CROWN Act of 2022

Last updated
CROWN Act
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn Act to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair.
Announced inthe 117th United States Congress
Number of co-sponsors116
Legislative history

The Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2022 (also known as the CROWN Act of 2022) was a bill in the United States Congress intended to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle by classifying such discrimination illegal under federal law. [1] It applied to federally assisted programs, housing programs, public accommodations, and employment. [1] The act was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) on March 19, 2021. [2] Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a companion bill in the Senate on March 22, 2021. [3] The CROWN Act of 2022 marked the second time the legislation was introduced in Congress. [4] [5]

Contents

On March 18, 2022, the House of Representatives passed the bill with a 235-189 vote. [6] [7] In the Senate, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, [8] but was never officially voted on because it failed to gain enough support to override a filibuster from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). [9] [10]

No new version of the bill has since been proposed in either the House of Representatives or Senate. However, Representative Troy Carter (D-LA) suggested the proposed legislation may be re-introduced in 2024. [11]

Origin

In 2019, Dove conducted the CROWN Research Study to “identify the magnitude of racial discrimination experienced by women in the workplace based on their natural hairstyles.” [12] The study was based on “a survey of 1,017 Black women and 1,050 non-Black women ages 25-64.” [12] The research found that “Black women are 30% more likely to be made aware of a formal workplace appearance policy,” “83% more likely to report being judged more harshly on [their] looks than other women,” and “1.5 times more likely to be sent home from the workplace because of their hair.” [12] These results led to Dove, Color of Change, the National Urban League, and the Western Center on Law & Poverty creating the CROWN Coalition. [13]

In response to the gathered data, the CROWN Coalition partnered with then-California State Senator Holly J. Mitchell to introduce a bill to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyle and hair texture. [13] [14] The CROWN Act passed unanimously in both chambers of the California Legislature and was signed into law on July 3, 2019. [15] The Act extended protection under the State’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the California Education Code, declaring it unlawful to discriminate against individuals who wear natural or protective hairstyles, including, but not limited to, braids, locs, and twists. [14] It served as the first legislation passed at the state level in the United States to prohibit such discrimination, [15] [16] and largely inspired the proposed federal bill. [17]

Legislative History

On the federal level, the “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair” Act ("CROWN Act") has been introduced to the United States Congress twice: first in the 116th Congress (2019-2020), [4] and second in the 117th Congress (2021-2022). [1]

2019-2020

Overview

The “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair” Act was first introduced to the United States Congress on December 5, 2019. [4] Known by the shortened name the "CROWN Act of 2020", the bill was proposed in the House of Representatives by former Representative Cedric Richmond (D-LA) for the purpose of prohibiting "discrimination based on an individual’s texture or style of hair.” [4] Section 2 of the bill explained that people of African descent, particularly in employment and educational settings, routinely face discrimination due to their natural hair or protective hairstyles they are commonly adorned with, including hair that is tightly coiled or tightly curled, or worn in locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, or Afros. [18] The bill clarified that such discrimination violates existing Federal law under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, and the Fair Housing Act. [18] The bill applied to federally funded programs and activities, housing programs, public accommodations, and employment. [4]

When the bill was initially proposed in December 2019 it had 29 co-sponsors. [19] It was then referred to two House Committees: (i) House Judiciary and (ii) House Education and Labor. [20] By September 17, 2020, the bill had garnered 63 co-sponsors, all of whom were affiliated with the Democratic Party. [19]

House Judiciary Committee Report

On September 21, 2020, both committees discharged the bill, [20] and the House Judiciary Committee issued an accompanying 17-page Committee Report in favor of the bill. [21]

