New Jersey bans race-based hair discrimination in the workplace and other areas of public accommodation, thanks to a bill Gov. Murphy signed into law in December. Someone’s race can be visible in any number of ways, including hairstyles.

The Create a Respectful and Open Workspace for Natural Hair Act (or CROWN Act) should cause employers to be more thoughtful about grooming and appearance policies and enforce them even-handedly.

The law prohibits discrimination based on hairstyle, type, or texture of hair. It amends the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), so the term “race” now includes traits historically associated with race. They include hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles such as braids, locks, twists, and Afros. The new language applies to employment, housing, education, and public accommodations.

The legislation was sparked by the case of Buena Regional High School wrestler Andrew Johnson. He had to cut his dreadlocks to avoid forfeiting a December 2018 match. Johnson cut his hair in the gymnasium in front of spectators before the match started, because a racist ref demanded it of him.

Before the CROWN Act became law the state’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance interpreting the LAD to include hair-related issues. It prohibits enforcement of policies that ban, limit, or restrict hairstyles that are:

• Closely associated with Black people, including twists, braids, cornrows, Afros, locks, Bantu knots, and fades

• Intertwined with or closely associated with a particular religion

The guidance states that discrimination has included a preference for white, European standards of beauty, and the view that traditionally Black hairstyles are “unprofessional” or “ unkempt.” Hair that grows in thick, tight coils is associated with being Black. It naturally forms or can be formed into many styles.

The OCR cited two examples of discrimination based on hairstyles:

• A Black woman working for Banana Republic in 2017 stated her store manager told her that her braids were inappropriate and “too ‘urban’ and ‘unkempt’” for the store’s image

• The parents of a six-year-old child allegedly lost out on a scholarship at a private school because it wouldn’t allow children with locks. They were explicitly prohibited in the student handbook

The federal agency enforcing employment anti-discrimination laws, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), recognized in a 1971 decision that prohibited race discrimination included a prohibition of hairstyles associated with African Americans. A federal appeals court ruled in 1976 in favor of an employee told she couldn’t represent her employer if she had an Afro. The ruling stated, “The reference to the Afro hairstyle was merely the method by which the plaintiff’s supervisor . . . expressed the employer’s racial discrimination.”

The OCR guidance also warned that policies that appear neutral (hair must be “professional” or “tidy”) can’t be applied or selectively enforced against Black people. Discriminatory policies can’t be justified by claims that a ban, limit, or restriction on natural hair or hairstyles associated with Black people is due to a desire to project a particular image, customer preferences, or speculative health or safety concerns.

If you believe your employer has discriminated against you because of your race, including hairstyle, please contact our Kingston law offices for an initial consultation. You may reach us online, via email, or phone. We will arrange a consultation via Zoom, phone, or in-person – via safe, socially distanced, masked means.  We accept credit cards and offer general appointments from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, plus evening appointments during the week by pre-arrangement only. Call today. You will be glad you did.