What specific court cases addressed textured hair discrimination in employment?

Roots

Consider the very strands that coil and spring from the scalp, a living testament to journeys spanning continents and generations. For Black and mixed-race communities, hair is far more than mere biological filament; it is a profound archive, each twist and coil holding echoes of ancestral wisdom, communal ties, and an unyielding spirit. This heritage, deeply ingrained, stands as a vibrant counterpoint to prevailing Eurocentric beauty ideals that have long sought to diminish its innate beauty and inherent professionalism. It is within this historical tension that specific court cases addressing textured hair discrimination in employment found their painful, yet necessary, genesis.

The foundational understanding of textured hair, from its elemental biology to its diverse manifestations, cannot be separated from the historical context of its perception. Ancestral societies across Africa viewed hair as a powerful codex, a visual language conveying intricate details of an individual’s life ❉ their lineage, social standing, marital status, spiritual beliefs, and even their geographic origin. The Mangbetu people, for example, cultivated elaborate coiffures that were not merely aesthetic but signified status and beauty, often shaped by practices like Lipombo, which subtly elongated the skull to accentuate these styles (Creed & Cloth, 2024). Such practices underscore a time when hair was a revered part of self, meticulously cared for with natural oils, clays, and adornments.

Then came the shattering disruption of the transatlantic slave trade. The forced shaving of heads upon arrival in unfamiliar lands was a deliberate act of dehumanization, a calculated attempt to sever enslaved Africans from their cultural roots and communal identity. This act, described by Byrd and Tharps in their work, “Hair Story ❉ Untangling the Roots of Black Hair in America,” marked the initial step in erasing a vibrant heritage and altering the profound relationship between African people and their hair (Byrd & Tharps, 2001).

The very concept of “good hair” emerged from this oppressive period, valuing straight or loosely curled textures, often influenced by non-African ancestry, over the rich diversity of Afro-textured hair. This created a damaging internal division within Black communities, where tighter curls were often deemed “unkempt” or “less than”.

It is against this backdrop of systemic devaluation that early legal skirmishes began to surface. One such early legal confrontation arrived in the 1970s. The 1976 case of Jenkins V. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance, heard by the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, stands as a significant, albeit limited, early victory. This court upheld a race discrimination lawsuit, agreeing that workers were entitled to wear afros under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This ruling, in its nascent understanding, recognized the afro as a natural expression of Black hair, thus inherently linked to racial identity. However, even with this legal affirmation, the pervasive social pressure to conform to Eurocentric hair norms continued to shape decisions and opportunities within the workplace.

The legal landscape, however, remained treacherous. The fundamental understanding of what constitutes “race discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became a battleground of interpretation. Courts often drew a distinction between what they considered “immutable characteristics”—traits like skin color that cannot be changed—and “mutable characteristics,” which included hairstyles. This distinction became a significant hurdle for those seeking justice for hair discrimination.

Employers would often cloak their bias in “facially neutral grooming policies,” which, in practice, manifested a clear preference for hairstyles that suited white hair textures, while effectively prohibiting many natural and protective styles inherent to Black hair. This legal framework, built on a narrow interpretation of race, failed to account for the deep cultural and historical significance of textured hair and the practices that sustain it.

The historical devaluation of textured hair laid the groundwork for employment discrimination, forcing legal battles to reclaim its rightful place.

The anatomy and physiology of textured hair itself, with its unique helical structure, natural dryness, and propensity for shrinkage, often necessitates specific care and styling practices, including protective styles. These styles, like braids, twists, and locs, are not merely aesthetic choices; they are functional methods of maintaining hair health, preventing breakage, and allowing for growth. The legal system’s failure to grasp this elemental biological reality, and its deep connection to ancestral care practices, often resulted in rulings that inadvertently penalized individuals for tending to their hair in ways that honored its natural composition and cultural lineage.

Ritual

As we consider the paths taken through generations, a sense of quiet determination surfaces, reflecting the enduring spirit of those who have navigated the intricate world of textured hair. The exploration of specific court cases addressing textured hair discrimination in employment leads us from the foundational understanding of hair itself into the living traditions of its styling and presentation. These practices, deeply rooted in ancestral wisdom, have frequently found themselves at odds with narrow, often biased, notions of “professionalism” within the workplace. The legal challenges that followed were not merely disputes over appearance; they were profound assertions of cultural identity and the right to embody one’s heritage in all spaces, including the professional realm.

For centuries, the styling of textured hair has been a sacred ritual, a communal act, and a canvas for cultural expression. From the elaborate cornrows that once mapped escape routes during enslavement to the dignified locs symbolizing spiritual connection and autonomy, each style carries layers of meaning and historical resilience. These protective styles, born from necessity and artistry, preserve the hair’s vitality while celebrating its unique structure. Yet, within the modern employment landscape, these very expressions of heritage have become targets.