In the Committee Report, the House Judiciary's Democrat Majority put forth several reasons in favor of the CROWN Act of 2020, with one of the key reasons being the inconsistent rulings among federal courts on cases involving hair discrimination in the workplace. [17] The Majority referred to the 1976 case Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance, Inc., in which plaintiff-appellant Beverly Jenkins, an African American woman, filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming she was denied a promotion largely because of her Afro hairstyle. [22] In Jenkins, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded Title VII should be "construed and applied broadly," and thus discrimination based on a natural hairstyle may be a basis for unlawful racial discrimination under the statute. [22] In the Report, the House Judiciary's Majority explained that federal courts in other circuits have since adopted narrower interpretations of Title VII when deciding whether employer grooming policies that restrict certain hairstyles are unlawful. [17] The Majority referenced the 1981 case Rogers v. American Airlines, in which a federal district court concluded that a workplace grooming policy banning cornrow braids not pulled back in a bun or hair wrap was legally permissible. [23] It also cited the 2016 case Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, where the Eleventh Circuit concluded that mutable hairstyles, such as dreadlocks, are not extended protection under Title VII. [24]

The Committee Majority further pointed out that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has since issued guidance on Title VII interpretation to prohibit discrimination based on hair texture and certain hairstyles. [25] [26] Moreover, it explained that seven states had already passed similar legislation to the CROWN Act of 2020 but noted that “such protections are incomplete and leave many minorities, especially Black Americans, vulnerable to discrimination.” [17]

Representative Jim Jordan (OH-R), expressed opposition for the proposed legislation on behalf of the House Judiciary's Minority. [27] He argued that the bill was a tactic for political messaging, and that it was not necessary since existing federal law already prohibits racial discrimination. [27] Congressman Jordan also stated the Democrat Majority did not follow proper protocol since the Committee had not held a legislative hearing on the bill before it was considered on the Floor. [27]

Bill Movement and Status

On September 21, 2020, the House debated the bill for 40 minutes and passed the legislation via a voice vote. [20] Though the CROWN Act of 2020 passed in the House, it was not enacted into law since the companion Senate legislation became stalled. [28] Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) had introduced an identical bill in the Senate on January 08, 2020. [5] [29] The proposed Act had 20 co-sponsors (19 Democrat; 1 Independent). [30] It was read twice, referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but never voted on. [28]

2021-2022

CongressShort titleBill number(s)Date introducedSponsor(s)# of cosponsorsLatest status
117th Congress CROWN ACT of 2022. H.R. 2116 March 19, 2021 Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ)116Passed the House (235 -189).
S.888 March 22, 2021 Cory Booker (D-NJ)29Referred to committees of judication.

Bill Overview

On March 19, 2021, Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) introduced the “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair” Act of 2021 ("CROWN Act of 2021") in the House of Representatives. [1] The purpose, extent, and text of the bill reflected the Act previously proposed in 2019. [1] When the CROWN Act of 2021 was first introduced, it had 30 original co-sponsors but eventually garnered a total of 116 (115 Democrat; 1 Republican). [31] The bill was referred to three House Committees: (i) House Judiciary; (ii) House Education and Labor; and (iii) House Budget. [32] The House Judiciary Committee subsequently referred the bill to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. [32]

House Judiciary Committee Report

On February 25, 2022, the House Judiciary Committee issued a 27-page Committee Report in favor of the bill. [32]

The Committee Report largely mirrored the Report issued for the CROWN Act of 2020. [33] The main addition was that the House Judiciary's Majority addressed the Minority's previous comment about proper protocol not being followed. [34] The Majority noted the legislative hearing the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties had held in relation to the bill where multiple witnesses testified, thereby it satisfied requirements. [34] In the Conclusion, the Majority explained that although even more states (14 total) had enacted legislation to prohibit hair discrimination since the bill was first proposed, a federal Act was still needed to ensure protection nationwide. [34]

Like in the 2020 Committee Report, [21] Representative Jim Jordan (OH-R), expressed opposition for the bill on behalf of the House Judiciary's Minority. [35] He argued that "a race-neutral policy is not disparate treatment simply because it is applied to a member of a protected class," and that the bill was overall "unnecessary as a matter of law." [35]

Bill Movement and Status

On February 28, 2022, the House proceeded with forty minutes of debate and voted via roll-call. [32] The 235-188 vote failed to achieve the two-thirds majority needed for passage. [36] [37] Of the 235 representatives who voted “yes,” 220 were Democrat and 15 were Republican. [36] Ten representatives abstained from voting: two were Democrats (Representatives Mark Pocan from Wisconsin and Terri Sewell from Alabama) and eight Republican. [36]

