What legal measures protect textured hair in professional settings?

Roots

Consider, for a moment, the hair that crowns the head, not as a mere biological filament, but as a living archive, a profound connection to generations past. For people of African descent, particularly Black and mixed-race individuals, hair is not just hair. It is a lineage. It is a symbol of artistry, resilience, and belonging.

Yet, for far too long, the professional world, shaped by narrow, Eurocentric ideals of “neatness” and “professionalism,” has sought to unravel this vital connection, imposing standards that forced individuals to sever ties with their authentic, inherited selves. The very structure of textured hair—its unique growth patterns, its spirals, its coiling strength—became, paradoxically, a point of contention, an unwitting trigger for discrimination in places where competence and skill should reign supreme.

The legal measures protecting textured hair are a modern response to deeply entrenched historical biases that sought to diminish the cultural value and inherent beauty of Black and mixed-race hair.

The need for legal intervention stems directly from a historical context where ancestral hair patterns and styles were often deemed unacceptable within formal environments. This societal prejudice, rooted in systemic biases, resulted in Black individuals being denied opportunities, disciplined, or even terminated simply for wearing their hair in its natural state or in styles deeply associated with their cultural lineage. It is a historical wound, prompting a contemporary demand for recognition and protection.

Hair’s Elemental Ancestry and Societal Scrutiny

The varied textures of hair across African descendants, from the kinky curls of the Mandingos to the looser waves of the Ashanti, each carried distinct meanings and spiritual power in ancestral societies. Hair was a physical expression of identity ❉ marital status, age, religion, ethnic identity, wealth, and communal rank were often conveyed through its styling. This sacred and communicative aspect was starkly disregarded during the transatlantic slave trade, where the forced shaving of heads served as a profound dehumanizing act, a deliberate severing of identity and a connection to home. This act of stripping identity laid a dark foundation for future attitudes toward Black hair.

Over centuries, this legacy of dehumanization manifested in societal pressures that equated straightened hair with acceptance and opportunity. Madam C.J. Walker’s innovations, while empowering Black women with self-care tools, simultaneously reflected the pervasive drive to conform to a Eurocentric vision of beauty.

The Black Is Beautiful movement of the 1960s, with icons like Angela Davis sporting the Afro, boldly reclaimed natural hair as a symbol of power and resistance, challenging the enforced aesthetics of conformity. However, this powerful reclamation also brought increased scrutiny and punishment within workplaces and schools, underscoring the persistent need for codified protections.

What Historical Prejudices Necessitated Legal Action?

The journey to legal protection for textured hair reveals a pattern of persistent discrimination. Before explicit laws like the CROWN Act, individuals often sought recourse under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race. Yet, the courts’ interpretations were not always clear. Early cases struggled with the distinction between immutable characteristics (like skin color) and mutable characteristics (like hairstyles), sometimes ruling that hair styles were a “choice” and thus not protected as racial discrimination.

A powerful historical example of this struggle is the 1981 case of Rogers v. American Airlines. In this case, a federal district court upheld American Airlines’ grooming policy, which prohibited employees in certain positions from wearing all-braided hairstyles. The court concluded that hairstyles, even those “socioculturally associated with a particular nationality,” were an “artifice” and not a product of “natural hair growth,” thus not protected under federal law.

This ruling granted corporations the right to ban braided hairstyles in the workplace, setting a precedent that disregarded the deep cultural and historical significance of such styles for Black women. This deeply flawed interpretation highlighted the gaping hole in existing civil rights law, leaving millions vulnerable to workplace policies that reinforced a single, narrow standard of beauty and professionalism, a standard often unattainable for Black individuals without chemical or physical alteration of their hair.

This historical backdrop of legally sanctioned discrimination, despite Title VII’s existence, illuminated the clear and pressing need for specific measures that unequivocally state that discrimination based on hair texture and protective styles is, in fact, racial discrimination. It was a direct response to the lingering shadows of colonial aesthetics and the enduring fight for autonomy over one’s own identity.

