Discrimination based on hair texture in the United States

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms Institutional Structural Statistical Taste-based
Attributes Age Caste Class Dialect Disability Genetic Hair texture Height Language Looks Mental disorder Race / Ethnicity Skin color Scientific racism Rank Sex Sexual orientation Species Size Viewpoint
Social Arophobia Acephobia Adultism Anti-albinism Anti-autism Anti-homelessness Anti-drug addicts Anti-intellectualism Anti-intersex Anti-left handedness Anti-Masonry Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Clannism Elitism Ephebiphobia Social determinants of health Social determinants of health in poverty Social determinants of mental health Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Homophobia Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Discrimination against men Misandry Misogyny Nepotism Pedophobia Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Sectarianism Supremacism White Male Transphobia 21st-century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom Non-binary Transmisogyny Trans men Vegaphobia Xenophobia
Religious Atheism Exclusivism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Christianity Persecution Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy Jehovah's Witnesses LDS or Mormon post–Cold War era Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Ahmadiyya Shi'ism Sufism Sunnism minority Muslim Judaism Persecution Neopaganism Protestantism Rastafari Sikhism Yazidism Zoroastrianism
Ethnic/national Afghan African Albanian Arab Armenian Asian France South Africa United States Assyrian Azerbaijani Black people African Americans China South Africa Bengali Bulgarian Catalan Chechen Chinese Colombian Croat Filipino Fulani Finnish Georgian Greek Haitian Hazara Hungarian Igbo Indian Indigenous people Australia Canada United States Irish Italian Japanese Jewish Antisemitism New Korean Kurdish Lithuanian Malay Māori Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Nigerian Pakistani Palestinians Pashtun Polish Quebec Romani Romanian Scottish Serb Slavic Somali Tatar Thai Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese Welsh
Manifestations Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric SPLC-designated list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups Anti-LGBTQ movemenet in the US Anti-trans movement in the UK Anti-Zionism Blood libel Bullying Cancel culture Capital punishment for homosexuality Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Disability hate crime Dog whistle Domicide Economic Education Employment Eliminationism Enemy of the people Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Excellence Gender-based dress codes Cosmetics policy High heel policy Forced conversion Freak show Gay bashing Gendercide Genital modification and mutilation Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime LGBTQ Hate group Hate speech Homeless dumping Housing Indian rolling Kill Haole Day Lavender scare LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory List of people killed for being transgender Lynching Mortgage Murder music Native American mascots Occupational segregation Opposition to immigration Paper genocide Persecution Pogrom Political repression Purge Racialization Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Segregation academy Sexual harassment Sex-selective abortion Slut-shaming Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against women White flight White genocide conspiracy theory Wife selling Witch hunt
Policies Age of candidacy Blood purity Blood quantum Crime of apartheid Disabilities Catholic Jewish Gender pay gap Gender roles Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Law for Protection of the Nation MSM blood donation restrictions No kid zone Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) One-drop rule Racial quota Racial segregation Jim Crow laws Nuremberg Laws Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial religious sexual Social exclusion Sodomy law State atheism State religion Ugly law Voter suppression
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Anti-racism Constitutional colorblindness Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity, equity, and inclusion Diversity training Empowerment Fat acceptance movement Feminism Fighting Discrimination Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex human rights LGBT rights Nonviolence Racial integration Reappropriation Self-determination Social integration Toleration
Related topics Allophilia Amatonormativity Bias Cisnormativity Civil liberties Dehumanization Diversity Multiculturalism Neurodiversity Ethnic penalty Figleaf Gender-blind Heteronormativity Historical eugenics Internalized oppression Intersectionality Masculism Medical model of disability autism Net bias Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Political correctness Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news in the United States Racism by country Racial color blindness Religious intolerance Reverse discrimination Reverse racism Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social exclusion Social identity threat Social model of disability Social privilege Christian male white Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype threat The talk
v t e

In the United States, discrimination based on hair texture is a form of social injustice that has been predominantly experienced by African Americans and predates the founding of the country.^[1][2][3]

In the 21st century, multiple states and local governments have passed laws that prohibit such discrimination. California was the first state to do so in 2019 with the CROWN (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair) Act (SB 188). As of June 2023, twenty-three states have passed similar legislation, but there is no equivalent law at the federal level. A federal CROWN act was proposed in 2020, and was passed by the House of Representatives but not the Senate. Another bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2021; it was approved by the House in 2022, and awaits consideration in the Senate.

