Don’t Touch My Hair: CROWN Act Protects Natural Hairstyles from Discrimination
Louisiana recently joined a chorus of other states that now protect natural hairstyles from discrimination.
The Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act amends the definition of intentional discrimination in employment under Louisiana law to include any discriminatory practices with respect to any individual’s compensation or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of natural, protective or cultural hairstyles. Natural, protective or cultural hairstyles are defined as including, but not being limited to, “afros, dreadlocks, twists, locs, braids, cornrow braids, Bantu knots, curls, and hair styled to protect hair texture or for cultural significance.”
The law is intended to prohibit discrimination against hairstyles, which have been historically associated with a specific race. The law’s reference to any “cultural hairstyle” indicates that the law extends protections to hairstyles, which are not necessarily considered racially specific. But the connection to racial discrimination was clearly intended by the law’s drafters. Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards, who signed the CROWN Act into law, noted the connection between hair discrimination and racial discrimination. “Hair discrimination is racial discrimination…,” said Edwards. Louisiana State Representative Candace Newell, who authored the legislation, also said “hair discrimination is rooted in the belief that straight hair is ultimately cleaner, neater or more professional, while it’s opposite for textured hair.”
In Louisiana, the prohibition on discrimination extends beyond employment to include public schools, public accommodations and housing opportunities.
The law does not specifically address any issues triggered by an employer’s bona fide occupational qualifications. For example, the law does not address whether employers may impose standards regarding the length of an employee’s hair, which may cause a safety concern or prohibit an employee from wearing safety equipment.
Employers should likely be guided by the analysis already in place for an employer’s bona fide occupational qualifications. Namely, an employer may only base an employment decision on a protected characteristic by showing both of the following:
-
- The qualification is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business.
- The employer reasonably believes that an employee would be unable to perform the job safely and efficiently because of the protected characteristic, i.e. hairstyle.
Louisiana employers should consider being proactive by reviewing employee handbooks, antidiscrimination policies, and dress codes or grooming policies for compliance.
California, Tennessee, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, Maryland, Connecticut, Oregon and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed similar laws, and employers with a presence in those jurisdictions should evaluate their policies as well.
Employers throughout the country should also be aware that the U.S. House of Representatives passed similar legislation prohibiting hair discrimination. A companion bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate, but to date has not passed.
Please contact Michael B. Victorian or any member of Phelps’ Labor and Employment team if you have questions or need compliance advice or guidance.
