As reported in the UK’s Guardian and BBC News, global cosmetics giant L’Oréal and its outside employment services firm Adecco were found guilty last week of racial discrimination after they sought to exclude non-white women from promoting a line of shampoo.

The French campaign group SOS Racisme brought the case against the Garnier division of L’Oréal over a marketing campaign where it sought saleswomen to demonstrate its Fructis Style shampoo line in supermarkets outside Paris.

At issue was a secret code that L’Oréal and Adecco had used in materials that detailed the desired profile of the sought-after workers: women should be 18 to 22 in age, of a certain size, and be “BBR.”

Prosecutors argued that “BBR” stand for for bleu, blanc and rouge: not only the colors of the French flag, but a common shorthand notation used by the far right Nationalist Front political party and employers to mean “white” French people – excluding those of North African, African and Asian backgrounds.

The Garnier division and Adecco were both fined €30,000. A former Adecco employee was given a three-month suspended jail sentence.

Commentary: Ouch, that’s going to leave a stain. This case is particularly interesting in that, while French culture has long been known for its racial undertones (overtones, in fact, as a recent employer survey in France found that three out of four firms preferred white workers), this is the first and only case of systemic discrimination against a major ‘blue-chip’ company within France. The fallout on this case has been limited to pockets within the EU and the news has not made it into any U.S. media outlets. However, as the spokesperson for SOS Racisme told the Guardian, “Consumers of L’Oréal products in the UK and the U.S. would be horrified to learn about the racial discrimination.”

The case also serves as a reminder that in today’s age of increased outsourcing of “non-core competencies” to third-party providers, a company is still liable for the agents of its agents – as in this case with Adecco. “Out of hands” or “out of sight” does not mean “out of potential trouble.”