A federal court in California has entered a judgment on behalf of a California man who sued a Los Angeles barbershop for discriminating against him by refusing to cut his hair because he is HIV-positive.
U.S. District Judge André Birotte, Jr., of the Central District of California, ordered King of Kuts, a black-owned barbershop in the Leimert Park neighborhood of Los Angeles, and its owner, Ramsy Milton, to pay $75,000 in damages, plus attorney’s fees and other litigation costs, to Nikko Briteramos, a customer who was refused a haircut on Oct. 13, 2017 due to his HIV-positive status.
Enlisting the help of Lambda Legal, Briteramos had sued King of Kuts and Milton in July 2018, alleging that the refusal of service violated his rights under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person’s “disability.”
Neither Milton nor any representative from King of Kuts responded to the filings, appeared in court, or attempted to defend their actions.
“This judgment is proof that what happened to me in that barbershop and what happens to people living with HIV who experience discrimination just trying to do basic things in life like go the dentist or get a haircut is simply not acceptable,” Briteramos said in a statement. “Such discriminatory practices harken back to times not too distant during the period of American ‘Jim Crow,’ and are equally unjust.”
According to the original complaint, one of the barbers at the shop, “Twin,” who knew Briteramos from when the two men had both lived in Chicago, told Milton during a conversation that he had heard about Briteramos’ HIV status after reading news reports about Briteramos’ decision to plead guilty to breaking a South Dakota law that required him to disclose his HIV status.
Briteramos, a native Chicagoan, and 19 years old at the time, ended up serving 18 months in jail for violating the law.
He was vilified in the South Dakota and Chicago press, even though the alleged “victim” with whom he had been intimate had stated she did not want him to be prosecuted.
He lost his basketball scholarship to Huron University, and was eventually forced to drop out of school due to the stigma surrounding the incident. He met similar stigma in Chicago, and eventually relocated to California to start a new life.
Upon learning of Briteramos’ HIV status, Milton told him that he could not serve him, and would also not allow any of his employees to cut Briteramos’ hair, due to his HIV-positive status.
Milton added that the barbershop serve celebrity clientele and that he could not risk losing their business if they found out he served HIV-positive people.
According to all medical and health experts, casual contact with an HIV-positive person, such as when cutting their hair, poses no measurable risk of HIV transmission.
While Briteramos was awaiting a decision from the court, the Black AIDS Institute and Lambda Legal launched “Cut the Stigma,” a public education campaign aimed at educating black-owned businesses, including barbershops, that HIV cannot be transmitted via casual contact, dispel misconceptions about the virus, and reduce instances of discrimination based on HIV status.
Briteramos has said he is grateful and willing to tell his story through the campaign in order to help shed light on the discrimination that HIV-positive people sometimes face.
“This ruling is a terrific affirmation for our client, and it is a clear and forceful rebuke of intentional discrimination against people living with HIV,” Anthony Pinggera, the Lambda Legal Law Fellow who was the lead attorney for Briteramos. “This is the end of Nikko’s case, but our work to raise necessary awareness in Black communities around the country to the ongoing issues surrounding HIV discrimination continues through our partnership with the Black AIDS Institute on the Cut the Stigma campaign.”
“Nikko’s experience highlights how Black people living with HIV are confronted with discrimination every day, but this judgment puts businesses on notice that discrimination will not be tolerated,” Raniyah Copeland, the CEO of the Black AIDS Institute, said in a statement. “Freedom for Black people means that ALL Black people deserve to live without fear of discrimination.”
State has 10 days to ban transgender athletes from girls’ teams or risk losing federal education funding, under a Title IX ultimatum from the Education Department.
The Trump administration has issued an ultimatum to the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation, demanding they ban transgender athletes from competing on girls' sports teams.
In a June 25 announcement, the U.S. Department of Education said California’s policy allowing transgender girls to compete on girls' teams violates Title IX, the 1972 law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational institutions.
The department also proposed a resolution requiring California to bar transgender athletes from girls' sports teams and revoke any records, titles, or awards they’ve received. It further calls on the state to send personalized apology letters to female athletes who were denied honors or recognition after being displaced by a transgender competitor.
A transgender athlete in California won two golds and a silver medal at the CIF State Track & Field Championships last weekend, but officially "tied" with other athletes due to a specialized scoring system instituted just ahead of the state meet.
AB Hernandez, a transgender girl who is a junior at Jurupa Valley High School in Riverside, California, placed first in the girls' high jump and triple jump competitions, and second in the girls' long jump competition.
Hernandez's participation sparked controversy and staunch opposition from some parents and bystanders, especially after President Donald Trump threatened to permanently withhold federal money from California if transgender athletes -- specifically Hernandez, although he did not refer to her by name -- were allowed to compete in female events.
A Montana court has struck down that state's law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors, finding that restricting their access to care -- and punishing the doctors who attempt to provide that care -- is unconstitutional.
Montana Fourth Judicial District Judge Jason Marks found that the 2023 law, pushed through by Montana Republicans, violates transgender minors' right to privacy, equal protection, and free speech, as guaranteed by the Montana Constitution.
A lower court had previously issued an order blocking the law from taking effect in 2023, which the Montana Supreme Court upheld last December.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.