Hair discrimination in the workplace refers to when an employer takes negative  actions against an employee based on their hairstyle, often targeting natural hairstyles like braids, locs, or afros, which are typically associated with Black people; this is considered a form of racial discrimination and can include refusing to hire, denying promotions, or disciplining employees due to their hair choices.

Traditionally, similar to other policies like dress code and tattoo and piercing regulations, employers have hair policies to ensure that their employees are maintaining the clean and professional presentation that the company wants to display to its customers. The problem arises when these policies don’t equally affect all employees. Learn more on our Dress Code and Grooming page.

A law known as the CROWN Act prohibits discrimination based on hair style and hair texture. C.R.O.W.N. stands for Create a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. Although all states have not adopted this law, enforcement of the CROWN Act will require employers and schools to examine their seemingly neutral hair and grooming policies and their unequal effect on Black Americans and other minorities.

Alaska. School dress codes are banned from prohibiting hairstyles like afros, cornrows and braids. Schools are also banned from requiring students to alter their hair and prohibiting them from wearing traditional and cultural regalia at graduation ceremonies. See the law for more information.

Arizona. An Executive Order prohibits hair-based discrimination against state employees and contractors in the workplace and public schools. The Executive order does not apply to private employers. See the Executive Order for more information.

Arkansas. The CROWN Act amended the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 to prohibit businesses with nine or more employees from discriminating based on specified hairstyles, including “afros, dreadlocks, twists, locs, braids, cornrow braids, Bantu knots, curls and hair styled to protect hair texture or for cultural significance.” The Act also prohibits discrimination based on these hairstyles by school districts and state-supported institutions of higher education. See the law for more information.

California. The California Crown Act updates the definition of “race” in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Education Code to be “inclusive of traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles.” In the state of California, the CROWN Act prevents employers from creating and enforcing grooming policies that they say are race neutral, but really affect protected classes negatively and unequally. See the law for more information.

Colorado. The CROWN Act which specifies that, for purposes of anti-discrimination laws in the context of public education, employment practices, housing, public accommodations, and advertising, protections against discrimination on the basis of one’s race include hair texture, hair type, or a protective hairstyle commonly or historically associated with race, such as braids, locs, twists, tight coils or curls, cornrows, Bantu knots, Afros, and headwraps. See the law for more information.

Connecticut. The CROWN Act protects employees and students from discrimination in employment, housing, and education by expanding the definition of race to include hair. The law defines “protective hairstyles” to include: wigs, headwraps, individual braids, cornrows, locs, twists, bantu knots, afros, and afro puffs. See the law for more information.

Delaware. The CROWN Act prevents students, workers, and tenants from being subjected to unequal treatment due to hair texture or protective hairstyles historically associated with race. The Act amends Delaware discrimination law so that the term “race” is inclusive of traits historically associated or perceived to be associated with race, including hairstyles like braids, locs, and twists. See the law for more information.

Illinois. The Illinois Crown Act prohibits discrimination based on a person’s hair texture or style—like braids, locs, twists, or bantu knots. See the law for more information. 

Kentucky. An Executive Order prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on natural hairstyles associated with race in Kentucky. This includes Black hairstyles like braids, locs and twists that have historically been considered unprofessional by Eurocentric standards. Workplace is defined as state government employees. See the Executive Order for morec information.

Louisiana. The Louisiana Crown Act prohibits discrimination based on race-based hairstyles in employment, education, public accommodations, and housing. Protected hairstyles include natural hairstyles, such as braids, locs, twists, cornrow braids, Bantu knots, and curls. See the law for more information. See the law for more information.

Maine. The Maine CROWN Act amends the Maine Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on hair texture or hairstyle in employment and education. The bill provides that use of the term “race” includes traits that are Maryland’s anti-discrimination law prevents discrimination against persons based on their protective hairstyles and textures.with race, including hair texture and syles like braids, twists, and locks.

Maryland. Maryland’s anti-discrimination law prevents various types of discrimination including discrimination in employment, places of public accommodation, leasing of commercial property, and housing. The CROWN Act broadens the definition of “race” by including traits associated with race including hair texture, afro hairstyles, and protective hairstyles. Additionally, protective hairstyles is defined to include “braids, twists, and locks. Maryland employment anti-discrimination law applies only to those employers with 15 or more employees. However, complaints alleging unlawful employment harassment can be filed against employers with 1 or more employee. See the law for more information.

Massachusetts. The state bans discrimination based upon natural and protective hairstyles in workplaces, school districts and certain school-related organizations. Specifically, the new Massachusetts law prohibits discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyles associated with race, including, but not limited to, natural and protective hairstyles, such as braids, locks, twists and Bantu knots. See the law for more information.

