CROWN Act Support Grows: 26th State Bans Hair Discrimination at Work

On July 3, Gov. Chris Sununu signed legislation making New Hampshire the 26^th state to enact its version of the CROWN Act prohibiting natural hair discrimination in the workplace.

As it pertains to employment, the state’s anti-discrimination law now prohibits discrimination based on “protective hairstyles” and defines such styles those “including braids, locs, tight coils or curls, cornrows, Bantu knots, Afros, twists, and head wraps.”

An individual who is subjected to discrimination in employment based on a protective hairstyle has a private cause of action under the law. One exception exists: The law does not apply to individuals employed by the state’s Department of Corrections.

The law goes into effect on Sept. 1, 2024.

What About Federal CROWN Act Legislation?

Currently, there is no federal legislation banning hair discrimination. In 2022, a measure passed in the U.S. House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate.

Then on April 30, 2024, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) led a group of 84 lawmakers in sponsoring the reintroduction of CROWN Act legislation in the House (HR 8191). The following day, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) reintroduced it in the Senate (S.4224).

At a press conference, Watson Coleman said the group was reintroducing national CROWN Act legislation because “no worker, no student, no person should ever face discrimination because of how their hair grows out of their heads.”

Even though there is no federal law banning hair discrimination, more than half of U.S. states have passed some version of the CROWN Act.

Which States Have Passed CROWN Act Legislation?

The acronym CROWN stands for “Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair.”

While CROWN Act legislation varies by state, the laws generally prohibit discrimination based on natural hairstyles and textures.

In 2019, California was the first state to sign CROWN Act legislation into law, followed by New York and New Jersey.

Since then, multiple other states have joined the list, and CROWN Act legislation is now in:

• Alaska: Gov. Mike Dunleavy has signed SB 174 in 2022, which prohibits discrimination against Black hairstyles in schools. However, it does not apply to workplace discrimination.
• Arizona: In 2023, Gov. Katie Hobbs signed Executive Order 9, prohibiting race-based hair discrimination in educational and employment opportunities. It does not supersede health or safety standards necessary for operations.
• Arkansas: Effective Aug. 1, 2023, the state’s CROWN Act amended the state’s Civil Rights Act to prohibit employers with nine or more employees from discriminating against workers based on “cultural hairstyles.” The law also protects students.
• California: On July 3, 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 188, which amended the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), making it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees and applicants based on their natural hair. The legislation made California the first state to prohibit discrimination based on hair texture and protective styles.
• Colorado: In 2020, Colorado’s CROWN Act legislation took effect, protecting employees and students from natural hair discrimination. This summer, an amendment expanded the law to also protect “hair length that is commonly or historically associated with race.” The amended legislation took effect on June 3, 2024.
• Connecticut: In 2021, Gov. Ned Lamont signed into law HB 6515, which amended the state’s anti-discrimination law to define race as “inclusive of ethnic traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles.” Moreover, the law’s definition of protective hairstyles includes wigs, along with the other common styles listed, such as braids and locs.
• Delaware: In 2021, Gov. John Carney signed SB 32, banning hair discrimination in workplaces and public schools. The act amended the Delaware discrimination law so that the term “race” is inclusive of traits historically associated or perceived to be associated with race, including hairstyles like braids, locs, and twists.
• Illinois: In 2022, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the state’s CROWN Act, which amended the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to expand the definition of “race” to include “traits associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles such as braids, locks (sic) and twists.” The law took effect on Jan. 1, 2023. 
• Kentucky: On May 23, 2024, Gov. Andy Beshear signed Executive Order 2024-354, which prohibited workplace discrimination based on protected classes “employer-employee relations,” defined as including but not limited to “hiring, promotion, termination, tenure, recruitment and compensation.” The order specified that “race” included traits “historically associated with race, including but not limited to natural hair texture and protective hairstyles, such as braids, locks (sic) and twists.” The order took immediate effect.
• Louisiana: HB1083 went into effect on Aug. 1, 2022. The law amends the definition of unlawful discrimination in employment under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (LEDL), to include protections against workplace discrimination based on an individual’s “natural, protective, or cultural hairstyle.” Notably, violations may result in potential remedies listed in LEDL, including compensatory damages, back pay, compensation for lost benefits, reinstatement or front pay, and reasonable attorney fees and court costs.
• Maine: In 2022, Gov. Janet Mills signed the Crown Act into state law. LD 598 amended the Maine Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on hair texture or hairstyle in workplaces and public schools.
• Maryland: HB 1444 took effect on Oct. 1, 2020. The new CROWN Act legislation specifically included protection for “hair texture, afro hairstyles, and protective hairstyles.”
• Massachusetts: In July 2022, Gov. Charlie Baker signed the Massachusetts CROWN Act, which expanded the definition of “race” under the Massachusetts General Laws to include “traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture, hair type, hair length and protective hairstyles.” Violations could result in liabilities under the state’s anti-discrimination statutes, including damages for emotional distress, lost wages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. It took effect on Oct. 24, 2022.
• Michigan: On June 15, 2023, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed SB 90, which amended the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to expand the definition of race to include a ban on hair discrimination. The new CROWN Act prohibited race-based hair discrimination, or the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture or protective hairstyles such as braids, locs, twists, or Bantu knots.
• Minnesota: On Feb. 1, 2023, Gov. Tim Walz signed a law to prohibit discrimination based on hair texture and hairstyles. HF 37 expanded the definition of race under Minnesota’s Human Rights Act to specify that “race is inclusive of traits associated with race, including but not limited to hair texture and hairstyles such as braids, locs, and twists.”
• Nebraska: In 2021, Gov. Jim Pillen signed LB298, which includes provisions that protect employees from race-based discrimination, including hair texture and protective hairstyles.
• Nevada: On June 2, 2021, Gov. Sisolak signed SB 327, making Nevada the 12th state to provide CROWN Act protections in employment and schools based on hair texture.
• New Hampshire: As noted above, New Hampshire’s CROWN Act prevents hair discrimination in the workplace and at school. The new law will take effect on Sept. 1, 2024.
• New Jersey: On Dec. 19, 2019, Gov. Phil Murphy signed S3945, also known as the CROWN Act, which clarified that prohibited race discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of “traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles.”
• New Mexico: In 2021, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed SB 80 into law, prohibiting discrimination in schools and workplaces based on hairstyles or cultural or religious headdresses. Notably, the legislation clarified that “cultural headdresses” include burkas, head wraps or other headdresses used as part of an individual’s personal cultural beliefs. It also said “protective hairstyles” include braids, locs, twists, tight coils or curls, cornrows, Bantu knots, afros, weaves, wigs or head wraps. It also specifically included hair length in the protections.
• New York: On July 3, 2019, Gov. Chris Cuomo signed S6209A, prohibiting race discrimination based on natural hair or hairstyles. The Crown Act amended section 292 of the Human Rights Law and section 11 of the Dignity for All Students Act, adding the “traits historically associated with race, including but not limited to hair texture and protective hairstyles.” The bill went into effect immediately.
• Oregon: On June 11, 2021, Gov. Kate Brown signed into law HB 2935, also known as the CROWN Act. The new legislation amended the Oregon Equality Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination, by expanding the definition of “race” to include “physical characteristics that are historically associated with race, including but not limited to natural hair, hair texture, hair type and protective hairstyles.”
• Tennessee: In 2022, SB 136 amended the Tennessee Code to prohibit employers from adopting a policy that doesn’t allow employees to wear braids, locs, twists, or another hairstyle that is symbolic of the employees’ cultural identification or ethnic group. Notably, the legislation doesn’t create a private right of action. Instead, an employee may file a complaint with the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act. Moreover, the law does not apply in some safety-specific situations.
• Texas: In May 2023, Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law a bill prohibiting race-based hair discrimination in Texas workplaces, schools and housing policies. Penalties for CROWN Act violations track the penalties available under the Texas Labor Code for discrimination based on other legally protected characteristics, so violations could result in compensatory and punitive damages. The law took effect on Sept. 1, 2023.
• Vermont: On April 24, 2024, Gov. Phil Scott approved HB 363, which expands the definition of “race” under Vermont’s Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA). Under the new CROWN Act, “race” includes traits associated with or perceived to be associated with race, including hair type, hair texture, hairstyles and protective hairstyles. Examples of hairstyles protected under the CROWN Act include braids, cornrows, locs, twists, Bantu knots, afros, afro puffs, wigs, headwraps and other head coverings. The law went into effect on July 1.
• Virginia: On March 4, 2020, Gov. Ralph Northam signed SB 50/HB 1514, expanding Virginia’s Human Rights Act and its definition of racial discrimination to include additional protections for “traits historically associated with race, including hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles.” The law took effect on July 1, 2020.
• Washington: On March 19, 2020, Gov. Jay Inslee signed HB 2602, which amended the definition of racial discrimination to include discrimination based on hair texture or protective coverings. The state’s CROWN Act provided protection for hairstyles including, braids, afros, twists, and protective hair coverings under Washington’s existing racial discrimination laws. It took effect in June 2020.

In addition to these state laws, CROWN Act legislation has gathered momentum at the local level, as several cities and municipalities have passed laws banning natural hair discrimination.

The key takeaway: Even if CROWN Act legislation has not yet passed in your state, the trend continues to gain momentum. So it’s a good idea to start preparing for potential changes in your area.

And because the law is evolving, it’s crucial to watch how courts and federal agencies weigh in on disputes involving hair discrimination.

Court: Hairstyle Bias Supports Discrimination Claims

In Gurley v. David H. Berg and Associates, No. 20 Civ. 9998 (ER), 2022 WL 309442 (S.D.N.Y. 2/2/22), a Black employee sued her former employer, alleging she was fired due to her race.

Her complaint asserted violations of Title VII, Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

To support her claims, she listed examples of conduct she said amounted to race discrimination. Among other things, the employee said the office manager made comments about her hair when she wore natural hairstyles.

