ULTA BEAUTY Accused of Discrimination in Manhattan

In 2025 a Black woman filed a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court on behalf of her and her seven year old daughter, alleging discrimination ( NYCHRL ) at an Ulta beauty salon on the upper East side of Manhattan New York.

The suit alleges a violation of New York Civil Rights Law 40, which guarantees all persons full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges in places of public accommodation. The suit claims Ulta beauty created a segregated service model.

The major component of the lawsuit is the emotional distress claim.

LAWSUIT CLAIMS

Ulta beauty markets itself as an inclusive all-in-one beauty destination. The Manhattan location is a flagship level store that claims to have elite stylists.

The failure to staff stylists capable of working with 4C or highly textured hair in a diverse city constitutes systemic exclusion.

The suit seeks compensatory damages for emotional distress, punitive damages to deter future discrimination, and a permanent injunction requiring Ulta to ensure every salon location has stylists on site, capable of servicing all hair textures during all business hours.

As professionals and as consumers, we have more power than we think. Real change doesn’t happen in the comment sections. It happens in systems.

➡️ When education doesn’t match real-world needs

➡️ When licensing doesn’t reflect actual client diversity

➡️ When professionals aren’t trained across all textures

We create an environment where these situations keep happening.

THE CROWN ACT exists to protect people from discrimination based on natural hair, texture, and protective styles. That means you cannot deny someone employment, access, or fair treatment because of their hair. That law is about access and equity, not ability or skill.

Another consideration is, in New York oversight from the New York State Board of Cosmetology and curriculum influence from the New York State Education Department have pushed for more inclusive cosmetology education, including textured hair.That’s a step forward,but it’s only one piece.

Here’s where the breakdown happens. Licensing still depends on a state board exam that prioritizes demonstrated technique. And if textured hair is not fully embedded into that practical exam, then schools can teach it, but students are not being held accountable to perform it at a professional level.

So what we’ve created is this:

➡️ Legally, you must serve all clients without discrimination.

➡️ Educationally, you may have been exposed to textured hair.

➡️Professionally, you may not actually be competent in it

That’s the gap. And that gap is where situations like this live.

Because the CROWN Act ensures you can’t refuse someone based on bias. It does not guarantee that every licensed stylist is equally skilled across all hair types.

That’s a systems issue.This is no different than a stylist saying: “I can do finger waves-but only on relaxed hair.”

That’s not exclusion-it’s a technical limitation. And until policy is fully integrated across every layer: 🔄education → testing → licensing → real-world standards, we’re going to keep seeing this tension between rights and readiness.

The intention of the law is solid. But the system hasn’t caught up to support it!

BLOG | APRIL 2026  

www.vanityhairstudionyc.com