Michigan. The CROWN Act amends the definition of “race” in the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to clarify that it includes “traits historically associated with race.”  These traits include hair texture and “protective hairstyles” like braids, locks, and twists. Michigan prohits discrimination in employment, education, housing, public accommodation, law enforcement, and public service. See the law for more information.

Minnesota. The CROWN Act protects against discrimination based on raced-based natural hair texture and styles such as braids, locs, and twists under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. It applies to schools, workplaces, government buildings, and apartments. See the Minnesota Fact Sheet for more information.

Nebraska. The CROWN deems discrimination on the basis of natural hair illegan in the workplace and schools. Protective hairstyle includes, without limitation, hairstyles such as natural hairstyles, afros, bantu knots, curls, braids, locks and twists. See the law for more information.

New Jersey. New Jersey’s CROWN Act amends the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination so that the term “race” includes “traits historically associated with race, including hair texture, hair type and protective hairstyles.”

New Mexico. The Crown Act ends discrimination based on traditional hairstyles at public schools, charter schools and public and private workplaces. Protective hairstyles includes such hairstyles as braids, locs, twists, tight coils or curls, cornrows, bantu knots, afros, weaves, wigs or head wraps. The Act defines “race” to include hair texture, length, protective hairstyles, and cultural headdresses. The act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on these characteristics. See the school law and employment law for more information. See the Human Rights Law for more information on employment.

Nevada. The CROWN Act clarifies the definition of “race” stating it includes “traits associated with race, including without limitation, hair texture and protective hairstyles.” “Protective hairstyle” is also defined to include without limitation, “natural hairstyles, afros, bantu knots, curls, braids, locks, and twists.” The law applies to employment and in public and private schools. See the law for  more information. See the law for more information.

New York. New York has also adopted its version of the CROWN Act. The New York City Commission on Human Rights can now impose a penalty on employers who harass, demote, or fire individuals because of their hair. Natural hair treated or untreated hairstyles such as loss, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, fades, Afros, and/or the right to keep hair in an uncut or untrimmed state and included in the list of styles protected under the act.

Oregon. The CROWN Act protects people from discrimination based on their race-based hairstyles. Protective hairstyles are defined as “hair color or manner of wearing hair that includes, but is not limited to, braids, regardless of whether the braids are created with extensions or styled with adornments, locs, and twists.” The law also expands the definition of race to include physical characteristics that are historically associated with race, including but not limited to natural hair, hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles. It applies to public schools and employers in Oregon. See the Oregon website for more information. 

Tennessee. The CROWN Act in Tennessee prohibits employers from: 

Texas (Austin). The Austin, Texas CROWN act amends City Code to revise the definition of “Discriminatory Employment Practice” to include “Protective Hairstyles”. This means a hairstyle necessitated by, or resulting from, the characteristics of a hair texture or hairstyle commonly associated with race, national origin, ethnicity, or culture. See the ordinace for more information.

Virginia. The Virginia Human Rights Act now includes hair-based discrimination under racial discrimination. The law, which went into effect on July 1, 2020, says that the terms “because of race” and “on the basis of race,” listed in the Code of Virginia, include traits historically associated with race, including hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles such as braids, locs, and twists. 

Vermont. The CROWN Act prohibits race-based hair discrimination that includes the the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture or protective hairstyles including braids, locs, twists or Bantu
knots. See Vermont’s overview of the law here.

Washington. The CROWN Act amends the definition of racial discrimination to include discrimination based on hair texture or protective coverings. The law will legally protect locks, braids, afros, twists, and protective hair coverings under Washington’s existing racial discrimination laws. The law applies to employment, service, and s, public accommodations, insurance, health care whistleblower and state employee whistleblower. See the law for more information.

It depends. An employer requiring a “work appropriate appearance” is acceptable, but policies that ban, limit, or otherwise restrict natural hair or hairstyles associated with Black people are generally in violation of the anti-discrimination laws. Also, seemingly neutral grooming policies may also violate city law if an employer disproportionately enforces the policy against black employees. 

The answer to this question seems to depend on your employer’s definition of “neat” and your employer’s enforcement of that policy on employees. If “neat” does not include natural hair styles that are specific to a particular race or class of persons, then the policy is likely to disproportionately affect one group over the other and, as a result, violate anti-discrimination laws.

Yes, hair discrimination is generally considered a form of race discrimination, particularly when policies targeting certain hairstyles disproportionately affect people of color, especially Black individuals, as these hairstyles are often linked to racial identity and can be seen as a marker of race; therefore, discriminating against them based on hair is considered racial discrimination.