were Ask the Audience and Ask the Host. A math-based question led them to poll the audience, but the results were inconclusive. Even when Kimmel provided his answer, the duo ultimately decided the safest move was to walk away, securing the prize and avoiding a significant loss. In contrast, fellow celebrities Adam Devine and Anders Holm took a more conservative approach early on, saving their lifelines for later. Their risk backfired on a $125,000 question asking which celebrity declined the role of Han Solo. Believing the answer to be Robert Redford, they locked in the wrong choice, Al Pacino was correct, and fell back to $32,000, unable to capitalize on their unused lifelines. Live Events
Black America Web
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Black America Web
Missouri Awaits Governor's Signature To Become Latest State To Enact CROWN Act Protections
Source: FG Trade / Getty As of now, 27 states across America have passed some version of the CROWN Act, a piece of legislation that prevents discrimination over Black hairstyles. Missouri could soon be the 28th state with CROWN Act protections should Gov. Mike Kehoe sign off on the bill. According to KCUR, Kansas City and St. Louis have both passed CROWN Act laws on a local level, but state-level legislation has been in the works since 2020. Missouri's CROWN Act bill was sponsored by state Sen. Barbara Washington (D-Kansas City) and enshrines protections for students in preschools and K-12 schools that receive public funding. CROWN, which is an acronym for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair, prevents schools from discriminating against students for having curls, locs, dreads, afros, and basically any other hairstyle that doesn't come naturally to white people. Missouri's CROWN Act would only apply to educational settings, as efforts to enshrine the protections beyond that have fallen flat in the state. State Rep. LaKeySha Bosley (D-St. Louis), introduced a version of the legislation that would expand the state's definition of workplace discrimination to include 'traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles.' Bosley's bills weren't referred to the House committee until the end of the legislative session, when there wasn't time for a hearing to consider them. California was the first state to pass CROWN Act legislation in 2019. The legislation came as several stories arose of Black students being forced to alter their hairstyles to attend school or participate in extracurricular activities. One such story was Andrew Johnson, who was forced to cut his locs or risk being disqualified from a wrestling tournament. A similar incident occurred in 2018 when Darryl George was suspended from Barbers Hill High School in Texas for wearing his hair in locs. The suspension led to a discrimination lawsuit where a judge ruled in favor of the school. One of the strangest details of the case was a full-page newspaper ad taken out by the school district's superintendent defending the suspension by saying, 'being an American requires conformity.' White people confuse me, y'all. One second, they're talking about 'rebel pride,' and the next, they're arguing why everyone needs to conform to societal expectations. They really need to pick a lane. Texas would eventually pass a version of the CROWN Act into law in 2023, and the Congressional Black Caucus invited George to President Biden's State of the Union address last year as a result of the court ruling. Washington referenced these stories during the state Senate's debate session over the bill. She argued that children should not be deprived of educational or extracurricular opportunities 'simply because they chose to wear their hair in braids or an afro or dreadlocks.' The bill only faced opposition from one Republican senator who felt that the protections weren't needed. The bill passed as part of a larger package of legislation tied to anti-discrimination and anti-hazing measures for schools. While there's undoubtedly been progress on the state level, there was a push last year by Democrats in Congress to get the CROWN Act enshrined through federal legislation. Considering President Trump's ongoing war on anything that makes Black people's lives easier, I'm sadly doubtful any CROWN Act legislation on the federal level would prove successful in the near future. SEE ALSO: Hair Discrimination, The CROWN Act And Why DEI Matters CROWN Act: Democrats Push For Federal Legislation SEE ALSO Missouri Awaits Governor's Signature To Become Latest State To Enact CROWN Act Protections was originally published on
NDTV
24-06-2025
- Business
- NDTV
Fired For Natural Hair? Ex-In-N-Out Employee Sues Burger Chain For Rs 25 Crore
