CROWN Act: The History Behind Hair Equality

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

Pennsylvania recently made a significant step forward in the fight for racial equality. On November 25, 2025, Governor Josh Shapiro officially signed the CROWN Act into law, making the Commonwealth the 28th state to ban hair discrimination statewide (duanemorris.com). This landmark legislation means that bias in workplaces and schools based on hairstyles historically associated with Black culture is now illegal (duanemorris.com). Black students and workers in Pennsylvania now have clearer protection when bosses or schools target natural hair or protective styles such as locs, braids, afros, and twists (duanemorris.com).

This law aims to foster more inclusive environments where Black individuals can express their cultural identity without fear of professional or educational repercussions, affirming their dignity and expanding opportunities across the Commonwealth (duanemorris.com). However, to truly understand the importance of this victory, it is essential to delve into the deep, often painful, history that necessitated such a law in the first place.

The Enduring Legacy of Hair Discrimination

Hair discrimination against Black individuals in the United States is not a new problem; it is deeply woven into the fabric of systemic racism that predates the nation’s founding (duanemorris.com). Systemic racism refers to the ways in which policies and practices embedded in institutions and society as a whole perpetuate racial inequality, often through structures that disadvantage certain racial groups, regardless of individual intent (epi.org). These systems create and reinforce discriminatory outcomes across various sectors like housing, education, employment, and the justice system (epi.org). This form of racism is not about individual acts of prejudice but rather about how entire systems produce racial inequity (epi.org).

The origins of this particular form of discrimination can be traced back to the brutal era of slavery, when enslavers frequently cut the hair of enslaved Africans (duanemorris.com). This act served as a dehumanizing tool, stripping them of their cultural identity and severing a vital connection to their heritage (duanemorris.com). Furthermore, in the 1700s, colonial laws in places like Louisiana, known as “tignon laws,” forced Black women to cover their hair (duanemorris.com). This legislation was designed to prevent them from attracting white men and to overtly signify their perceived inferiority to white women (duanemorris.com). These historical precedents laid the groundwork for centuries of prejudice against Black hair.

Following the abolition of slavery, the mockery of Black features, including hair, continued in popular culture through minstrel shows (duanemorris.com). These performances contributed to a pervasive societal pressure on Black women to straighten their hair using hot combs and chemical relaxers (duanemorris.com). The goal was to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards, which are ideals of beauty rooted in European features and aesthetics, often prioritizing characteristics such as straight hair, light skin, and slender body types (adorningimpact.com). These standards have historically marginalized and devalued non-European features, particularly in the context of Black hair, leading to the perception that natural Black hairstyles are unprofessional or unkempt (adorningimpact.com). This pressure forced many Black women to adopt styles that were not natural to them, causing both physical damage to their hair and psychological harm.

The Fight for Natural Hair in a Legal Landscape

The mid-20th century brought a powerful wave of cultural affirmation. The “Black Is Beautiful” movement of the 1960s and 1970s saw the Afro become a potent symbol of Black pride and resistance against these imposed standards (duanemorris.com). However, this embrace of natural hair frequently led to increased scrutiny and punishment in professional and educational settings (duanemorris.com). Despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited employment discrimination based on race, courts were left to interpret whether hair discrimination fell under this protection (duanemorris.com).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin (shrm.org). This comprehensive law makes it illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, promotions, transfers, layoffs, and compensation (shrm.org). The law applies to most employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing it (shrm.org). Early cases, such as Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance in 1976, began to affirm that Afros were protected under Title VII, marking important, albeit incremental, legal progress (duanemorris.com). Nevertheless, social pressures to conform to Eurocentric hair standards continued to impact Black women’s grooming decisions for decades (duanemorris.com).

The CROWN Act Movement Rises

The contemporary CROWN Act movement (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair) emerged directly from this extensive history of racial discrimination and persistent social activism (duanemorris.com). This initiative gained significant momentum in 2019 when Dove, in partnership with several influential organizations, formed the CROWN Coalition (duanemorris.com). The coalition included the National Urban League, a historic civil rights organization dedicated to economic empowerment, equality, and social justice for African Americans and other underserved communities (naacpldf.org). Color Of Change, another key partner, is the nation’s largest online racial justice organization, which moves decision-makers in corporations and government to create a more human and less hostile world for Black people in America (naacpldf.org). Additionally, the Western Center on Law & Poverty, a public interest law firm, contributed its advocacy for policies addressing poverty and inequality (naacpldf.org).