Ritual

The act of styling textured hair is often a sacred ritual, a legacy passed down through generations. From the meticulous parting of cornrows to the patient twisting of locs, these are not mere cosmetic choices. They are practices steeped in the heritage of survival, creativity, and communal connection.

Yet, for too long, these ancestral expressions were met with hostility in professional spaces. Legal measures protecting textured hair seek to reframe the understanding of professionalism, creating avenues where these vital rituals of self-expression can exist without penalty.

The CROWN Act stands as a beacon for cultural reverence, codifying protections for hairstyles with deep ancestral roots.

The CROWN Act, an acronym for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,” directly confronts these historical biases by expanding the definition of race in anti-discrimination laws to include hair texture and protective hairstyles. This legislation acknowledges that hair discrimination is a form of racial discrimination, a truth long understood within Black and mixed-race communities but often overlooked by the legal system. It represents a collective breath, a recognition that the beauty of our heritage should not be a barrier to opportunity.

How Did Ancestral Practices Shape the Demand for Legal Protection?

Across various African societies, hair styling was a significant aspect of social life, identity, and spirituality.

• Cornrows ❉ Ancient origins, often depicting social status, age, or tribal affiliation. During the transatlantic slave trade, enslaved Africans used cornrows to create maps to freedom or to conceal rice grains for sustenance. This historical ingenuity and deep cultural meaning were later dismissed as “unprofessional” in modern workplaces.
• Locs ❉ Symbolizing spiritual connection and a rejection of Eurocentric beauty standards, locs have been worn for millennia across diverse African and Indigenous cultures. Their natural formation, often seen as untamed, became a target for discrimination, forcing individuals to alter their hair to conform.
• Braids and Twists ❉ Beyond aesthetics, these styles protected hair from environmental elements and facilitated maintenance, essential for demanding daily life in traditional African communities. They also served as a means of communication, indicating marital status, fertility, or rank. The imposition of “straight hair” policies often meant damaging chemical treatments or time-consuming alterations, hindering the practical and cultural value of these styles.

The constant demand to alter hair for “professional” appearance has imposed significant burdens, both financial and physical, on Black women. It frequently involves harsh chemicals that can cause scalp damage and hair breakage, or repetitive heat styling that weakens the hair strand. These practices are far removed from ancestral care traditions that prioritized the preservation and health of textured hair. The persistent negative perceptions of natural hair in workplaces, even leading to microaggressions or job denials, highlight the urgent call for legal measures that affirm the right to wear one’s hair authentically.

What Specific Hair Styles Are Now Protected?

The CROWN Act, through its various state and municipal adoptions, explicitly extends protection to a range of natural hair textures and culturally significant styles.

California was the first state to enact the CROWN Act in 2019. Since then, over two dozen states and numerous localities have followed suit, recognizing that policies prohibiting these styles disproportionately affect Black individuals. This legal shift signifies a collective movement to dismantle discriminatory appearance policies and to redefine “professionalism” to include, rather than exclude, the natural expressions of Black and mixed-race heritage . It underscores a commitment to fostering environments where one’s cultural identity, as expressed through hair, is a source of strength, not a target for suppression.

Relay

The legislative journey protecting textured hair in professional settings is a complex relay, passing the baton from the broad strokes of civil rights legislation to the specific, nuanced protections of modern acts. It is a story of legal adaptation, of laws catching up to lived experience, and of a persistent cultural effort to affirm the right to ancestral expression. Understanding what legal measures protect textured hair means delving into the interplay of existing federal statutes and newly enacted state laws, recognizing how each piece contributes to a more complete shield for those who carry the heritage of textured hair.

Current legal frameworks for textured hair protection represent a legislative evolution, clarifying that hair discrimination is indeed racial discrimination.

For decades, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stood as the primary federal safeguard against race-based employment discrimination. While this foundational law prohibits discrimination based on skin color and hair texture, its application to hairstyles, particularly those associated with Black culture, has been a battleground. Courts frequently made a distinction between immutable characteristics, which were protected, and mutable characteristics, like hairstyles, which were often not, leading to inconsistent rulings and leaving many vulnerable. This narrow interpretation created a loophole, allowing employers to enforce appearance policies that disproportionately affected Black employees under the guise of “professionalism”.

