Judge Tosses Blonde’s Suit Claiming Wrong Hair Dye Ruined her Social Life

Ellen Barshevsky
Oct 9, 2008 12:09 PM CST

I already comented on this.  What hapened to my coment?

Anyway, I feel bad for this woman.  I would never color my hair, but this woman has been put down by the big company for their mistakes. 

WHY would she sue if the company was not Guilty?

I think there may be something more going on here.  She is being discriminated against because she is a WOMAN trying to look good, and they are snikering at her because she is a blond woman?

That is WRONG and DISCRIMINATORY.  I vote to reopen this case.

Law student
Oct 10, 2008 3:58 AM CST

Ellen, I can’t tell if you’re having a bit of a joke with us, but treating your comment as serious, I can find at least one scenario that is more likely than negligence, which is that a mischievous shopper switched tubes and boxes as joke, or that a careless shopper did so after examining the tubes outside the box.

My guess is that a clever defense attorney - and possibly this judge - could find a dozen more alternative theories that would make the evidentiary hurdle pretty tough to leap.

JJH
Oct 10, 2008 6:02 AM CST

Here’s what the plaintiff said according to the Connecticut Post: “I was mentally and physically in shock,” Feeney states in court documents. “I was sick to my stomach, I had headaches, I don’t like myself, I stay home more than ever in my life, I wear hats most of the time.” This quote makes me sick to my stomach. Dye your hair back and get over it! It’s outrageous that L’Oreal had to pay money to defend this claim.

Dan K.
Oct 10, 2008 6:32 AM CST

Step 1: Get buzz cut
Step 2: Hang out in punk bars until hair grows back out
Step 3: Move on with life and have funny story to tell.

Rick Rutledge
Oct 10, 2008 7:41 AM CST

For less than an hour of her attorney’s time to file a pleading, she could have hired a competent colorist to “restore” her “natural” blonde sufficiently that any regrowth would be indiscernible, and the only people who ever knew it had been brown would be the few people she saw between doing her botch job and going to her “urgent” professional appointment.  (If you’re going to take on applying chemicals to your own body, you owe yourself a standard of care that *at least* includes reading the label on the *tube* before proceeding.  Can you say “contributory or comparative negligence”?)

If her hair color was natural, and if it was *so* important to her, why did she not have it professionally “touched up”?

Ellen, do you not realize the judge would have laughed *more* if a man had brought such a suit?

(And by extension of your logic, we can help cope with the current financial crisis cities and counties face from loss of tax revenue by eliminating the office of the Public Defender, since a lawsuit leads to an unrebuttable presumption of guilt.  By extension, it would seem: if arrest, then guilt, thus conviction.  Shucks, with that logic, we could even get rid of the DA, and just let the police collect the criminals.  Then, of course, we wouldn’t need the lawyers, either.)

Gatsby
Oct 10, 2008 8:03 AM CST

Clearly, this woman is a blond. She’s too stupid to know that hair dye is NOT permanent, so her “natural” blond color would come back…or is she wanted a more expeditious solution to her “problem,” she could’ve just dyed her hair back to blonde. Wow! What a dumb broad.

Robin
Oct 10, 2008 8:13 AM CST

Kudos to the writer of this article.  I love your phrasing “tangled up in”  and “the root of the problem” .  Very funny!

Southern Atty
Oct 10, 2008 8:16 AM CST

Ellen! your comment “why would she sue if the company was not guilty?” is very naive.  Are you serious?  All tattorneys, or anyone associated with the justice system knows the people sue becuase people sue, not because anyone is guilty.  Surely you can’t be serious.

Rick Rutledge
Oct 10, 2008 8:24 AM CST

(Not to mention that civil suits find liability, not guilt.  I assumed a bit of liberty on that point in order to parallel Ms. B’s initial comments.)

MV_Esq.
Oct 10, 2008 8:34 AM CST

I wonder if she would have had more luck if she took her case in front of the memorable “dry-cleaner lost my pants!” judge (yes, I know he was an ALJ, but still, it’s a funny thought).

Maybe they should date.