This coalition was a direct response to a 2019 Dove research study that unveiled the widespread nature of race-based hair discrimination experienced by Black women in the workplace (duanemorris.com). California State Senator Holly J. Mitchell spearheaded the legislative effort, partnering with the CROWN Coalition to introduce the first CROWN Act bill in California (duanemorris.com). It passed unanimously in both legislative chambers and was signed into law on July 3, 2019, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for racial equality and workplace inclusivity (duanemorris.com). Since that time, the movement has expanded nationwide, with states and local governments adopting similar legislation (duanemorris.com). While the federal CROWN Act has been introduced in Congress multiple times, it has not yet been enacted into federal law (duanemorris.com). Despite passing in the House of Representatives multiple times with bipartisan support, the federal CROWN Act has not been enacted into law primarily due to a lack of sufficient votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate (govdocs.com). The legislative process in the Senate often requires bipartisan consensus and a supermajority for bills to advance, which the CROWN Act has yet to achieve (govdocs.com).

Pennsylvania’s Landmark Victory

On November 25, 2025, Pennsylvania officially joined 27 other states in enacting its own CROWN Act (duanemorris.com). Governor Josh Shapiro signed House Bill 439 at the Island Design Natural Hair Studio in Philadelphia, a meaningful location for a bill focused on natural hair (duanemorris.com). The Governor emphasized that “real freedom means being respected for who you are — no matter what you look like, where you come from, who you love, or who you pray to” (duanemorris.com). This legislation amends the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) to explicitly include “traits associated with race, such as hair texture and protective hairstyles” within the definition of “race” (duanemorris.com). The PHRA is Pennsylvania’s comprehensive state law that prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and education based on various protected characteristics, including race, color, religious creed, ancestry, age, sex, national origin, and disability (pa.gov). Its general purpose is to safeguard the right of all individuals to obtain employment, housing, and other opportunities without discrimination (pa.gov).

Therefore, discrimination based on styles like locs, braids, afros, twists, coils, Bantu knots, and extensions is now prohibited in both employment and educational settings across the state (duanemorris.com). The law also extends protections to hairstyles associated with religious creed (duanemorris.com). The rationale for extending protections to “hairstyles associated with religious creed” within the Pennsylvania CROWN Act is to ensure comprehensive protection against appearance-based discrimination (consumernotice.org). This recognizes that some religious practices involve specific hairstyles and broadens the scope of the law to prevent discrimination not only on the basis of race-related hairstyles but also those tied to religious beliefs (consumernotice.org). The impact is to reinforce religious freedom and ensure individuals are not penalized in employment or educational settings for practicing their faith through their hair (consumernotice.org).

The journey to passage saw the bill sail through the state House in March 2025 and receive nearly unanimous bipartisan support in the state Senate on November 19, 2025 (duanemorris.com). The CROWN Act will officially go into effect on January 24, 2026 (duanemorris.com). The Pennsylvania CROWN Act’s legislative journey involved multiple attempts over several years before its recent passage (triblive.com). House Bill 1471, the version that became law, passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives unanimously (triblive.com). In the Senate, the bill also received significant bipartisan support, passing with a vote of 47-3 (triblive.com). While earlier versions may have faced hurdles, the latest iteration saw little notable public opposition, highlighting a broad consensus for its protections (triblive.com).

The Stinging Reality: Statistics of Discrimination

Statistical data tragically underscores the pervasive and damaging impact of hair discrimination, particularly on Black women and children (duanemorris.com). Workplace discrimination remains a harsh reality. A 2019 Dove study revealed that Black women are 30% more likely to be informed of a formal workplace appearance policy, 83% more likely to be judged harshly on their appearance, and 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from work due to their hair (duanemorris.com). It is staggering that 80% of Black women reported feeling compelled to alter their hairstyles to align with more conservative workplace standards (duanemorris.com).

The 2023 CROWN Workplace Research Study found that Black women’s hair is 2.5 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional (duanemorris.com). This perception significantly affects career opportunities; approximately two-thirds (66%) of Black women change their hair for a job interview, with 41% specifically changing from curly to straight styles (duanemorris.com). Furthermore, Black women are 54% more likely to believe they need to wear their hair straight to be successful in a job interview (duanemorris.com). One in four Black women believes they have been denied a job interview due to their hair (duanemorris.com). Black women with coily or textured hair are twice as likely to experience microaggressions in the workplace compared to those with straighter hair (duanemorris.com). Microaggressions are subtle, often unintentional, everyday verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to individuals based on their marginalized group membership (traliant.com). These brief and commonplace daily exchanges can be based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or other identities and often leave the recipient feeling insulted or devalued (traliant.com). Over 20% of Black women aged 25-34 have been sent home from work because of their hair (duanemorris.com). A 2020 study noted that natural Afro hairstyles are often deemed unacceptable in corporate environments, linking these attitudes to perceptions of professionalism and competence (duanemorris.com).

