Queen Sugar’s shampoo line of beauty products has become the biggest seller in the United States.
And it’s also the biggest loser, according to the company.
The product was created by the late queen, and her company has had a long and tumultuous relationship with the U.S. government.
Queen Sugar is currently facing criminal charges in a lawsuit alleging it violated a decades-old anti-discrimination law by discriminating against black women.
But the company is now facing new scrutiny, with a federal judge ruling in a federal lawsuit that it was guilty of racial discrimination, saying the company’s marketing and advertising violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“This ruling sends a strong message that our company will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of gender or racial or ethnic origin in any way, shape, or form,” said Kristina Wojcicki, Queen Sugar president.
The company has said the lawsuit is frivolous.
The company is appealing the ruling.
The legal battle over the shampoo has been brewing for years.
In the early 2000s, the company partnered with the United Negro College Fund to create the “Queens” shampoo line.
In 2010, the UNCF, a group of civil rights groups, sued to get the federal government to revoke the consent of the UCCF to purchase the brand.
The lawsuit was settled in a confidential settlement.
In a statement to The Washington Post, the NAACP called the settlement “a troubling case of racial profiling.”
“We welcome this ruling as a vindication of the rights of all Americans to be free from discrimination based on their race, color, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, marital status, or disability,” said J.W. Jackson, the organization’s president.
“We hope the court recognizes that the court cannot, by its own words, ‘deny the civil rights of the LGBT community,'” he added.
The UCCFs lawsuit alleged that the shampoo made the product too “sexual” for black women, who were not allowed to wear the full-length skirts, and that the product made women look “slutty” by making the hair look “fattening.”
The company responded to the lawsuit by arguing that its product was “feminine” and “femme,” and it also said it promoted “a natural, natural scent” that it said was not associated with sexual stereotypes.
“As a result of the complaint and subsequent settlement, the government no longer has jurisdiction to pursue this case,” the company said in a statement.
“The company’s position is that its advertising of this product is truthful and truthful advertising, and the product is marketed and marketed with the highest of standards for marketing and promotion of its products,” the statement said.
“The U.N.C.F. did not make this case about a product that was sexist, but rather a product marketed to women that is marketed to men and which is marketed with standards for gender-neutral advertising that are far higher than those used by a company like UCC,” the agency said.