What legislative efforts address hair discrimination in workplaces?

Roots

Consider the quiet strength held within each strand, a living testament to heritage, resilience, and identity. For countless generations, hair has served as more than mere adornment; it has been a chronicle, a marker of lineage, status, and spirit. Yet, in spaces where professionalism is often narrowly defined, the very textures and styles that tell these profound stories have, for too long, faced a chilly reception, deemed somehow ‘unsuitable’ or ‘unfitting’. This long-standing dissonance between authentic self-expression and workplace expectations has necessitated a deliberate, legislative response.

The journey toward legislative recognition of hair discrimination is deeply rooted in historical practices that sought to erase cultural identity. From the Tignon Laws of 18th-century Louisiana, which compelled free Black women to cover their hair as a visible sign of social stratification, to the pervasive societal pressures of later centuries promoting Eurocentric beauty ideals, the message was clear ❉ certain hair textures and styles were unwelcome, often seen as disorderly or unprofessional. This historical backdrop helps illuminate why hair discrimination extends beyond a simple grooming preference; it touches upon systemic inequities.

What Historical Precedents Shape Current Hair Discrimination Laws?

Understanding the historical context is vital to comprehending the depth of current legislative efforts. For centuries, the beauty standards upheld in Western societies have often excluded and marginalized hair textures and styles common among people of African descent. This cultural imposition created a societal expectation that natural hair be altered—often through chemical relaxers or heat—to conform to a straighter, smoother ideal. When individuals chose to wear their hair in its natural state or in protective styles such as braids, locs, or twists, they frequently encountered barriers in employment, education, and social settings.

Early legal challenges to hair discrimination in the United States, such as the 1976 case of Jenkins V. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance, offered a glimpse of progress by affirming that afros were protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, later rulings often narrowed this protection, notably in the 1981 case of Rogers V. American Airlines, which determined that braids were not an immutable racial characteristic and thus not inherently protected.

These varying interpretations highlighted a significant gap in existing anti-discrimination laws, demonstrating that a clearer, more explicit legal framework was needed to protect against race-based hair discrimination. The prevailing legal landscape, prior to recent legislative shifts, frequently struggled to classify hair texture and traditional hairstyles as intrinsically linked to race, leaving individuals vulnerable to unfair treatment.

Hair, as a deeply personal and cultural expression, has historically faced prejudice in professional settings, prompting a necessary legislative response.

The collective awareness of these persistent biases laid the groundwork for a new movement. Advocates and community groups recognized that relying solely on broad interpretations of existing civil rights laws was insufficient. A more direct and unambiguous legal shield was required to address the subtle yet damaging forms of discrimination faced by individuals with textured hair. This growing recognition spurred the creation of dedicated legislative initiatives aimed at rectifying these long-standing injustices and affirming the right to authentic self-presentation in the workplace.

Ritual

Stepping into the practical realm of legislative action, we begin to witness how collective resolve transforms into tangible protections. The path from historical understanding to everyday impact involves a careful calibration of legal language and societal expectations. For those who wear their hair in styles deeply connected to their identity, these legislative efforts are not abstract concepts; they are the quiet assurance that their authentic self is welcomed, not just tolerated, in professional spaces.

The most prominent legislative effort addressing hair discrimination in workplaces within the United States is the CROWN Act, an acronym for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”. This legislation seeks to amend existing anti-discrimination laws to explicitly include hair texture and protective hairstyles as protected racial characteristics. By doing so, it aims to prevent employers from enacting grooming policies that disproportionately impact Black individuals and other people of color who wear their hair in styles like afros, braids, locs, twists, or Bantu knots.

How Does the CROWN Act Protect Against Workplace Hair Discrimination?

The CROWN Act operates by expanding the definition of race in anti-discrimination statutes. Historically, discrimination laws often focused on immutable characteristics like skin color. However, hair, while sometimes perceived as a choice, is intrinsically linked to racial identity and cultural heritage for many. The CROWN Act directly addresses this oversight, ensuring that policies prohibiting certain hairstyles, which might seem race-neutral on the surface, are recognized as discriminatory if they disproportionately affect individuals based on their racial or ethnic hair traits.

The specifics of the CROWN Act vary slightly from state to state, but the core intent remains consistent ❉ to safeguard the right to wear natural hair and protective styles without fear of professional repercussions. For instance, California was the first state to pass the CROWN Act in 2019, amending its Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to include hair texture and protective hairstyles within its definition of race. Since then, over 20 states and various localities have adopted similar legislation, creating a growing patchwork of protections across the nation.

