Lawsuit: Ulta Beauty Refused Service to a Black Mother and Her 7-Year-Old Daughter Based on “Hair Texture” Even Though Employees Never Saw Their Hair
The following allegations are taken from a Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is Smith et al. v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., 26-cv-1996.
What Happened
On July 6, 2025, Lauren Smith and her seven-year-old daughter — both professional models — arrived at Ulta Beauty’s 86th Street location in Manhattan for scheduled hair appointments. They had an important photoshoot that afternoon at 3:00 PM and needed to be ready.
After waiting ten minutes, a male stylist approached them and said their assigned stylist would “not be doing [their] hair today.” When Ms. Smith asked why, she was told the assigned stylist “doesn’t do your type of hair.” When she pressed for clarification, the answer became: “doesn’t have experience with YOUR kind of hair.”
Ms. Smith asked to speak with a manager. The store manager confirmed the refusal, stating that the assigned stylist was “not comfortable doing your kind of hair” — and when pressed, the store manager specified it was their “texture of hair.” He refused to provide alternative stylists, saying “I don’t have anyone here who will do it,” and declined to call in other staff despite being told about the time-sensitive photoshoot.
The Detail That Changes Everything
Here is the critical fact: both Ms. Smith and her daughter were wearing hats that completely concealed their hair. No Ulta employee ever asked to see their hair, examined its texture, or inquired about their specific styling needs.
The stylist had not seen their hair. She could not have known their hair texture. The Complaint alleges that the refusal was based on race, not hair texture, as no employee had seen either Plaintiff’s hair.
New York State law makes this refusal even more indefensible. As of May 15, 2024 — more than a year before this incident — all licensed hair stylists in New York are required to be trained and competent to provide services to clients of all hair textures. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 404, 407. A licensed stylist at a New York salon has no legal basis to refuse service on grounds of hair texture.
A Seven-Year-Old’s Question
The incident took place in full view of other customers. Ms. Smith’s daughter left the store in tears, asking her mother “what is wrong with my hair” and “why can’t I go there if there are brown girls on the walls.”
The child was pointing to Ulta’s own advertising — diverse models, including Black women and children, displayed throughout the store. Ulta publicly declares that “beauty is for everyone” and that it “celebrate[s] what makes each guest unique.” On July 6, 2025, it turned away a seven-year-old Black girl who noticed that contradiction herself.
This Was Not an Isolated Incident
The Complaint documents a pattern of racial discrimination at Ulta locations that predates this incident by years. In 2019, former employees publicly disclosed management-directed racial profiling policies targeting Black and Latino customers, including instructions to surveil minority customers upon entry. Subsequent reported incidents include a 2020 New Jersey refusal citing a customer’s “too dark” skin tone and a 2024 Florida false theft accusation against a Black shopper.
Online reviews of the 86th Street location itself reflect multiple reports from Black and Latino patrons describing racially disparate treatment, racial profiling, and hostile service — going back years. Despite this documented notice, Ulta failed to implement effective corrective measures.
The Legal Claims
The Complaint filed by Dolce Law PLLC on behalf of Ms. Smith and her daughter asserts claims under three separate laws: Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (federal), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Both the NYSHRL and NYCHRL expressly define “race” to include hair texture — meaning Ulta’s own stated justification for the refusal is itself a recognized form of race discrimination under New York law.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for emotional distress and dignitary harm, punitive damages reflecting Ulta’s pattern of willful indifference to its legal obligations, and injunctive relief requiring mandatory anti-discrimination and implicit bias training at all of Ulta’s New York locations.
Have You Experienced Something Similar at Ulta Beauty?
If you or someone you know has been refused service, racially profiled, or treated differently than other customers at an Ulta Beauty location — in New York or elsewhere — your account may be relevant to this litigation. Please contact Dolce Law PLLC at 718-571-9162 or info@dolcelaw.com. All communications are confidential.