The House passed a resolution to reconsider the proposed Act via one hour of debate on March 18, 2022. [32] [38] Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the House with bi-partisan support by a 235-189 vote. [6] [7] Of the 235 “yea” votes, 221 were Democrat and 14 were Republican. [6] The 189 representatives who voted “nay” were all Republican. [6] Eight representatives abstained from voting, all of whom belonged to the Republican Party. [6] Both Democratic Representatives Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Terri Sewell (D-AL), who had previously voted “nah”, voted for the bill’s passage. [6] When the legislation passed in the House, its name became updated to “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair” Act of 2022 " (“CROWN Act of 2022” for short). [39]

In the Senate, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a companion “CROWN Act” bill on March 22, 2021. [3] It had 29 co-sponsors (27 Democrats; 1 Republican; 1 Independent). [40] The bill was read twice, then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [8] In early December 2022, the proposed legislation failed to gain enough support to override a filibuster from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), which prevented a vote from being conducted. [10] Subsequently, on December 15, 2022, 30 members from the Congressional Black Caucus wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to urge them to prioritize the bill as end-of-year legislation for the 117th Congress. [41] The letter emphasized that the CROWN Act had achieved bipartisanship in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and was also supported by the Biden Administration. [41] The Senate never voted on the bill before the Congressional session concluded. [9]

The CROWN Act has not been re-introduced in the 118th Congress (2023-2024). However, Congressman Troy Carter (D-LA) suggested the proposed legislation may be re-introduced in 2024. [11]

State and Local Government Legislative Action

The CROWN Act, or similar legislation that prohibits discrimination based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle, has been passed in 24 states [42] , including: Alaska, [43] Arizona, [44] Arkansas, [45] California, [14] Colorado, [46] Connecticut, [47] Delaware, [48] Illinois, [49] Louisiana, [50] Maine, [51] Maryland, [52] Massachusetts, [53] Michigan, [54] Minnesota, [55] Nebraska, [56] Nevada, [57] New Jersey, [58] New Mexico, [59] New York, [60] Oregon, [61] Tennessee, [62] Texas, [63] Virginia, [64] and Washington. [65]

The extent of protection provided by the enacted state laws depends on the jurisdiction. [66] For example, some states added “natural or protective hairstyles” to the definition of race in its state laws, and expressly listed specific hairstyles, such as braids, curls, dreadlocks, twists, and Bantu knots, as protected. [66] Some states also intended for the legislation to apply broadly, extending protection across state-assisted housing programs, public accommodations, and employment, while other states enacted more restrictive laws that apply only to employment or educational settings. [66]

Of the 26 states which have not enacted the CROWN Act, many have proposed such bills. [13] Similar ordinances have also been passed at the municipal level across various cities and counties in effort to garner bi-partisan support for the proposed state laws. [42] [67]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1964</span> Landmark U.S. civil rights and labor law

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or, depending on the version of the bill, gender identity, by employers with at least 15 employees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randolph Bracy</span> American politician

Randolph Bracy III is an American politician who is a member of the Florida Senate from the 11th district. Bracy's district includes parts of central and northwest Orange County. Bracy is the first African American to serve as Chair of the Criminal Justice Committee. As a member of the State Senate, Bracy pushed for the establishment of Juneteenth as a state holiday.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965</span> Amendments to U.S. legislation

The U.S. Congress enacted major amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. Each of these amendments coincided with an impending expiration of some of the Act's special provisions, which originally were set to expire by 1970. However, in recognition of the voting discrimination that continued despite the Act, Congress repeatedly amended the Act to reauthorize the special provisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act</span> Michigan state law

The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), or Public Act 453 of 1976, which went into effect in 1977, originally prohibited discrimination in Michigan only on the basis of "religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status" in employment, housing, education, and access to public accommodations. A ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court on July 28, 2022 expanded the scope of the law to explicitly include protections for LGBT people. Sexual orientation and gender identity were both formally codified and added to Michigan legislation officially on March 16, 2023 and became Act 6 of 2023. Other classes added to the law since passage include pregnant workers, workers who seek abortions, and hair style and texture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">117th United States Congress</span> 2021–2023 meeting of U.S. legislature