The CROWN Act stands as a vital legal framework, explicitly protecting individuals from workplace discrimination based on natural hair textures and protective styles.

These laws prohibit employers from practices such as ❉

• Implementing policies that require employees to alter their natural hair texture, such as demanding straightening or relaxing.
• Disciplining or terminating employees because of their natural or protective hairstyles.
• Refusing to hire or promote individuals based on perceptions of their hair as “unprofessional” or “untidy”.

The legislation also places a responsibility on employers to prevent and address hair-based harassment from supervisors, colleagues, or clients. This signifies a move beyond mere policy adjustments to a broader cultural shift within workplaces, encouraging environments where diverse hair expressions are not only permitted but respected.

While the CROWN Act has seen significant traction at the state level, a federal version has also been introduced in the U.S. Congress, passing the House of Representatives multiple times but facing hurdles in the Senate. The ongoing push for federal legislation underscores the widespread nature of hair discrimination and the desire for consistent, nationwide protections. The presence of these laws signals a cultural evolution, challenging long-held, often unspoken, rules about what constitutes a “professional” appearance.

Relay

Moving beyond the foundational tenets and practical applications, we arrive at a deeper examination of legislative efforts, where the complexities of societal bias intersect with the nuanced language of law. How do these legal frameworks truly shift perceptions and create equitable spaces for textured hair in the workplace? This inquiry necessitates a look at the subtle mechanisms of discrimination and the measurable impacts, both intended and perhaps unforeseen, of such legal interventions.

The underlying challenge legislative efforts confront is the deeply ingrained nature of appearance bias. For generations, Eurocentric beauty standards have subtly, yet powerfully, shaped perceptions of professionalism. This has led to what researchers term Natural Hair Bias, where textured hair, particularly Black hair, is often perceived as less professional, less competent, or less polished than straightened hair. Such perceptions, often unconscious, translate into tangible barriers in employment.

Do Legislative Measures Actually Reduce Unconscious Bias in Hiring?

While laws like the CROWN Act directly prohibit discriminatory practices, their impact on unconscious bias is a more intricate matter. Legislation can mandate behavior, but shifting deeply held societal perceptions requires more than legal decree. However, by providing legal recourse and raising awareness, these laws contribute to a broader cultural re-education. When employers know that discriminatory grooming policies are unlawful, they are compelled to re-evaluate their standards, which can, over time, begin to dismantle the implicit biases that lead to unfair treatment.

Consider the findings from a 2020 study by Christy Zhou Koval at Michigan State University and Ashleigh Shelby Rosette at Duke University, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science. This research offers compelling empirical evidence of how pervasive hair bias is in the hiring process. Across multiple experiments, the study found that Black Women with Natural Hairstyles Were Consistently Rated as Less Professional and Less Competent, and Were Significantly Less Likely to Be Recommended for Interviews Compared to Black Women with Straightened Hair or White Women with Either Curly or Straight Hair. This bias was particularly pronounced in industries with more conservative appearance norms, such as consulting, whereas it was less apparent in more creative fields like advertising.

Beyond mere legality, the deeper influence of hair discrimination laws rests in their capacity to reshape societal perceptions of professionalism, slowly eroding long-held biases.

This study underscores that the problem extends beyond overt acts of discrimination; it resides in subtle, unconscious judgments that can derail career paths before they even begin. The legislative efforts, by making such biases explicitly unlawful, create a necessary legal framework that forces organizations to confront these ingrained perceptions. The existence of the CROWN Act empowers individuals to challenge these biases and provides a legal basis for holding employers accountable for policies that, even if seemingly neutral, have a disproportionate impact on racial groups.

Furthermore, more recent data from the 2023 CROWN Workplace Research Study reveals the ongoing challenges. This study found that Black Women’s Hair is 2.5 Times More Likely to Be Perceived as Unprofessional, and approximately two-thirds of Black women (66%) alter their hair for a job interview, with 41% specifically changing from curly to straight styles. These statistics, even after the passage of CROWN Act legislation in many states, indicate that while legal protections are crucial, the societal work of deconstructing Eurocentric beauty standards in professional settings remains a continuous effort.

The dialogue around hair discrimination legislation also compels organizations to consider the broader implications of their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. True inclusivity demands that employees can bring their authentic selves to the workplace without fear of penalty. When hair, a significant aspect of cultural and personal identity for many, becomes a point of contention, it signals a fundamental disconnect in an organization’s commitment to DEI.

