Hair Discrimination Pivots from the Courts to Congress

Instances of race-based hair discrimination are not uncommon. Chastity Jones is part of a long list of roadblocked cases alleging race-based hair discrimination in workplaces and schools. However, as court decisions and Congress appear optimistically receptive to change, cases like hers may now receive a national legal reckoning.

Jones was hired at Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS) in Mobile, Alabama. However, after a meeting with Human Resources, she was told she would have to cut her dreadlocks, as they did not align with company policy. Jones declined; her hiring offer was rescinded.

The company had “neutral” grooming rules in place. Their policy, like many, encouraged and mandated “professional” appearance in the workplace. Specifically, company standards categorized dreadlocks as an “excessive” hairstyle.

“They tend to get messy, although I’m not saying yours are, but you know what I’m talking about,” the HR manager told Jones.

Her case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. CMS, was pressed by the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the courts dismissed her case. It was determined that hair is not considered an “immutable” quality to qualify under existing discrimination law.

The EEOC, which is itself a federal government agency, chose not to see the case to the Supreme Court. Since she had followed Title VII protocol by filing with the EEOC, Jones was not permitted to appeal herself.

Without the EEOC’s continued support, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund (LDF) petitioned the Supreme Court for Jones. They asserted that the Court had “halt(ed) a critical opportunity to address employment discrimination,” according to Sherrilyn Ifill, LDF President and Director-Counsel.

However, cases like hers aid in the ideological progress for the movements churning around for years in the courts.

For example, Title VII recently saw a different victory in the Supreme Court that may prove valuable. The Court ruled 6-3 on Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, to consider workplace bias based on sexual orientation and transgender status as sex discrimination. Such discriminatory practices were, therefore and thereafter, prohibited under Title VII.

In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito warned the decision was “certain to have far-reaching consequences.” In particular, the results may include significantly expanded application potential for Title VII—useful, perhaps, for cases of race-based hair discrimination.

Like Bostock, Jones’s case argues the relation based on the 1989 Supreme Court ruling on Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which found that reinforcing gender stereotypes in the workplace should be considered sex discrimination. Based on this precedent, even though the lower courts ruled that Jones’s hair wasn’t a qualifying “immutable trait,” it may be considered parallel to the mutability of femininity—which the Court has already ruled definitively on.

The dissent for Bostock asserted that the Court was overstepping its duties by ruling on issues that ought to be approached with legislation, to be studied and enacted by Congress. The CROWN Act is such a measure, catalyzed by Jones’s case and the growing contemporary movement for social justice reform.

The Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act is a bill introduced to prohibit race-based hair discrimination. It has made headway at both state and federal levels and successfully passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on September 21, 2020. The bill now moves to the Senate for committee review and, potentially, a subsequent vote on the floor.

The CROWN Act focuses specifically on discrimination within housing, public spaces, employment, and federally assisted programs. It has both federal and state counterparts. For instance, it expands both the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and education codes to refine the definition of race in civil rights laws. The initiative is led by the CROWN Coalition, founded by Dove, the National Urban League, Color of Change, and the Western Center of Law & Poverty.

The Act has already been adopted in California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Colorado, Virginia, and Maryland. Although some others are in the stages of following suit, the majority of states can still legally discriminate using race-based hair prejudice. Passing this anti-discrimination measure as federal law would apply the landmark action throughout the entire country, forcing employers and schools to diligently examine policies that affect minority populations.

If passed, the CROWN Act would regard embedded discriminatory practices with the same legal scrutiny applied to other cases of unconstitutional bias. Race-based hair discrimination is rooted in stereotypes that push white beauty standards as “professional.” Natural hairstyles can be culturally and traditionally representative or worn as protective styles, all of which exclude the harsh chemical processes used to achieve conventionally white hairstyles.

The “grooming” guidelines that have targeted race-based appearance for decades effectively codify discrimination. Maintaining such stereotypes in the workplace disparages hairstyles traditionally worn in Black cultures. When the HR manager told Jones, “They tend to get messy,” it was a reflection of the deep-seated bias facing natural Black hairstyles.

If passed, the legislation would regard discriminatory practices embedded in typical handbooks and perceptions—as Jones experienced—with the same legal scrutiny applied to other cases of unconstitutional bias.

“Black women who wish to succeed in the workplace feel compelled to undertake costly, time-consuming, and harsh measures to conform their natural hair to a stereotyped look of professionalism that mimics the appearance of White women’s hair,” the LDF wrote.

This summer, the CROWN Coalition marked their burgeoning success with a new holiday: National Crown Day, held on July 3 to celebrate the anniversary of the first state to sign the CROWN Act.

A prolonged buildup of cases like Jones’s appears to be visibly eroding the movement’s obstacles. The escalating anti-discrimination movement could force modernization of the perception of “professional” and the negative associations of culturally dissimilar appearances.

“The Black community has always had a strong tradition of passing down stories, history, and cultural pride to shape future generations on what is important to remember and carry forward,” the CROWN Coalition said in a statement. “Given the heightened spotlight on racial injustice, now is the time to galvanize the country to eradicate all forms of discrimination that negatively impact the Black community, including hair discrimination.”