A former In-N-Out Burger employee has sued the fast food chain for at least Rs 25 crore ($3 million) in damages, alleging he was fired for his natural hair. Elijah Obeng, a California native, claims that he was racially discriminated against and terminated for his natural hair and texture. According to the court documents, Mr Obeng started working at an In-N-Out restaurant in June 2020 after graduating from high school and continued to work till he was terminated last year. Mr Obeng went to work in accordance with In-N-Out's grooming and uniform policy. However, when his hair got longer, the management instructed him to cut or alter it to fit under the required uniform hat. In an attempt to comply with the policy, Mr Obeng braided his hair. Despite this, the management told him, in front of other employees, that he needed to cut his sideburns, which Mr Obeng found "humiliating and discriminatory". Upon not cutting the sideburns, court documents state, he began experiencing different treatment. He was punished for minor policy violations, like not attending work meetings, which Obeng claims his colleagues did not face, the lawsuit reads. 'Emotional distress' Mr Obeng is now seeking damages for "emotional distress, loss of employment, and punitive damages" due to the discriminatory practices he experienced at the workplace. "The complaint alleges that Obeng faced adverse employment actions due to his natural hair and cultural identity, which were in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and the CROWN Act," read the lawsuit. "This policy disproportionately burdened Black employees whose natural hair may not conform to such grooming standards." The CROWN Act, which is an official law in 27 states, including California, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of an employee's hairstyle or hair texture. In-N-Out, however, claims that Mr Obeng's employment was terminated due to prior write-ups.
USA Today
20-06-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Former In-N-Out employee accuses burger chain of discriminatory firing for natural hair
A former In-N-Out employee is suing the West Coast burger chain for alleged discriminatory treatment and termination due to his natural hair. Elijah Obeng filed a lawsuit against In-N-Out, alleging he was discriminated against and fired based on his natural hairstyle and texture. Obeng claims he has suffered damages from the termination, including emotional distress, reputational harm and loss of employment, court documents state. He is seeking $3 million in damages and $200,000 in pay he would have earned since his firing or could have earned in the future. In-N-Out declined to comment to USA TODAY on June 18, citing ongoing litigation. Obeng and his lawyer did not immediately respond to request for comment. Lawsuit accuses In-N-Out of 'humiliating and discriminatory' action According to court documents, Obeng began working at an In-N-Out restaurant in June 2020 after graduating from high school. He continued to work for the chain until he was terminated in spring 2024. Obeng went to work with his natural hair, in accordance with In-N-Out's grooming and uniform policy, the lawsuit reads. When Obeng's hair got longer, he was instructed by management to cut or alter it to fit under the required uniform hat. In an effort to comply with the policy, Obeng began wearing his hair in braids. Management then told him, court documents state, that he needed to cut his sideburns, which Obeng found "humiliating and discriminatory." When he did not cut his sideburns, Obeng began experiencing different treatment. He was punished for minor policy violations, like not attending work meetings, which Obeng claims his colleagues did not face, the lawsuit reads. In-N-Out's grooming and uniform policy is not readily accessible online, but Indeed forums indicate that male workers must arrive to shifts clean-shaven, with no facial hair. On around May 25, 2024, Obeng clocked in for what would be his last shift at In-N-Out. Upon his arrival, management told him to go home, shave his sideburns and return, court documents state. Instead, Obeng left and texted his supervisor that he would return for his next shift. A few days later, Obeng was fired, which In-N-Out claimed was due to prior write-ups, according to court documents. Obeng, however, alleges that his termination was because of his "ancestry, color and race, including his natural hairstyle and hair texture." Former employee says In-N-Out violated CROWN Act In the lawsuit, Obeng says In-N-Out violated the CROWN Act, a law that prohibits employers from discrimination based on hairstyle and texture. Standing for "Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair," the law was first passed in California in 2019 with the help of Dove, the CROWN Coalition and Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell. As of June 18, the CROWN Act is law in 27 states, according to The CROWN Act website. Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
In-N-Out Burger Being Sued for $3.2 Million
In-N-Out Burger is packed seemingly every day with guests wanting a burger with fresh fries in a very limited (albeit popular) menu. 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 Burger Being Sued for $3.2 Million first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 20, 2025