How Did Courts Address the Cultural Significance of Hair?

A defining moment in this legal struggle arrived with the case of EEOC V. Catastrophe Management Solutions. In 2010, Chastity Jones, a Black woman, was offered a customer service position with the company. She wore her hair in short locs throughout the interview process and was hired on the spot.

However, the offer was rescinded when she refused a request from the Human Resources manager to cut her locs, who reportedly claimed they “tend to get messy”. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on Ms. Jones’s behalf in 2013, arguing that the company’s action constituted racial discrimination.

The EEOC’s argument was multi-layered, asserting that locs are a natural outgrowth of Black hair texture, directly associated with race, a symbolic expression of racial pride, and that targeting locs represented a form of racial stereotyping. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the district court’s ruling against Ms. Jones in 2016, stating that the employer’s refusal to hire her because she wore locs did not violate Title VII. The court’s reasoning hinged on the argument that locs are a “mutable”—or changeable—characteristic, not an immutable one like skin color, and therefore not protected under Title VII.

This ruling sent a chilling message, effectively sanctioning policies that, while “facially neutral,” disproportionately affected Black individuals by preferring hairstyles that suited white hair textures. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this decision.

The ‘mutable characteristic’ argument often served as a legal barrier, allowing employers to enforce Eurocentric grooming standards despite the deep cultural roots of textured hairstyles.

This legal precedent, established in cases like Catastrophe Management Solutions and earlier ones like Rogers V. American Airlines (1981), which sided with the airline against an employee wearing braids, created a legal void. It left countless Black individuals vulnerable to discrimination for simply presenting their hair in styles that honored their heritage and supported their hair’s natural state.

The implications extended beyond job offers; they touched upon daily microaggressions and career advancement. 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,” with two-thirds of Black women changing their hair for job interviews.

What Tools and Techniques Have Faced Scrutiny?

The scrutiny extended to the very tools and techniques of textured hair care. While historical African communities developed specialized combs, pins, and adornments for intricate styling, the diaspora saw the forced adoption of tools like hot combs and chemical relaxers to conform to imposed beauty standards. The legal battles over protective styles—braids, locs, twists, Bantu knots, afros—reflect a persistent societal pressure to deny the authenticity of Black hair. These styles, which are often essential for maintaining hair health and growth due to the unique coiling patterns and natural dryness of textured hair, were paradoxically deemed “unprofessional” or “messy”.

The cultural and practical significance of these styles is profound.

• Cornrows ❉ Historically, they were used for identification, status, and even as maps for escape during slavery.
• Locs ❉ Symbolizing spiritual connection, resistance, and autonomy, they became a powerful statement during the Civil Rights Movement and continue to represent self-acceptance.
• Braids ❉ A timeless tradition across Africa, signifying age, marital status, and tribal affiliation, they remain a fundamental expression of identity and pride.

The contrast between the ancestral reverence for these styles and their rejection in contemporary professional settings highlights a persistent disconnect. This disparity is not merely a matter of aesthetic preference; it is a manifestation of systemic racism, perpetuating white Anglo-Saxon Protestant cultural norms as the default for professionalism. The legal system, through its past interpretations, often failed to acknowledge this deeper cultural and historical context, leaving individuals to choose between their livelihoods and their inherent cultural expression.

Relay

We arrive at a junction where the echoes of past struggles meet the momentum of contemporary action, seeking to redefine the very boundaries of belonging. How does the ongoing pursuit of justice for textured hair discrimination reshape our understanding of holistic care and ancestral wisdom in the modern world? This inquiry compels us to consider how legal advancements, particularly the widespread adoption of the CROWN Act, represent not merely legislative victories, but profound affirmations of identity, a collective act of healing, and a vital continuation of cultural heritage.

The legacy of legal challenges, particularly the outcome of EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, underscored a critical deficiency in federal anti-discrimination law. The interpretation that hairstyles are “mutable characteristics” and thus not inherently protected under Title VII left a glaring vulnerability for Black individuals.

This judicial stance ignored the physiological realities of textured hair and the centuries-old cultural practices associated with its care and styling. It perpetuated a system where conforming to Eurocentric beauty standards was often a prerequisite for employment, forcing individuals to suppress their authentic selves and, in many cases, compromise their hair health through chemical straightening or excessive heat styling.

How does the CROWN Act Address Ancestral Wisdom?

