Calls Continue for Federal Legislation to Prohibit Race-Based Hair Discrimination

Race-based hair discrimination is prohibited in many states and cities, but there still isn’t a federal law specifically banning such discrimination. Dr. Adjoa B. Asamoah, founder and CEO of ABA Consulting LLC in Washington, D.C., is working to change that. She said conducting training on how to avoid race-based hair discrimination is a good idea in light of the many state and local Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) acts—legislation that prohibits race-based hair discrimination, including discrimination against employees wearing locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, Afros, or any other hairstyle commonly associated with a race or national origin.

Federal Proposal

Asamoah isn’t the only one calling for a federal CROWN Act. On May 1, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., sponsored the reintroduction of a CROWN Act in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Race-based hair discrimination “is more common than many think,” said Asamoah, who leads the CROWN Act movement on behalf of the CROWN Coalition. She said such discrimination can lead to offers of employment being rescinded, workers being passed over for promotions, disparate pay, and termination of employment.

Lawmakers who oppose the federal CROWN Act argue that existing laws banning race-based discrimination already apply. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. At the federal level, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already challenged grooming and appearance policies for targeting certain hairstyles associated with race, and such policies are facing increased scrutiny from the courts.

However, Asamoah said a federal CROWN Act is needed because courts are ruling that hair is not a racial characteristic, finding instead that it’s mutable rather than immutable. The federal CROWN Act sponsored by Watson Coleman would explicitly clarify that hair can be a racial characteristic, Asamoah noted.

Lauren Baker, global brand manager for Dove, said hair discrimination cannot truly end until there is a national law.

“The CROWN Act is important to ending hair-based discrimination so people can thrive and celebrate their own beauty,” Baker said. “Unfair grooming policies have a disparate impact on Black women, men, and children, and the CROWN Act aims to end cultural and racial discrimination taking place within workplaces and schools.”

According to Dove, Black women are:

• Much more likely to report being judged harshly on their looks.
• One and a half times more likely to be sent home or to know of a Black woman who was sent home from the workplace because of her hair.
• Consistently rated lower on job performance or “less ready” for responsibilities based on their natural hair.

Prohibited Discrimination at State and Local Level

States with CROWN acts prohibiting race-based hair discrimination include Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, according to the CROWN Coalition. In addition, New Hampshire recently enacted a CROWN act, which takes effect Sept. 1. Arizona and Kentucky have executive orders inspired by the CROWN Act.

In addition, more than 50 localities have enacted the law, including the U.S. Virgin Islands. Cities like Charlotte, N.C.; Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio; Kansas City, Mo.; Milwaukee; Pittsburgh; Philadelphia; Raleigh, N.C.; and St. Louis have passed CROWN acts, even though their states have yet to do so.

“Employers should anticipate this state and local legislative trend to continue,” said Corinn Jackson, an attorney with Littler in Seattle. “Employers across the country should consider revisiting and potentially updating grooming standards, policies, and training practices.”

Camille Hamilton Pating, an attorney with Meyers Nave in Oakland, Calif., said employers should conduct periodic audits to assess whether a policy disparately impacts a group of people in a protected category. “Policies should not explicitly prohibit hairstyles that are historically associated with race, such as Afros, cornrows, braids, locs, or twists,” she said. “Employers should consider alternatives, such as hair ties, hairnets, and safety equipment, when addressing health and safety concerns.”

Additionally, Pating said, grooming and appearance policies should:

• Be driven by legitimate, objective business needs, not subjective personal preferences.
• Be equally and fairly implemented and should not disproportionately impact employees in a legally protected category.
• Accommodate employees’ religious beliefs, where appropriate.

“Adopting nationwide practices consistent with the CROWN legislation can serve as both a proactive compliance step and a leap toward making the workplace more inclusive,” Jackson said.

Plus, Asamoah noted, employees are happier and more productive when the workplace is supportive and not discriminatory.