For example, on a day when the employee wore an afro, the office manager purportedly commented, “[Y]our hair is nice, well not today, but sometimes.”

On another day when the employee wore her natural hair to work, a colleague was then moved to the employee’s desk to greet customers. When the employee asked why, she was allegedly told “not to take it personally.”

Approximately 10 days later, the employee was fired.

The company tried to get the case thrown out, but the court refused to dismiss the discrimination claims under Title VII, Section 1981, the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. It also refused to dismiss a hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL.

A couple of months later, the parties reached an undisclosed settlement to resolve the matter.   

EEOC: Hairstyle Bias Can Be Religious Discrimination

To be clear, natural hair discrimination is not only based on race discrimination; it can also be based on religious bias.

For example, an applicant in Indiana filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging a Hometown IGA refused to hire him based on his hairstyle. The man said he wore Spiritualist Rastafarian dreadlocks based on his religious beliefs.

After the EEOC filed a lawsuit on the applicant’s behalf, the company agreed to pay $40,000 to settle out of court. In addition to the financial payout, the company was required to:

• Provide Title VII training to help prevent future violations
• Review and revise hiring policies and procedures
• Post a notice about the lawsuit, and
• Submit to EEOC monitoring for three years.

In a press release, EEOC regional attorney Kenneth L. Bird said, “An employer’s personal appearance policy does not change its obligation to try to accommodate the religious beliefs of its employees and applicants. This case is an important reminder that Title VII protects all sincerely held religious beliefs and applicants and employees alike.”

As this Indiana case shows, hair discrimination can be an expensive mistake, so let’s dig into:

• What hair discrimination is
• Who it impacts most, and
• What HR can do about it

What Is Hair Discrimination?

According to the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), natural hair discrimination is “racism by another name,” and denies employment or educational opportunities to individuals because of their hair texture or protective styles. 

Moreover, in the workplace, policies that prohibit and/or discourage natural hairstyles, such as afros, Bantu knots, braids and locs, for purportedly being “unprofessional” mean that Black employees face a discriminatory dilemma: Either conform to Eurocentric professionalism and beauty standards or risk facing workplace consequences that hurt their career, according to LDF.

Who Is Impacted By Hair Discrimination at Work?

But it’s important to understand that Black women are disproportionally impacted by natural hair discrimination. For example, 80% of Black women have felt the need to change their hair to conform to traditional ideals to fit in at work, according to a Michigan State University study.

Further, a separate study at Duke University found Black women who wore natural hairstyles were viewed as “less professional” and were less likely to land job interviews than Black women who straightened their hair and white women.

What are HR’s Next Steps?

The fact is, it’s up to HR to set a higher company standard and to be forward-thinking leaders who support all employees while staying ahead of the curve on evolving employment laws.

Here are three action steps HR can take:

1. Review Company Policies & Employee Handbooks

When reviewing policies and handbooks, take a close look at the language used. Is it inclusive regarding hairstyles and textures associated with racial and ethnic identities? Dress code and grooming policies should be narrowly tailored to clearly align with the company’s business objectives.

Add clarifying language where needed, according to Janice Gassam Asare, Ph.D., a DEI consultant who specializes in helping companies become anti-racist.

Though commonly found in workplace policies, terms like “professional” and “cleanly groomed,” are subjective. When policies aren’t specific enough, they leave room for interpretation that can lead to bias, Asare said. She also recommends having policies reviewed regularly, preferably by a DEI specialist who is familiar with the nuances of diversity and inclusion.

To help managers enforce policies consistently, policies should clearly state that natural hairstyles are considered “professional” along with a list of examples and language explaining that the list is “including, but not limited to” the examples provided.

2. Provide Training for Managers

Provide training for all frontline managers and supervisors who make hiring, firing, promotional and disciplinary decisions. Specifically, training should clarify unacceptable workplace practices, such as:

• Telling an employee that he will be removed from a customer-facing role until his natural hairstyle is changed
• Transferring employees because a customer complained about their natural hair
• Requiring Black employees to alter the state of their natural hair to “fit the company image,” and
• Mandating that Black employees hide their natural hair with a hat or visor.

Training should also cover best practices for interviewing job applicants who wear natural hair. Among other things, hiring managers should be instructed to refrain from commenting on any candidate’s appearance during a job interview.

3. Consider Appropriate Accommodations

Take a look at accommodation options and procedures. When an employer does have a legitimate health or safety concern, it must consider alternative ways to meet that concern before imposing a ban or restriction on employees’ hairstyles. Options to address such legitimate concerns might include the use of hair ties, hair nets, head coverings and other alternative safety equipment.

Further, if hair-related accommodations, such as helmets and other personal protective equipment (PPE), are provided for safety reasons, the PPE must fit properly.

In addition, consider whether the company has a legitimate hygiene or safety reason to require workers to tie back their hair.

Create a process for employees to seek hair-related accommodations – and then communicate that option to workers. Plus, ask them to report any feedback to help you adjust your processes as needed.