The 117th United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It convened in Washington, D.C., on January 3, 2021, during the final weeks of Donald Trump's presidency and the first two years of Joe Biden's presidency and ended on January 3, 2023.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equality Act (United States)</span> Bill to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the 117th Congress

The Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service. The Supreme Court's June 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County protects gay and transgender people in matters of employment, but not in other respects. The Bostock ruling also covered the Altitude Express and Harris Funeral Homes cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act</span> Proposed law banning most pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements

The Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act is proposed legislation in the US Congress. The comprehensive legislation would prohibit pre-dispute, forced arbitration agreements from being valid or enforceable if it requires forced arbitration of an employment, consumer, or civil rights claim against a corporation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SAFE Banking Act</span> U.S bill regarding cannabis businesses and banking

The SAFE Banking Act, officially H.R. 1595, full title Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Act, and also referred to as the SAFE Banking Act of 2019, and as of 2023 the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act, was proposed legislation regarding disposition of funds gained through the cannabis industry in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">CROWN Act (California)</span> California law prohibiting discrimination based on hair style and hair texture

The CROWN Act is a California law which prohibits discrimination based on hair style and hair texture by extending protection under the FEHA and the California Education Code. It is the first legislation passed at the state level in the United States to prohibit such discrimination.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Floyd Justice in Policing Act</span> Bill in the United States Congress

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 was a policing reform bill drafted by Democrats in the United States Congress. The legislation was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on February 24, 2021. The legislation aims to combat police misconduct, excessive force, and racial bias in policing.

Esther Agbaje is an American politician serving in the Minnesota House of Representatives since 2021. A member of the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL), Agbaje represents District 59B, which includes portions of north and downtown Minneapolis in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protecting the Right to Organize Act</span> Proposed United States federal labor law

The Richard L. TrumkaProtecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, is a proposed United States law that would amend previous labor laws such as the National Labor Relations Act, for the purpose of expanding "various labor protections related to employees' rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace". It would prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings for the purpose of counteracting labor organization, and would strengthen the legal right of employees to join a labor union. The bill would also permit labor unions to encourage secondary strikes. The PRO Act would weaken "right-to-work" laws, which exist in 27 U.S. states. It would allow the National Labor Relations Board to fine employers for violations of labor law, and would provide compensation to employees involved in such cases. It is named after Richard Trumka who was the President of the AFL-CIO until his death in August 5, 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pregnant Workers Fairness Act</span> 2022 United States federal law

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a United States law meant to eliminate discrimination and ensure workplace accommodations for workers with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. It applies to employers having fifteen or more employees. Originally a stand-alone bill first introduced in 2012, the bill was included as Division II of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which was passed by Congress on December 27, 2022, and signed by President Joe Biden on December 29, 2022. The bill went into force on June 27, 2023.

<i>Rogers v. American Airlines</i> (1981)

Rogers v. American Airlines was a 1981 legal case decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving plaintiff Renee Rogers, a Black woman who brought charges against her employer, American Airlines, for both sex and race discrimination after she was dissuaded from wearing her hair in cornrows due to the airline's employee grooming policy. Rogers believed that this hair policy was a violation of her Title VII rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Innovation and Choice Online Act</span> Proposed American antitrust bill

The AmericanInnovationandChoiceOnline (AICO) is a proposed antitrust bill in the United States Congress. The legislation was introduced by David Cicilline (D-RI) in the House of Representatives as the AmericanChoiceandInnovationOnline Act on June 11, 2021. On October 14, 2021, companion legislation in the Senate was introduced by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) as S.2992.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021</span>

The State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act of 2021 is a proposed antitrust bill in the United States Congress. The legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Ken Buck (R-CO) as H.R. 3460 on May 21, 2021. Companion legislation was introduced in the Senate by Mike Lee (R-UT) as S. 1787 on May 24, 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021</span> Proposed bill in the United States Congress

The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021 (MFFMA) is a proposed antitrust bill in the United States Congress. The legislation was introduced in the Senate by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) as S. 228 on February 4, 2021. Companion legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Victoria Spartz (R-IN) as H.R. 3843 on June 11, 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ACCESS Act of 2021</span>

The Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching Act of 2021, or the ACCESS Act of 2021, is a proposed antitrust bill in the United States House of Representatives. The purpose of the legislation is to mandate data portability from Big Tech companies to provide users the ability to switch their data between platforms.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 "Text: H.R.2116 - Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2022 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 10, 2024.
  2. ↑ "Cosponsors: H.R.2116 - Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2022 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 10, 2024.
  3. 1 2 "Text: S.888 - CROWN Act of 2021 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 10, 2024.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 "Text: H.R.5309 - CROWN Act of 2020 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 10, 2024.
  5. 1 2 "Text: S.3167 - CROWN Act of 2019 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 10, 2024.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Roll Call 82 | Bill Number: H. R. 2116". Office of the Clerk, United States House of Representatives. Retrieved February 10, 2024.
  7. 1 2 "Watson Coleman Celebrates House Passage of the CROWN Act". Bonnie Watson Colemen. March 18, 2022. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  8. 1 2 "Actions Overview - S.888 - CROWN Act of 2021 - 117th Congress (2021-2022)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  9. 1 2 "All Actions: S.888 - CROWN Act of 2021 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 10, 2024.
  10. 1 2 "Sen. Rand Paul blocks measure against hair discrimination". PBS. December 15, 2022. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
  11. 1 2 Pritchett, Valerie (February 26, 2024). "Advocates push to pass the CROWN Act in Pennsylvania, US Congress". Koin, Nexstar Media Inc. Retrieved March 8, 2024.
  12. 1 2 3 "The 2019 CROWN Research Study for Women" (PDF). The CROWN Act. Retrieved February 12, 2024.
  13. 1 2 3 "The Official Campaign of The CROWN Act Led by the CROWN Coalition". The CROWN Act. February 12, 2024.
  14. 1 2 3 "SB-188 Discrimination: hairstyles (2019-2020)". California Legislative Information. February 16, 2024.
  15. 1 2 Domek, Natasha (August 22, 2019). "A Heads Up On The CROWN Act: Employees' Natural Hairstyles Now Protected". The National Law Review. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  16. ↑ Chavez, Nicole (July 3, 2019). "California becomes the first state to ban discrimination based on natural hairstyles". CNN. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  17. 1 2 3 4 "H. Rept. 116-525: Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2020 (See pgs. 5-13)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  18. 1 2 "Text: H.R.5309 - CROWN Act of 2020 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) (See Sec. 2(a)(9))". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 10, 2024.
  19. 1 2 "Cosponsors: H.R.5309 - CROWN Act of 2020 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 10, 2024.
  20. 1 2 3 "All Actions: H.R.5309 - CROWN Act of 2020 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  21. 1 2 "H. Rept. 116-525: Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2020". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  22. 1 2 Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc. , 538 F.2d 164, 167 (7th Cir. 1976) (en banc). Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  23. ↑ Rogers v. Am. Airlines, Inc. , 527 F. Supp. 229, 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (concluding there is a distinction between prohibiting an “all-braided hairstyle” from an Afro, since the latter is “the product of natural hair growth,” while the former is a more easily changed, mutable choice). Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  24. ↑ EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Sols. , 852 F.3d 1018, 1032 (11th Cir. 2016) (affirming the lower court's decision in favor of the employer requiring an African-American woman to cut her dreadlocks hairstyle pursuant to an employer’s grooming policy). Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  25. ↑ "H. Rept. 116-525: Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2020 (See pg. 5)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved March 24, 2024.
  26. ↑ "EEOC Compliance Manual (See pg. 15-24)" (PDF). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. April 19, 2006. Retrieved March 24, 2024.
  27. 1 2 3 "H. Rept. 116-525: Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2020 (See pg. 17)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 17, 2024.
  28. 1 2 "All Actions: S.3167 - CROWN Act of 2019 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  29. ↑ "Booker, Richmond Unveil CROWN Act Banning Hair Discrimination". Cory Booker: News. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  30. ↑ "Cosponsors: S.3167 - CROWN Act of 2019 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 16, 2024.
