Is hair discrimination illegal in hiring? The CROWN Act, state by state

Yes, in most of the places where large employers hire. A CROWN Act ("Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair") defines race to include hair texture and protective hairstyles such as braids, locs and twists, so refusing to hire someone because of those traits is race discrimination under state law. California's (SB 188) dates from 2019, and the table below lists 18 states whose statute text we read for this page. As of October 2026 there is no federal CROWN Act, and federal courts are split on how far Title VII alone protects hairstyles.

This page covers what the laws say, where they apply, the status of the federal bill, and what they mean for "professional appearance" criteria in job ads, interviews, scorecards and dress codes. For religious hair and head coverings, see religious discrimination in hiring; for the other questions to keep out of an interview, see illegal interview questions.

What does a CROWN Act actually prohibit?

Most CROWN Acts do not create a new protected class. They widen the definition of race in the state's existing anti-discrimination law, so every rule that already applied to race now applies to hair. California's version, added by SB 188 in 2019, reads: "'Race' is inclusive of traits associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles," and "'Protective hairstyles' includes, but is not limited to, such hairstyles as braids, locs, and twists" (Cal. Gov. Code 12926(w), (x)). California's law covers any employer "regularly employing five or more persons" (12926(d)).

Because the change sits in the definition of race, it reaches every step of hiring:

• Hiring and offers. Refusing to hire, or rescinding an offer, because a candidate will not cut or straighten their hair.
• Job ads and application forms. Statements that express a preference based on race, which now includes hairstyle language such as "no braids or locs".
• Dress and grooming codes. Texas says so directly: an employer commits an unlawful employment practice if it "adopts or enforces a dress or grooming policy that discriminates against a hair texture or protective hairstyle commonly or historically associated with race" (Tex. Lab. Code 21.1095(c)).
• Employment agencies. Staffing firms and recruiters are covered by the same state laws, so a client's request for a "clean-cut look" that screens out protective styles cannot be passed on to candidates.

Which states have a CROWN Act that covers hiring?

We read the current statute text on each state's official code or legislature site. The wording differs; the effect in hiring is the same: hair texture and protective styles associated with race are part of "race".

This is not a complete list. It is the states whose statute we read for this page; other states and many cities have their own laws, so check the jurisdiction where the job is performed. Two local examples: the District of Columbia's Human Rights Act protects "personal appearance," defined to include "manner or style of personal grooming, including, but not limited to, hair style and beards" (D.C. Code 2-1401.02(22)), and New York City's Commission on Human Rights publishes legal enforcement guidance on race discrimination on the basis of hair.

Is there a federal CROWN Act?

No. The House passed the CROWN Act of 2022 (H.R. 2116) on March 18, 2022 by 235 to 189; the Senate referred it to the Judiciary Committee and it went no further. The current bills, H.R. 1638 (sponsored by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman) and S. 751 (sponsored by Sen. Cory Booker), were both introduced on February 26, 2025. As of October 2026, congress.gov shows the latest action on each as referral to committee. Until a federal law passes, protection depends on Title VII and on state and local law.

Does Title VII already protect natural hair and protective styles?

Partly. Title VII bars race discrimination by employers with 15 or more employees and by employment agencies (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b), 2000e-2). The EEOC's Compliance Manual section on race and color, still published on the agency's site as of October 2026, says employers "can impose neutral hairstyle rules – e.g., that hair be neat, clean, and well-groomed – as long as the rules respect racial differences in hair textures and are applied evenhandedly," and that Title VII "prohibits employers from preventing African American women from wearing their hair in a natural, unpermed 'afro' style" (EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 15-VII(B)(5)).

Courts have drawn a line between texture and style. In EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, 852 F.3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2016), a company rescinded a job offer to a Black applicant under its "race-neutral grooming policy when she refused to cut off her dreadlocks." The court affirmed dismissal, reasoning that its precedent protects immutable traits and the complaint did not assert that dreadlocks, "though culturally associated with race," are immutable. That ruling binds federal courts in Alabama, Florida and Georgia, and it is exactly the gap the state CROWN Acts close.

Two more federal points. The EEOC manual's exception to no-beard rules for men with pseudofolliculitis barbae depends on whether being clean-shaven is "job-related and consistent with business necessity," a disparate impact test, and the EEOC's National Enforcement Plan of June 4, 2026 prioritizes intentional discrimination; our page on Title VII disparate impact explains what that does and does not change. And hair worn for religious reasons, such as uncut hair, sidelocks or a head covering, is a religious accommodation question under Title VII regardless of race.

What does this mean for "professional appearance" in interviews and scorecards?

The riskiest records in a hair discrimination claim are the ones recruiters write without thinking: "not polished," "hair not client-ready," "needs a more corporate look." In a CROWN Act state, a note that ties an appearance judgment to natural hair or a protective style is evidence of race discrimination in the hiring decision itself. Three practical rules:

• Score behavior, not looks. If "professionalism" is a competency, define it as things a candidate does: arrives prepared, answers the question asked, follows up when promised. Our interview questions for professionalism are built that way.
• Keep appearance out of notes. Hair, skin, clothing style and accent do not belong in a scorecard. See what not to write in interview notes.
• Say the dress code once, to everyone. If the job has a uniform or safety rule, describe it the same way to every candidate at the same stage, and do not raise it only with candidates who wear protective styles.

How do you write a grooming rule that rests on a genuine safety need?

CROWN Acts do not stop employers from protecting people. Nevada says so in the statute: "Notwithstanding the protections in this chapter for hair texture and protective hairstyles, an employer may enforce health and safety requirements set forth in federal or state law" (NRS 613.224). Pennsylvania's 2025 law sets out the most detailed test we found. A health and safety rule, or a rule justified as a bona fide occupational qualification, that affects traits associated with race is allowed if the employer shows all four of these (HB 439, PN 0996):

1. Without the rule, "the health or safety of an employe or other materially connected person may be impaired."
2. The rule "is adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons."
3. The rule "is specifically tailored to the applicable position and activity."
4. The rule "is applied equally to individuals whose positions fall under the applicable position and activity."

That test is a good drafting checklist anywhere. A rule that says "hair longer than shoulder length must be tied back and secured under a cap when operating the lathe" names the hazard, the position and the activity, and every hairstyle, including braids and locs, can comply. A rule that says "no dreadlocks in the warehouse" does none of those things. Write the alternative into the policy (nets, caps, restraints, head coverings), because a rule that a protective style can meet without being cut is far easier to defend. For the narrow situations where a characteristic itself can be a job requirement, see our explainer on the bona fide occupational qualification.

What should recruiters and agencies change now?

• Read job ads and intake notes for hair and appearance language; our guide to discriminatory job ad language covers the other words to remove.
• Check every dress or grooming code that reaches candidates against the four-part test above, starting with roles in the states in the table.
• Brief hiring managers that "professional appearance" is not a competency, and remove it from scorecards and debrief templates.
• Agencies: decline client requests that describe hair or "look," and record that you did.
• Keep interview notes and scorecards for the period your federal and state rules require; how long to keep interview notes has the detail.

Structured interviews help here because every candidate is scored on the same job-related evidence. Interview Signal builds scorecards from what the candidate said, with each score carrying their own quotes from the transcript, so there is no field for appearance; a person still makes the decision.