Perception of Unprofessionalism

This chart illustrates that Black women’s hair is 2.5 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional than other hair types, according to the 2023 CROWN Workplace Research Study (duanemorris.com).

Educational discrimination also casts a long shadow over young Black lives. The 2021 Dove CROWN Research Study for Girls highlighted that 53% of Black mothers reported their daughters experiencing racial discrimination based on hairstyles as early as five years old (duanemorris.com). Furthermore, 66% of Black children in predominantly white schools have faced race-based hair discrimination, with 86% experiencing it by the age of 12 (duanemorris.com). Despite 90% of Black children believing their hair is beautiful, a heartbreaking 81% of Black children in majority-white schools sometimes wish their hair was straight (duanemorris.com). Such discrimination has led to Black students being removed from classrooms or denied educational opportunities (duanemorris.com).

Impact of Hair Discrimination on Black Girls

This visualization demonstrates that 53% of Black mothers reported their daughters experiencing racial discrimination based on hairstyles as early as five years old, according to the 2021 Dove CROWN Research Study for Girls (duanemorris.com).

In Pennsylvania alone, the impact is tangible. In 2022, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) received 916 complaints related to racial discrimination involving hair texture and protective hairstyles (duanemorris.com). While the exact breakdown of specific scenarios for all 916 complaints is not readily available in public summaries, these complaints generally involve various forms of discrimination across employment, housing, public accommodations, and education (triblive.com). Upon receiving a complaint, the PHRC conducts an investigation to determine if unlawful discrimination occurred (triblive.com). Potential outcomes of PHRC complaints include negotiated settlements, conciliation agreements, public hearings if an agreement is not reached, and orders for corrective action (triblive.com).

Black Children Experiencing Hair Discrimination in Predominantly White Schools

This card highlights that 66% of Black children in predominantly white schools have experienced race-based hair discrimination, with 86% experiencing it by the age of 12 (duanemorris.com).

Enforcing Justice and Future Prospects

The effective implementation and impact of the CROWN Act in Pennsylvania may still face challenges, despite being a significant victory (fisherphillips.com). One anticipated challenge is ensuring broad awareness of the new law among employers, educators, and the general public to prevent unintentional violations (fisherphillips.com). Additionally, interpretation and consistent application of the law, particularly regarding what constitutes discriminatory practices related to hair, may present initial challenges (fisherphillips.com). Resource allocation for the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) to investigate and address a potential increase in complaints might also be a factor (fisherphillips.com). Overcoming implicit biases and deeply ingrained societal perceptions about professional appearance related to hair will require sustained effort beyond the legal framework itself (fisherphillips.com).

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) is the state agency responsible for enforcing the CROWN Act as an amendment to the PHRA (ogletree.com). Individuals who believe they have experienced hair discrimination can file a complaint with the PHRC (ogletree.com). If discrimination is found, the PHRC has the authority to issue cease and desist orders, requiring employers or schools to reinstate individuals, provide back pay, or implement policy changes (ogletree.com). Penalties can include monetary damages, attorney’s fees, and other remedies deemed appropriate to make the victim whole and prevent future discrimination (ogletree.com). Generally, laws like the CROWN Act are not retroactive unless specifically stated within the legislation (flblaw.com). Since the Pennsylvania CROWN Act went into effect on a specific date, it typically applies to discriminatory acts that occur on or after that effective date (flblaw.com). Therefore, individuals who experienced hair discrimination in Pennsylvania before the law went into effect would likely not have direct recourse under the new CROWN Act itself, though other existing anti-discrimination laws might have applied depending on the specifics of the incident (flblaw.com). The enactment of the CROWN Act in Pennsylvania represents a significant step forward in dismantling a long-standing form of racial discrimination. By legally protecting natural and protective hairstyles, the law aims to foster more inclusive environments where Black individuals can express their cultural identity without fear of professional or educational repercussions, affirming their dignity and expanding opportunities across the Commonwealth (duanemorris.com).

About the Author

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.