Two Black high school students in Texas were banned from class and school activities because their long, braided hair violated the school’s grooming code. A Black woman in Alabama was hired to be a customer service representative, but when she went to her interview with Human Resources, she was told to cut her dreadlocks. When she refused, her job offer was rescinded.

These stories and related lawsuits from the Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) of the NAACP led to the passage of “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (the CROWN Act) by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 18. The Bill, H.R. 5309, sponsored by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) and Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA), will “prohibit discrimination based on an individual’s texture or style of hair." It bans discrimination at work, in federal programs and public accommodations.

The vote was 235 to 189. On the House floor, Rep Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) argued, “For too long, Black girls have been discriminated against and criminalized for the hair that grows on our heads and the way we move through and show up in this world.”

Lisa Cylar Barrett, LDF’s Director of Policy, said, “We commend the representatives who voted for the CROWN Act, a crucial bill to protect Black people, nationwide, from hair discrimination…” She continued, "Black hair is all too often penalized…through seemingly race-neutral grooming policies and dress codes that, in truth, disproportionally impact and unjustly burden Black people.”

The bill provides details of the shameful history that demonstrate the need for the new legislation. It states, “society has used (in conjunction with skin color) hair texture and hair style to classify individuals on the basis of race….Routinely, people of African descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities because they are adorned with natural or protective hairstyles in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, or worn in locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, or Afros.”

Examples abound. Fortune magazine reports that Black nurses who work in clinical settings have been told to cut their hair, whereas their white counterparts are only asked to tie it up. A Black waitress was fired for wearing her natural hair in a bun. And a Black news anchor who stopped wearing wigs was fired for violating a company policy against “shaggy and unkempt hair.” The same thing happened to a different Black woman who traded her wig for her natural hair.

Black males are discriminated against as well. A Florida Christian school banned a young man from graduation ceremonies because the school’s grooming policy mandated hair must not “exceed their ears” and specifically banned Black hairstyles. In another case that gained national attention, a 16-year old wrestler was told by a referee that his hair did not conform to the school’s rule book, “so cut your dreadlocks or forfeit.” His subsequent haircut by a female trainer went viral on social media and “transformed the teenager into a new symbol of racial tension in America,” according to the Washington Post.

The text of the bill relates a rescinded Air Force policy that was enacted in 2018 when that branch of the U.S. Armed Forces recognized that its prohibitions against certain “natural or protective hairstyles that African-American service women” wear are discriminatory and bear no relationship to African-American servicewomen’s occupational qualifications and their ability to serve and protect the Nation.”

The Bill then describes how hairstyle discrimination violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Fair Housing Act. It goes on to explain that a new bill is necessary because “some Federal courts have misinterpreted Federal civil rights law by narrowly interpreting the meaning of race or national origin.” This interpretation permits employers to discriminate against Black men and women who have certain hairstyles.

Several states, including California and Massachusetts, have already passed their own versions of the CROWN Act. H.R. 5309 would give the Federal Government a “central role in enforcing the (new) standards.” It prohibits the “denial of benefits” or “exclusion from participation” in any program or activity that receives Federal funds.

Under the Act, anyone who “believes to be aggrieved” is entitled to remedies that parallel those of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They must file a complaint with the agency they believe has violated the CROWN Act. The complaint must then be reviewed to determine if disciplinary action is warranted.

The CROWN Act, which was first introduced in 2019, traveled a long path to House passage. It also prompted outside research such as a 2019 Research Study by Dove, which “confirms that workplace bias against hairstyles…unfairly impacts Black women.” It showed “the magnitude of racial discrimination experienced by women in the workplace based on their natural hairstyles.” Eighty percent of those surveyed said they “had to change (their) hair from its natural state to fit in at the office.”

Researchers studied the distribution of “corporate grooming policies” to both Black and non-Black women and found that “Black hair is more policed in the workplace.” In a comparison of hairstyles, it found “Black women’s hairstyles were consistently rated lower or ‘less ready’ for job performance.”

The bill now goes to the Senate where it faces opposition and obstacles to passage. NPR said, “A narrow Democratic majority in the Senate may not be enough to get the CROWN Act approved despite President Biden expressing strong support for the bill."

The Beauty magazine Byrdie sums it up this way. “For Black people, hair isn’t ‘just hair.’ Our hair is our crown, and the celebration of it as such is deeply woven into our ancestral history." Although the Senate has yet to acts, it appears America might be poised to turn a new and much-needed page in its history books.