The answer to this systemic issue began to crystallize in a movement for legislative change, culminating in the CROWN Act —an acronym for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair.” This legislation directly confronts the “mutable characteristic” argument by explicitly expanding the definition of “race” in state and local anti-discrimination laws to include hair texture and protective hairstyles commonly or historically associated with race. California led the way, signing the CROWN Act into law on July 3, 2019, making it the first state to ban racial discrimination based on natural hair. As of July 2024, 25 states have enacted similar legislation, with more than 50 localities also adopting such protections.

The CROWN Act’s significance extends beyond legal technicalities; it is a profound societal acknowledgment of the deep cultural heritage woven into textured hair. It validates the long-standing ancestral wisdom that recognizes hair as a vital part of one’s being, deserving of respect and autonomy. The act empowers individuals to maintain their natural hair and protective styles—such as Locs, Cornrows, Braids, Twists, Bantu Knots, and Afros—without fear of professional repercussions. This shift supports holistic well-being, allowing individuals to align their external presentation with their internal sense of self and cultural pride, rather than adhering to imposed standards that often lead to physical damage and psychological distress.

The impact of the CROWN Act is tangible. A settlement reached by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in 2019 against Business Resource Group serves as a compelling illustration. A Black former employee alleged that the company’s CEO repeatedly harassed her about her naturally curly hair and braids, calling them “unprofessional” and “unacceptable,” while praising her hair when straightened. The settlement, which included compensation and harassment prevention training for the CEO, demonstrated how the CROWN Act provided a legal framework to challenge and rectify such culturally insensitive and discriminatory behaviors.

The fight, however, continues on multiple fronts. While 25 states have adopted the CROWN Act, a federal version of the bill passed the House of Representatives in March 2022 but failed to gain approval in the Senate, largely due to arguments that existing laws were sufficient or concerns about overreach. This ongoing legislative struggle underscores the deeply ingrained nature of hair discrimination and the necessity of universal protection. Organizations like the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and the CROWN Coalition remain steadfast in their advocacy, recognizing that until nationwide protections are in place, Black individuals continue to face the undue burden of policing their identity in workplaces and schools.

The journey to full acceptance of textured hair in employment settings is a microcosm of a larger societal movement towards racial equity. It calls for a deeper understanding of hair as a living, breathing part of one’s heritage, a source of strength, and a connection to ancestral practices. The legal battles, from early skirmishes to the CROWN Act’s sweeping changes, are not just about hair; they are about dignity, self-determination, and the right to carry one’s history and culture without penalty. They are about ensuring that the tender thread of heritage, spun through generations of care and resilience, remains unbound in every aspect of life.

Reflection

The quest to understand specific court cases addressing textured hair discrimination in employment reveals a narrative far richer and more complex than simple legal statutes. It is a profound meditation on the enduring legacy of textured hair, its sacred heritage, and the continuous journey of its care within communities that have, for too long, been asked to diminish their authentic selves. Each legal challenge, every piece of protective legislation, becomes a living archive, a testament to the resilience etched into every curl and coil.

From the ancient rhythms of African communal styling to the modern courtroom’s solemn pronouncements, the story of textured hair is one of persistent self-affirmation. It speaks to a deep, ancestral wisdom that understands hair as a crown, a connection to lineage, and a vibrant expression of identity. The discrimination faced in employment, then, is not merely an inconvenience; it is an attempt to sever a fundamental tie to one’s past, to erase a visible sign of belonging, and to deny the holistic well-being that comes from cultural integrity.

Yet, in the face of these challenges, the spirit of textured hair remains unyielding. The CROWN Act, in its burgeoning presence across the nation, represents a significant stride, a legislative echo of ancestral calls for respect and recognition. It invites a world where the inherent beauty and cultural significance of Black and mixed-race hair are not just tolerated, but celebrated.

This ongoing work, this collective striving, reminds us that the true essence of a strand lies not only in its biological makeup, but in the countless stories it carries, the resilience it embodies, and the boundless futures it continues to shape. The legacy of textured hair is a vibrant, living library, constantly being written by those who dare to wear their heritage with pride.

References

• Byrd, A. & Tharps, L. L. (2001). Hair Story ❉ Untangling the Roots of Black Hair in America. St. Martin’s Press.
• Creed & Cloth. (2024). Exploring Ancestral Roots Through Hairstyle ❉ The Artistic Legacy of the Mangbetu in Modern Expressions. Retrieved from Expedition Subsahara website.
• Dove & LinkedIn. (2023). The CROWN Act ❉ A Jewel for Combating Racial Discrimination in the Workplace and Classroom. Economic Policy Institute.
• EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, 852 F.3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2016).
• Rogers v. American Airlines, 527 F. Supp. 229 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
• Tharps, L. L. (2021). Tangled Roots ❉ Decoding the history of Black Hair. CBC Radio.