CROWN Act California: Hair Discrimination at Work

California’s CROWN Act protects employees from race discrimination based on natural hair texture and protective hairstyles. The law amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to make clear that race discrimination can include adverse treatment because of hair characteristics associated with race. Under California Government Code § 12926(w), race includes traits associated with race, including hair texture and protective hairstyles; § 12926(x) specifically identifies braids, locs, and twists as examples. If you have been rejected for a job, disciplined, or treated differently because of your hairstyle, a California race discrimination lawyer can help you understand how the law may apply to your situation.

California enacted the CROWN Act through Senate Bill 188 in 2019, with the law taking effect on January 1, 2020. It addresses grooming standards that can disadvantage workers whose natural hair or protective styles do not conform to narrow expectations of professionalism. Government Code § 12940(a) generally prohibits covered employers from discriminating against applicants and employees because of race and other protected characteristics. These protections apply to employment decisions such as hiring, promotion, discipline, and termination. The law does not prohibit every grooming rule, but an employer cannot use appearance standards as a pretext for racial discrimination.

Hair Texture and Protective Hairstyles Defined

Hair texture refers to the natural characteristics of a person’s hair, including tightly coiled, curly, and other textures associated with racial identity. The CROWN Act recognizes that discrimination can occur when an employer treats these characteristics as unprofessional or inappropriate. A worker should not be required to chemically straighten or otherwise alter natural hair simply to satisfy a discriminatory appearance preference.

Protective hairstyles include styles that help protect hair from damage and reduce the need for frequent manipulation. California’s statute expressly identifies braids, locs, and twists, while making clear that the category is not limited to those examples. Whether a particular hairstyle is protected depends on the facts and its relationship to race-associated hair characteristics. The legal question is not whether a manager personally likes the style, but whether the employer’s decision unlawfully discriminates against the employee.

For example, if a manager tells a Black employee that their locs look unprofessional and orders them to remove the style while allowing comparable hairstyles worn by other employees, the situation may raise concerns under FEHA. Similarly, rejecting an applicant because their natural hair does not match a company’s preferred image may constitute unlawful discrimination if the decision is based on race-associated hair texture or a protected hairstyle.

Grooming Policies That Violate the Law

Employers can establish reasonable appearance policies, but they must apply them in a nondiscriminatory manner. A rule requiring employees to maintain basic hygiene is different from a policy that specifically prohibits braids or locs because a supervisor considers them unsuitable for the workplace. A grooming policy may create legal risk when it directly targets protected hairstyles or is selectively enforced against workers of a particular race.

Vague requirements such as “professional appearance,” “conventional style,” or “business appropriate hair” are not automatically unlawful. However, the way an employer interprets and enforces those terms matters. If employees with straight hair are allowed to wear different styles while employees with natural textured hair are repeatedly told to change theirs, the inconsistency may be evidence of discriminatory treatment. Comments about looking more professional after straightening hair can also be relevant when assessing the employer’s motives.

Employees who experience this type of treatment should preserve the written grooming policy, emails, messages, disciplinary notices, and any explanation provided by management. It may also help to document how the same policy is applied to coworkers. These details can help distinguish a legitimate workplace requirement from a rule that is being used to target protected hair characteristics.

Safety-Based Hair Rules: What Employers Must Show

The CROWN Act does not eliminate legitimate safety and hygiene requirements. Certain jobs involve machinery, food preparation, sterile environments, or protective equipment that may require employees to secure or cover their hair. An employer may enforce a genuine, nondiscriminatory rule that addresses an actual workplace risk, provided it is applied consistently and is not used as an excuse to discriminate.

For example, a manufacturing employer may require all workers operating machinery to secure loose hair to prevent entanglement. A healthcare facility may require suitable hair coverings in a sterile area. These requirements differ from a blanket ban on locs, braids, or twists that has no meaningful connection to the work being performed.

When an employer cites safety as the reason for restricting a hairstyle, the relevant questions include whether a genuine hazard exists, whether the rule addresses that hazard, and whether it is applied equally to employees with different hair textures and styles. Depending on the job, securing the hair or using appropriate protective equipment may address the concern without requiring an employee to abandon a protected hairstyle. Employers should assess actual job requirements rather than rely on assumptions about natural hair.

Hiring, Discipline and Termination Examples

Hair discrimination can begin during the hiring process. An interviewer might tell an applicant to straighten their hair before being considered, reject a candidate after seeing their natural hairstyle, or state that protective hairstyles are incompatible with the company’s image. If the decision is based on race-associated hair texture or a protected hairstyle rather than legitimate qualifications, it may violate FEHA.

Current employees can also experience discrimination through unequal discipline, denied promotions, unwanted transfers, or termination. An employee might receive a warning for wearing braids even though the written grooming policy does not prohibit them, while coworkers wearing other hairstyles are not disciplined. Another employee might be removed from a customer-facing role after a supervisor complains about their locs. These circumstances can be relevant to a discrimination claim, particularly when the employer’s explanation does not match its actual practices.

Not every dispute about appearance is unlawful. Employers can enforce legitimate grooming standards that are job-related and nondiscriminatory. The issue is whether the policy or decision targets protected hair characteristics, is applied inconsistently, or reflects another discriminatory motive. Comments by supervisors, differences in treatment, written policies, and the timing of disciplinary decisions may help establish what occurred.

How to Report and File

If you believe you have experienced hair discrimination, begin by preserving relevant evidence. Keep copies of grooming policies, emails, messages, hiring communications, performance reviews, disciplinary notices, and any written explanation for the decision. Record the dates of important conversations, who was involved, what was said, and whether anyone witnessed the incident. Collect information lawfully and do not access confidential company records without authorization.

You may raise the concern through human resources or another designated reporting channel if appropriate. Explain which decision or policy concerns you, why you believe it relates to hair texture or a protective hairstyle, and what documentation supports your concern. An internal report may create a useful record, but it does not guarantee a resolution and should not be assumed to extend an external filing deadline.

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) enforces FEHA and accepts employment discrimination complaints. In general, an employment discrimination complaint must be filed with CRD within three years of the alleged discriminatory act. You can begin through the CRD complaint process, which explains online and other filing options. If you are considering a lawsuit, the procedural requirements may depend on the route you choose, so review the applicable rules and seek advice promptly. The CRD’s employment discrimination page provides further information about protected characteristics and available remedies.

About Milan Chatterjee

This article was prepared by Milan Chatterjee, an attorney licensed in California and Nevada and founder of Best Employment Attorney, the dedicated employment law practice of Milan Legal.

Milan represents employees and employers in employment disputes involving discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, wage claims, employment contracts, severance agreements, and related matters. He earned his Juris Doctor from UCLA School of Law and studied at New York University School of Law as a visiting student. Before entering private practice, he served as Associate Compliance Counsel at Las Vegas Sands Corporation, advising on employment compliance, workplace investigations, corporate governance, workforce restructuring, and risk management.

Frequently Asked Questions

Conclusion

California’s CROWN Act makes clear that race discrimination under FEHA can include discrimination based on natural hair texture and protective hairstyles, including braids, locs, and twists. Employers may enforce legitimate, nondiscriminatory grooming and safety requirements, but they cannot use workplace appearance policies as a pretext for racial discrimination. Hiring decisions, disciplinary actions, and termination based on protected hair characteristics may raise legal concerns depending on the circumstances.

If you believe you have experienced hair discrimination at work, preserve relevant communications, grooming policies, disciplinary records, and other evidence. You may also consider filing a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department and seeking legal guidance about your options and applicable deadlines. Understanding how the CROWN Act applies to your situation can help you take informed steps to protect your workplace rights.