The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against the EEOC in a lawsuit against Catastrophe Management Solutions. The ruling effectively said that refusing to hire someone because they had dreadlocks was legal. The EEOC's lawsuit, filed on behalf of Chastity Jones, claimed that Catastrophe Management Solutions rescinded a job offer because Jones had dreadlocks. According to the lawsuit, a CMS Human Resources Manager commented on Jones' dreadlocks during a private hiring meeting to discuss scheduling conflicts. The HR manager allegedly said "they tend to get messy, although I'm not saying yours are, but you know what I'm talking about," and then informed Jones that CMS would not hire Jones with dreadlocks, terminating the job offer. The EEOC claimed that rescinding the job offer was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's Title VII, which protects against discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. The EEOC argued that Jones' dreadlocks were a "racial characteristic" that have been used in history to stereotype African-Americans. The EEOC said CMS's claim that dreadlocks do no fit the grooming policy is inherently discriminatory because dreadlocks are "physiologically and culturally associated" with African-Americans. However, the 11th Circuit disagreed with the EEOC's argument, saying CMS's "race-neutral grooming policy" was not discriminatory and that dreadlocks are not an "immutable physical characteristic." The ruling essentially held that traits in a person's appearance tied to culture but otherwise changeable are not protected under Title VII and therefore can be used to deny job offers.