1. Legislation serves as a baseline, setting the legal standard for what is permissible and what is not.
2. Awareness campaigns, often spurred by legislative efforts, help educate the public and employers about the historical roots and contemporary manifestations of hair discrimination.
3. Organizational policy changes, driven by both legal mandates and a growing understanding of bias, begin to reshape workplace norms.

The impact of these legislative efforts extends beyond individual cases; they contribute to a societal shift in understanding professionalism, encouraging a more expansive and equitable view that celebrates, rather than penalizes, the diversity of human appearance. This legislative momentum provides a powerful tool for advocates and individuals to challenge discriminatory practices, pushing for workplaces where everyone can truly belong.

Reflection

As we consider the journey of legislative efforts addressing hair discrimination, a quiet realization settles ❉ these laws are more than mere statutes. They are echoes of resilience, carefully etched onto the parchment of societal progress, seeking to harmonize external expectations with the profound internal landscape of identity. Each stride, each passed act, is a gentle turning of the tide, encouraging a world where the stories written in our strands are celebrated, not censored. The aspiration remains a workplace where every individual can present their authentic self, allowing their unique light to shine without the dimming shadow of appearance-based judgment.

References

• Legal Defense Fund. Hair Discrimination FAQ.
• Rosette, Ashleigh Shelby, and Christy Zhou Koval. Research Suggests Bias Against Natural Hair Limits Job Opportunities for Black Women. Duke’s Fuqua School of Business, 2020.
• Labour Research Department. Untangling the problem of hair discrimination at work. 2023.
• California State University, Los Angeles. A Hairy Situation ❉ Fighting Hair Bias in the Workplace.
• Bentley University. Spotlighting the CROWN Act ❉ Examining Hair Discrimination Among Black Women Professionals in Massachusetts. 2024.
• GovDocs. States with Hair Discrimination (CROWN) Laws in 2024 ❉ Interactive Map.
• Innovatief in Werk. Natural Hair Bias Against Black Minorities ❉ A Critical Investigation of Intersecting Identities.
• British Psychological Society. Black women with natural hair face biases from potential employers. 2020.
• Forbes. How To Reduce Bias Where Research Says Black Women’s Natural Hair Impacts Interview Opportunities. 2020.
• Ontario Human Rights Commission. Don’t touch my hair! ❉ A guide to investigating race-based hair discrimination. 2022.
• Legal Aid at Work. Hair Discrimination.
• Law Office of Dan A. Atkerson. Racial Discrimination Over Hairstyles at Work. 2024.
• Intercultural Development Research Association. Confronting Hair Discrimination in Schools – A Call to Honor Black History by Protecting Student Rights.
• JSTOR Daily. How Natural Black Hair at Work Became a Civil Rights Issue. 2019.
• Wikipedia. Discrimination based on hair texture in the United States.
• Institute for Employment Studies. Afro hair discrimination ❉ the DEI ‘blind spot’ affecting black women in the workplace. 2024.
• The Daily Texan. Why it’s not “Just Hair” ❉ The History of Discrimination Against Black Women’s Natural Hair.
• Neathouse Partners. Hair discrimination in the workplace. 2023.
• National Urban League. Shocking survey highlights hair based discrimination in the workplace.
• Economic Policy Institute. The CROWN Act ❉ A jewel for combating racial discrimination in the workplace and classroom. 2023.
• The CROWN Act Official Website. Research Studies.
• The CROWN Act Official Website. About.
• Paycor. The CROWN Act ❉ What it is and how it impacts your workplace. 2024.
• TestGorilla. How hair bias affects Black women in the workplace.
• ResearchGate. Let My Hair Be Me ❉ An Investigation of Employee Authenticity and Organizational Appearance Policies Through the Lens of Black Women’s Hair.
• Journal of Business Diversity. Wear Your CROWN ❉ How Racial Hair Discrimination Impacts the Career Advancement of Black Women in Corporate America. 2023.
• McLane Middleton. Understanding Hair Discrimination and the CROWN Act. 2023.
• General Code. Trending Legislation ❉ Hair Discrimination.
• Senator Cory Booker Press Release. Booker, Collins Reintroduce Bipartisan CROWN Act to Ban Hair Discrimination. 2025.
• Textio. Strands of Change ❉ How the CROWN Act Shapes Our Understanding of Professionalism. 2024.
• Ethena. What is the CROWN Act? The law’s impact on the workplace. 2023.