How Does Federal Law Address Hair Discrimination?

While a federal CROWN Act has passed the House of Representatives multiple times, it has not yet been signed into law at the national level. This means that federal protection specifically prohibiting hair discrimination based on texture or style remains indirect, relying on the broader interpretations of Title VII by courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC, tasked with enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws, has provided some guidance. Its Compliance Manual on Race and Color Discrimination states that discrimination based on physical characteristics associated with race, including hair texture, violates Title VII. However, as the Catastrophe Management Solutions case in 2017 showed, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “banning dreadlocks in the workplace under a race-neutral grooming policy—without more—does not constitute intentional race-based discrimination”. This decision underscored the limitations of existing federal law and highlighted the ongoing struggle for comprehensive protection.

The push for a federal CROWN Act (H.R. 8191 / S. 4224), reintroduced by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Sen.

Cory Booker, seeks to explicitly classify hair discrimination as illegal under federal law, applying to employment, housing, public accommodations, and federally assisted programs. This proposed legislation aims to provide a clear, unified standard, ensuring that individuals nationwide are protected regardless of their state’s specific laws. The necessity of this federal clarity speaks to the deep, historical context of hair policing that has affected Black Americans for centuries.

How Do State Laws Bolster These Protections?

The significant progress in legal protections for textured hair has come through state-level initiatives, primarily through the adoption of various versions of the CROWN Act. California was the first to act in 2019, and as of late 2024, over two dozen states have enacted similar legislation. These state laws are crucial because they directly address the “loophole” in earlier interpretations of Title VII.

These state CROWN Acts typically:

1. Expand the Definition of “race” ❉ They clarify that racial discrimination includes discrimination based on hair texture and hairstyles historically associated with race. This specifically covers styles like Braids, Locs, Twists, Afros, and Bantu Knots.
2. Prohibit Discriminatory Grooming Policies ❉ They make it illegal for employers and schools to enforce dress codes or grooming policies that disproportionately impact people of color based on their hair.
3. Affirm Cultural Expression ❉ They legally validate the right to wear one’s natural hair and traditional styles without facing professional or educational disadvantages, grounding this right in civil rights and cultural heritage.

The legislative momentum behind the CROWN Act reflects a broader societal recognition of hair discrimination as a genuine form of racial injustice. For instance, a 2023 study found that Black women’s hair is 2.5 times as likely as white women’s hair to be perceived as “unprofessional,” and approximately two-thirds of Black women alter their hair for job interviews. Over 20% of Black women between 25–34 have even been sent home from their jobs due to their hair.

These stark figures underscore the persistent impact of Eurocentric beauty standards and the urgent need for comprehensive legal remedies that respect ancestral practices and identity. The legal landscape for textured hair protection is thus a powerful testament to the ongoing fight for equity, a relay race where each legislative stride builds upon past struggles, ultimately aiming to ensure that no one’s heritage becomes a barrier to their professional calling.

Reflection

To consider the legal measures protecting textured hair in professional settings is to stand at the confluence of deeply personal heritage and societal justice. It is to acknowledge that the spiral of a single strand, the intricate artistry of a braid, or the liberating expanse of an Afro, carries the weight of history, the whispers of ancestors, and the vibrant pulse of living culture. These legal frameworks, like the CROWN Act, are not simply bureaucratic dictates; they are acknowledgments of a truth long held within communities that hair is more than appearance. It is identity, a connection to the source of being, a continuous thread of shared experience.

As the world continues to awaken to the breadth of human experience, these protections serve as guideposts, reminding us that true professionalism stems from competence and character, not from a narrow, exclusionary vision of aesthetics. The path forward involves not only the passage of more laws but a collective shift in understanding, a profound appreciation for the diverse ways beauty and self find expression. This movement, rooted in the enduring spirit of textured hair, moves toward a future where every strand, in its natural glory, is celebrated, respected, and free to reach its fullest potential, carrying its ancient wisdom into modern spaces. It is a legacy continuously written, one braid, one coil, one freedom-affirming law at a time.