In May 2024, the Illinois Legislature passed an extensive bill to explicitly protect and extend hairstyle protections within childcare, juvenile detention facilities, youth in care and/or within foster and adopted families - the first US state to do so broadly. The Governor of Illinois is yet to either sign or veto the bill.^[4]

In the late 18th century, free Africans in New Orleans were able to buy their freedom from slavery, resulting in an increase of interracial marriage in Louisiana.^[5] In response, Charles III of Spain demanded Louisiana colonial governor Esteban Rodríguez Miró to "'establish public order and proper standards of morality,' with specific reference to a "large class" of "mulattos" and particularly "mulatto" women.'"^[6] Louisiana women of African descent wore hairstyles that incorporated feathers and jewels, which caught the attention of white men. To comply with Charles III's demand, Miró issued an edict that required Creole women to wear a tignon to conceal their hair.^[5]

By the late 1800s, African American women were straightening their hair to meet a Eurocentric vision of society with the use of hot combs and other products improved by Madam C. J. Walker. However, the black pride movement of the 1960s and 1970s made the afro a popular hairstyle among African Americans and considered a symbol of resistance.^[5] In 1964, the U.S. federal government passed the Civil Rights Act, which prohibited employment discrimination based on race, but it was left to interpretation by the courts as to what this constituted.^[7] In 1970, Beverly Jenkins was denied a promotion in the Blue Cross by her white supervisor due to her afro.^[8] In 1976, the federal court case Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance determined that afros were protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the case did not extend protections against hair discrimination.^[7]

In the 2010s, natural hairstyles saw an increase in popularity in response to celebrities such as Viola Davis, Lupita Nyong'o, Ava DuVernay, and Stacey Abrams wearing natural hair. However, the popularity also resulted in increased attention to dress codes and hair regulations as African American workers and students across the U.S. were subjected to punishment due to their hair.^[9] Because of awareness to the issue, California passed the Crown Act in July 2019, becoming the first U.S. state to prohibit discrimination against workers and students based on their natural hair.^[10] California's passage of the bill has led many other states to consider similar bills banning hair discrimination and a bill proposed at the federal level by U.S. representative Cedric Richmond and U.S. senator Cory Booker.^[11]

In September 2020, U.S. representative Ilhan Omar announced the passage of the Crown Act in the House of Representatives, which would prohibit racialized hair discrimination nationally if enacted.^[12]

As of July 2024, 25/50 U.S. states have prohibited discrimination based on hair texture.

State	Date enacted	Notes
California	July 3, 2019	Passed the Crown Act[10]
New York	July 12, 2019	Passed an amendment to the New York Human Rights Law[13]
New Jersey	December 19, 2019	Passed the Crown Act[14]
Virginia	March 3, 2020	Passed the Virginia Human Rights Act[15]
Colorado	March 6, 2020	Passed the Crown Act[16]
Washington	March 19, 2020	Passed an amendment to the Washington State Law Against Discrimination[17]
Maryland	May 8, 2020	Passed without governor's signature[18]
Connecticut	March 4, 2021	Passed the Crown Act[19]
New Mexico	April 5, 2021	Passed the Crown Act[20]
Delaware	April 13, 2021	Passed the Crown Act[21]
Nebraska	May 5, 2021	Passed the Crown Act[22]
Nevada	June 4, 2021	Passed the Crown Act[23]
Oregon	June 11, 2021	Passed the Crown Act[24][25]
Illinois	August 13, 2021	Passed Simmons Law[26]
Maine	May 3, 2022	Passed the Crown Act[27]
Tennessee	May 27, 2022	Passed the Crown Act; only applies to workplace discrimination[28]
Louisiana	June 21, 2022	Passed the Crown Act[29]
Massachusetts	July 26, 2022	Passed the Crown Act[30]
Alaska	September 8, 2022	Passed "An Act relating to dress codes and natural hairstyles"; only applies to educational discrimination in schools.[31]
Minnesota	February 1, 2023	Passed the CROWN Act[32]
Arkansas	April 10, 2023	Passed the CROWN Act; only applies to educational discrimination in public schools and state-supported higher education institutions.[33]
Texas	May 29, 2023	Passed the CROWN Act[34]
Michigan	June 15, 2023	Passed the CROWN Act, amending the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act[35]
Vermont	July 1, 2024	Legislation implemented and signed by the Governor, to ban hair style discrimination[36]
New Hampshire	September 1, 2024[37]	Legislation implemented and signed by the Governor, to ban hair style discrimination[38]

In May 2024, by an unanimous voice vote within both houses of the New Hampshire General Court (Legislature) passed a bill prohibiting discrimination based upon hairstyle - the 25th/50 US state to do so. The Governor of New Hampshire signed the bill into law in July 2024 and goes into legal effect on September 1, 2024.^[39][38][40]

In addition, similar legislation has been introduced in Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin. An executive order prohibiting discrimination by Arizona state agencies and contractors was signed by Governor Katie Hobbs on March 17, 2023.^[41]

• Hair texturism
• Human hair color
• African-American hair