Rick Rutledge
Oct 10, 2008 8:51 AM CST

The issue, it seems, was not a problem with the dye, per se.  Rather, a tube of brown dye was put in a box labeled as blond.  Thus, had she looked at the tube before applying it, the “damage” would never have occurred.

Heidi O
Oct 10, 2008 9:27 AM CST

As a brunette who is perfectly happy with the original color of my hair (let’s not discuss the gray that is taking over), I’m highly offended that someone would find being a brunette so ruinous to her self-esteem.  Do I have a cause of action against her for negligent infliction of emotional distress?  Am I a protected class?  Just a few musings before my brain awakens for the day. 

Now, everyone go back to work!

GirlLawyer
Oct 10, 2008 9:48 AM CST

The brunette female lawyers in my firm are mobilizing as we speak to protest the fact that the blondes clearly get more attention than we do.  The plaintiff’s comment “Emotionally, I miss that” made me laugh so hard, I nearly spit out my coffee!

R
Oct 10, 2008 11:10 AM CST

I’m surprised and disappointed that no one has attempted to work the movie title “Legally Blonde” into this story.

Heather
Oct 10, 2008 11:54 AM CST

This is a ridiculous story and even worse lawsuit.  What a waste of time and effort by everyone involved (which evidently now includes me for commenting on this article). 

I’m sure the Plaintiff was upset, but there is no way to prove the dye was the manufacturer’s fault after going thru so many other hands…and…didnt’ she notice it was the wrong color when she applied it…and…by the way, what are her damages?  This is another example of why people hate lawyers…bad judgment by one ruins it for everyone else.  I don’t care how “litigous” clients are, it is our business to know the difference between a legitimate claim and a frivolous one.  The attorney who filed this lawsuit isn’t doing any of us a favor.

sb
Oct 10, 2008 12:29 PM CST

In defense of Ms. Feeney, you can’t just “dye” hair back blond; once it’s been dyed, if you try to bleach it it will turn funny colors.  Her only choice is to allow it to grow out—which, depending on her hair length, will take several months or, possibly, years.

It appears, aside from the humorous undertone of the title, that the judge dismissed the case because there was no evidence to show that L’Oreal actually switched the boxes.  Even so, whether the box was open or not, the tube is clearly marked as to color, and the color of the stuff coming out of the tube is a pretty good indicator of what color it will turn your hair.

A.H.
Oct 10, 2008 1:29 PM CST

I’ve had my hair every color under the sun and at one point wanted to go from a very dark (dyed) brown to light blonde.  An excellent hairstylist and some patience was all I needed.  No funny colors, no brassy oranges, and no hair breaking off or falling out.  It can and has been done!

Also, when the first few squirts of dye came out of the tube and she rubbed them onto her hair, didn’t she notice something was a bit different than in the past?  Like that the dye was turning her hair brown? It’s hard for me to believe that one could dye their entire head of hair before noticing that they’d chosen the wrong color…

just the facts, ma'am
Oct 10, 2008 11:46 PM CST

Call me cynical, but the idea that the wrong dye was in the wrong tube in the wrong box seems a little far-fetched.  Could it be that the woman just bought and used the wrong product?  You think the store receipt actually says “L’Oreal Blonde hair dye”?  Even in Connecticut, I’m surprised she found a lawyer to take this case.

Justin
Oct 13, 2008 9:26 AM CST

The Plaintiff’s attorney should be ashamed of himself or herself.  As a Plaintiff’s attorney, it’s hard enough to convince juries to award a plaintiff appropriate damages due to the false propoganda fed to them regarding “frivolous” lawsuits.  Unless I’m missing something here, to take in and file this case is absurd.  Thank goodness for the judiciary’s ability to sort through this garbage, and, yes, the judiciary is just fine without the legislature stepping in for “reform.”

Eliyahu
Oct 13, 2008 10:23 AM CST

Oops… make that “...hair grows out?”  My bad.

Outraged
Oct 17, 2008 10:42 AM CST

This is a travesty of justice.  Rumor has it that Ralph Nader will suspend his presidential campaign to handle the appeal.