Each February, many employers commemorate Black History Month in a variety of ways – but fail to make meaningful changes that last throughout the year.
Wondering where to start? Black History Month is an ideal time to address hair discrimination.
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.
To be clear, natural hair discrimination is not only based on race discrimination; it can also be based on religious bias. For example, a recent EEOC lawsuit alleges a company violated Title VII by rejecting an applicant based on his hairstyle. He said he wore dreadlocks based on his religious beliefs.
Black women most 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.
Growing trend: CROWN Act legislation passes in another state
Earlier this month, Minnesota became the 20th state to prohibit hair discrimination. Gov. Tim Waltz signed the legislation on Feb. 1.
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.
Even so, CROWN Act legislation has also gathered momentum at the local level, as several cities and municipalities have passed laws banning natural hair discrimination.
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.
Court’s take: Hair bias supports race discrimination claims
And because the law is evolving, it’s crucial to watch how courts weigh in on disputes involving hair discrimination.
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.
Even if CROWN Act legislation has not yet passed in your state, the trend still continues to gain momentum.
The fact is, it’s up to HR to set a higher company standard and to be forward-thinking leaders who support Black workers 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 front-line 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.