  31. ↑ "Cosponsors: H.R.2116 - Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2022 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  32. 1 2 3 4 5 "All Actions: H.R.2116 - Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2022 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  33. ↑ "H. Rept. 117-252 - Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2021". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  34. 1 2 3 "H. Rept. 117-252 - Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2021 (See pg. 17)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  35. 1 2 "H. Rept. 117-252 - Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2021 (See pg. 27)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  36. 1 2 3 "Roll Call 48 | Bill Number: H. R. 2116". Office of the Clerk, United States House of Representatives. Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  37. ↑ Thurin Rollin, Sara (March 2, 2022). "CROWN Act barring hair discrimination stalls after failed U.S. House vote". WESTLAW (Labor and Employment Daily Briefing). Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  38. ↑ "H.Res.979 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 963) to amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2116) to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  39. ↑ "Titles: H.R.2116 - Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act of 2022 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  40. ↑ "Cosponsors: S.888 - CROWN Act of 2021 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)". Congress.Gov. Retrieved February 25, 2024.
  41. 1 2 Whitfield-Anderson, Jayla (December 21, 2022). "Senate Republicans block CROWN legislation again. But advocates aren't deterred". Yahoo! News. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
  42. 1 2 Payne-Patterson, Jasmine (July 26, 2023). "The CROWN Act: a jewel for combating racial discrimination in the workplace and classroom". Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  43. ↑ "SB 174 - An Act relating to dress codes and natural hairstyles". The Alaska State Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  44. ↑ "Arizona Governor Signs Executive Order Prohibiting Race-Based Hair Discrimination". Arizona State Law Journal. April 24, 2023. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  45. ↑ "HB1576 - To Establish the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act". Arkansas State Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  46. ↑ "HB 20-1048 - CROWN Act of 2020". Colorado General Assembly. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  47. ↑ "HB No. 6515 - An Act Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair". Connecticut General Assembly. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  48. ↑ "Senate Bill 32 - Act to Amend the Delaware Code Relating to Discrimination". Delaware General Assembly. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  49. ↑ "SB 3616 -CROWN Act". Illinois General Assembly. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  50. ↑ "HB 1083 - Act provides relative to hair discrimination in education, employment, public accommodations, and housing options". Louisiana State Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  51. ↑ "LD 598 - An Act To Prohibit Discrimination in Employment and School Based on Hair Texture or Hairstyle". State of Maine Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  52. ↑ "HB 1444 - Discrimination - Definition of Race - Hair Texture and Hairstyles". Maryland General Assembly. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  53. ↑ "Bill H.4554 - Act Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Natural and Protective Hairstyles". The 193rd General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  54. ↑ "Senate Bill 0090 (2023)". Michigan Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  55. ↑ "HF 37 - Race definition modified relating to hair styles and textures within the Minnesota Human Rights Act". Minnesota Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  56. ↑ "LB451 - Define terms and change provisions relating to unlawful employment practices under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act". Nebraska Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  57. ↑ "SB327 - Revises provisions relating to discriminatory practices. (BDR 53-574)". Nevada Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  58. ↑ "NJ S3945 - "Create a Respectful and Open Workspace for Natural Hair Act"- CROWN Act". New Jersey Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  59. ↑ "SB 80 - No School Discrimination for Hair". New Mexico Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  60. ↑ "SB 6209: Prohibits race discrimination based on natural hair or hairstyles". The New York State Senate. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  61. ↑ "HB 2935 - Relating to discrimination". Oregon State Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  62. ↑ "SB0136 - CROWN Act: Create a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair". Tennessee General Assembly. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  63. ↑ "HB 567 - Relating to discrimination on the basis of hair texture or protective hairstyle associated with race". Texas Legislature Online. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  64. ↑ "SB 50 - Virginia Human Rights Act; racial discrimination, hair". Virginia's Legislative Information System. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  65. ↑ "HB 2602 - 2019-20 - Concerning hair discrimination". Washington State Legislature. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  66. 1 2 3 "Hair Discrimination and CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair) State Law Survey". LexisNexis. September 26, 2023. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  67. ↑ Hays, Gabrielle (July 3, 2023). "When CROWN acts stall in states, cities step in to ban hair discrimination". PBS News Hour. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.