House Approves Bill to Ban Hairstyle Discrimination in the Workplace

House Approves Bill to Ban Hairstyle Discrimination in the Workplace

​The U.S. Home of Reps a short while ago passed a evaluate that would guard personnel from discrimination primarily based on purely natural hair and hairstyles related with race and countrywide origin. This is what companies have to have to know as the bill moves to the Senate for thought.

Combating Look Discrimination

The Generating a Respectful and Open Entire world for Normal Hair (CROWN) Act—HR 2116—passed the House in a 235-to-189 vote on March 18.

Racial and nationwide origin discrimination can occur simply because of lengthy-standing biases and stereotypes involved with hair texture and fashion, in accordance to the invoice. “For example, routinely, folks of African descent are deprived of educational and work alternatives for the reason that they are adorned with normal or protecting hairstyles in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, or worn in locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots or Afros,” the monthly bill states.

The proposed laws would prohibit companies from firing, refusing to employ the service of or if not discriminating against employees dependent on “hair texture or hairstyle, if that hair texture or that hairstyle is frequently connected with a certain race or national origin.”

This would be the very first piece of federal legislation addressing look discrimination as it especially relates to a worker’s guarded characteristic—in this situation, race, mentioned Annie Reese, an attorney with Fisher Phillips in Atlanta. “Proponents of the CROWN Act consider that it will safeguard an vital piece of racial identification,” she stated.

As the invoice moves to the Senate, Reese suggested that employers critique their visual appearance insurance policies and prepare to remove references to prohibited hairstyles and prepare professionals on the CROWN Act if it passes.

Corinn Jackson, an attorney with Littler in Seattle, explained the Democrat-backed monthly bill “faces an uphill climb in the existing Senate.” The Home voted generally along celebration traces with only 14 Republicans voting in favor of the bill. At the very least 10 Senate Republicans would need to have to vote for the CROWN Act to
prevail over the filibuster

Lawmakers who oppose the invoice argue that current legal guidelines that ban race-based discrimination already use. For illustration, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on shade, nationwide origin, race, religion and intercourse.

Employers really should take note that some states presently guard personnel primarily based on all-natural hair and hairstyle. California grew to become the initial condition to move a CROWN Act in 2019, and far more states and towns followed suit.

“Businesses must anticipate this state and nearby legislative pattern to go on,” Jackson reported. “Companies across the state should really take into account revisiting and probably updating grooming criteria, guidelines and schooling practices.”

Suggestions for Employers 

Jackson encouraged that employers—particularly people in jurisdictions that now have rules towards hair discrimination—review their overall look policies and ensure they are inclusive of racial, ethnic and cultural practices linked to hair and hairstyles.

At the federal amount, the Equivalent Work Possibility Commission has previously challenged grooming and overall look insurance policies for focusing on sure hairstyles connected with race, and such policies are experiencing improved scrutiny from courts.

Camille Hamilton Pating, an legal professional with Meyers Nave in Oakland, Calif., described that employers may perhaps put into action staff insurance policies that spotlight satisfactory grooming and look specifications for staff. “Having said that, businesses should really be aware when drafting, reviewing and implementing this sort of procedures because they should be nondiscriminatory and really should not have a disproportionate effects on employees in a legally protected classification.”

Pating proposed that companies conduct periodic audits to evaluate whether a plan disparately impacts a group of people today in a protected classification. “Guidelines should not explicitly prohibit hairstyles that are historically related with race, these as Afros, cornrows, braids, locs or twists,” she reported. “Companies should consider possibilities, this sort of as hair ties, hairnets and basic safety machines, when addressing well being and safety fears.”

Additionally, Pating reported, grooming and visual appeal guidelines should really:

  • Be pushed by reputable, aim business enterprise demands, not subjective personalized choices.
  • State the motive for the expectations, these kinds of as to defend the wellness and protection of employees.
  • Be similarly and fairly implemented and ought to not disproportionately effect workforce in a lawfully protected classification.
  • Accommodate employees’ religious beliefs, where correct.
  • Implement only to the place of work and really should not try to regulate employees’ off-duty overall look.

“Employers need to also look at whether or not range or unconscious bias instruction is proper for their workplaces,” Jackson said. Effective instruction can help assure employers build and properly apply neutral grooming requirements that encourage firm enterprise passions and an inclusive perform surroundings.

“Adopting nationwide procedures dependable with the CROWN laws can provide as both a proactive compliance move and a leap towards building the workplace much more inclusive,” she mentioned. 

Ferne Dekker

Learn More →