Hairstyle Discrimination Laws

Why are hairstyle discrimination laws important?

In a few words, because for years minorities – especially African Americans – have been banned from wearing their natural hair when other races were allowed great freedom in this area.

In Hollins v. Atlantic Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir. 1999) the court held a reasonable jury could find Title VII violation where company prevented Black female from wearing hair in a “finger waves” hairstyle and in other hairstyles deemed “too eyecatching,” while not subjecting White women to such standards, and even though the company admitted Plaintiff’s hairstyles complied with company policy that hairstyles be neat, well-groomed, and safe.

In Rogers v. American Airlines, 527 F. Supp. 229, 232-34 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) the court held that a neutral employer policy against women wearing braids or cornrows was not a race-based distinction, and thus such a policy would violate Title VII only if it had a disparate impact on Black women and was not job-related and consistent with business necessity, or if the policy were applied in a discriminatory manner; the court also stated in dicta that an employer policy banning “afro” hairstyles likely would be a race-based distinction in violation of Title VII because, unlike braids or cornrows, an “afro” is the product of natural hair growth rather than artifice.

See also, e.g., Millin v. McClier Corp., No. 02 Civ. 6592 (GEL), 2005 WL 351100, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.14, 2005) (“a reasonable factfinder could construe comments regarding [plaintiff’s] dreadlocks as related to his race, religion, and/or national origin [given that] dreadlocks are commonly associated with African-American, Rastafarian, and Jamaican culture”). But see EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Sols., 876 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2017) (finding that dreadlocks are not an immutable protected trait associated with race under Title VII).  https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html

And these are only a few examples among the many that never went to court.

The EEOC says regarding employer dress and grooming policies: https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html

Hair: Employers can impose neutral hairstyle rules – e.g., that hair be neat, clean, and well-groomed – as long as the rules respect racial differences in hair textures and are applied evenhandedly. For example, Title VII prohibits employers from preventing African American women from wearing their hair in a natural, unpermed “afro” style that complies with the neutral hairstyle rule. Title VII also prohibits employers from applying neutral hairstyle rules more restrictively to hairstyles worn by African Americans. 

Currently, 24 states and numerous municipalities have enacted laws expanding the legal definition of race as a protected class to include traits historically associated with race, including hair textures and styles.

States with Crown Act laws:

1. Alaska
2. Arizona
3. Arkansas
4. California
5. Colorado
6. Connecticut
7. Delaware
8. Illinois
9. Louisiana
10. Maine
11. Maryland
12. Massachusetts
13. Michigan
14. Minnesota
15. Missouri
16. Nebraska
17. Nevada
18. New Jersey
19. New Mexico
20. New York
21. Oregon
22. Tennessee
23. Texas
24. Virginia
25. Washington

Municipalities with Crown Act laws:

1. Cites of Tempe and Tucson, Arizona
2. Broward County, Florida
3. Clayton County, East Point, South Fulton, and Stockbridge, Georgia
4. Cities of Covington and Louisville, Kentucky
5. City of Ann Arbor, Ingham County, and Genesee County, Michigan
6. Cities of Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri
7. Cities of Charlotte, Durham, Raleigh, and Greensboro, and Orange County and Wake County, North Carolina
8. Cities of Akron, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Newburgh Heights, Ohio
9. Cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
10. Dane County, Wisconsin

Federal legislation was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 18, 2022, prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyle or hair texture commonly associated with a particular race or national origin. To date, it has not passed in the U.S. Senate.

With certain exceptions, the laws also prohibit workplace dress code and hygiene policies that may show racial bias in requiring employees to appear professional by prohibiting afros, braids, twists, cornrows, locks, and other hairstyles or natural hair types historically associated with race.

Although prior court decisions already protect afro hairstyles under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mut. Hosp. Ins., 538 F.2d 164, 168 (7th Cir. 1976)), more recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit did not extend these protections to other hairstyles (EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Solutions, 852 F.3d 1018, 1028-34 (11th Cir. 2016)).

Employers may want to consider taking proactive steps to manage the requirements of these Crown Act laws in their workplaces. Some of those steps might include:

• Reviewing employee handbooks, antidiscrimination policies, dress codes or grooming policies for compliance with CROWN Act laws;
• Reviewing onboarding and interview documents to comply with CROWN Act laws;
• Amending job descriptions or applications to minimize any potential claims of discrimination based on an individual’s hairstyle; and
• Providing education and training on CROWN Act laws for recruiters, managers, and supervisors.