The Colorado CROWN Act Is Enacted
On March 6th, 2020, Colorado became the fifth state in the country to ban hair discrimination through the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Care Act of 2020 ( “CROWN Act”). On September 4th, the act went into effect. The text of the law expands anti-racism discrimination by including an individuals’ “hair texture, hair type, or a protective hairstyle commonly or historically associated with race.” The bill specifically aims to protect people of African, Jewish, Latinx, or Native American descent, who have faced discrimination as a result of natural or protective hairstyles.
The Colorado version closely resembles the National CROWN Act of 2020 (H.R. 5309), which was introduced in the House of Representatives on December 5, 2019 and passed on September 21, 2020. If the Senate and the president approve the bill, it would protect individuals from race-based discrimination in all 50 states. The CROWN Act arose out of a partnership with Dove, an American personal care brand, and the National Urban League, Color of Change, and the Western Center of Law & Poverty.
Colorado’s Crown Act Protections
The CROWN Act prohibits employers from enforcing grooming policies that restrict natural hairstyles. These hairstyles include, but are not limited to, hair that is tightly coiled or tightly curled or worn in locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, or Afros, all of which are predominantly worn by people of color. These protections extend into public education, employment practices, housing, public accommodations, and advertising. In these realms, an individual may not suggest that your hair texture, hair type, or hair style commonly or historically associated with race violate a “professionalism” policy or some other policy that would affect your opportunity.
History of Hair Discrimination
The issue of race-based hair discrimination has vaulted into national attention after a series of high-profile cases across the nation. In 2018, a Black high school wrestler in New Jersey was given 90 seconds to cut his locs or forfeit his match after his head covering was rejected by a White referee. In 2020, a Black high school senior in Texas was suspended and banned from his graduation ceremony after he refused to cut his locks. Although both of these examples happened recent, America has a long and ugly history of hair discrimination.
In the 1700s, Black women often wore their hair in elaborate hairstyles, emulating the popular styles of Eurocentric beauty worn by White slaveowners. In New Orleans, Louisiana, the city implemented the Tignon laws, requiring Black women to wear a scarf or handkerchief over their hair to indicate they were members of the slave class, regardless of their “free” status. Madame CJ Walker invented the hot comb by the end of the 19th century, allowing Black women to achieve the straightened look that was acceptable among White society. During the rise of the Black Is Beautiful movement, activists like Marcus Garvey and Angela Davis encouraged Black individuals to rebel against White American beauty standards and wear natural hairstyles.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 through its text and interpretation outlaws discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation. Although the law protects against race-based discrimination, the courts were left with the responsibility of what that actually meant. The first hair discrimination case, Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance, occurred in 1976, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that an employee was entitled to wear an afro under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, 5 years later, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that cornrows were not protected under race-based discrimination in Rogers v. American Airlines. The court’s ruling in that case allowed for employers to disallow their employees from wearing cornrows, braids, and locs in professionalism policies. In 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of hairstyle in U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions. The Court stated that hairstyles are not an “immutable trait” of one’s race despite their cultural link to Blackness, effectively allowing employers to discriminate based on racial stereotypes.
Colorado’s passage of the CROWN Act is a promising start to protecting people of color from race-based hair discrimination. The hairstyles and textures that are intrinsic to the Black community and other communities of color should not be a guiding factor in the accessibilities of opportunities in employment and education. The CROWN Act provides the necessary protections against hair-based discrimination to remedy the gaps of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If you or someone you know is the victim of race-based discrimination in the workplace, please contact Baker Oliver Simpson Law for a consultation.