“To You It’s Unprofessional, To Me It’s Magnificent”: The Crown Act Is Fighting Racist Hair Discrimination
White beauty standards have long plagued Black and brown communities.
The personal is political and one enduring example is hair. Often overlooked or underestimated as a place of power dynamics, Black and brown hair has long served as a target of racial oppression.
The afro has historically been synonymous with Black pride and power, but even today students are punished for wearing braids, military personnel have been forbidden to wear Black hairstyles (they only lifted their ‘hair locks’ ban in 2017), and “professionalism” is dictated by white beauty standards that often condemn natural Black and brown hair.
In Splitting Hairs: The Eleventh Circuit’s Take on Workplace Bans Against Black Women’s Natural Hair, author D. Wendy Greene writes at length about EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS), a seminal case which sharply illustrates the long-standing and pernicious roots of this racial justice issue.
For nearly half a century, the federal judiciary has played a pivotal role in upholding barriers to Black women’s employment opportunities predicated in no small part on their hair.
In 2010, Chastity Jones was granted an interview with CMS, a customer service company supporting insurance claims processing in Alabama; she got the job. Following the offer, she met with the human resources officer, Jeannie Wilson, to schedule some lab tests. As Jones was leaving the meeting, Wilson told her she could no longer hire her if she continued to wear “dreadlocks,” explaining, “they tend to get messy, although I’m not saying yours are, but you know what I am talking about.”
Jones refused this condition of employment and brought a case against CMS with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, citing Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. CMS argued they were simply following their grooming policy which stated: “…[H]airstyles should reflect a business/professional image. No excessive hairstyles or unusual colors are acceptable,” and had nothing to do with Jones’ race.
While EEOC surfaced the burdens and consequences “Black women uniquely encounter when conforming to grooming policies that proscribe natural hairstyles” — conforming to a straightened hairstyles “can be at odds with the employee’s sense of identity” and create “continual harm to that employee’s dignity” — the district court dismissed the case.
They argued Title VII only protects discrimination based on “immutable characteristics,” and in short? Locs aren’t part and parcel of being Black.
Kimberly Fayette, as a Justice Catalyst-Public Rights Project Fellow, has been working with the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR) to combat this long history of sanctioned racist practices in the workplace.
“I want people to know when it comes to racial justice work or hair discrimination, local governments are a powerful, important, and underutilized agent of change,” says Fayette.
She was vital in work at the @nycchr to mobilize and galvanize local action.
NYC became the second city in the nation to codify a ban on discrimination based on hair this summer when its February 2019 legal enforcement guidance on hair was promulgated into rules under the New York City Human Rights Law.
“There is a widespread and fundamentally racist belief that Black hairstyles are not suited for formal settings, and may be unhygienic, messy, disruptive, or unkempt. Indeed, white slave traders initially described African hair and locks as “dreadful,” which led to the commonly-used term “dreadlocks.”
— Legal Enforcement Guidance on Race Discrimination on the Basis of Hair,
NYC Commission on Human Rights
Along with the release of the guidance, the Commission also announced investigated 7 discrimination cases on the basis of natural hairstyles.
In recent years, long-standing advocacy around hair discrimination has blossomed into a full-blown, national movement — 13 states have passed The Crown Act — and there is a federal proposal to make it the law of the land.
Fayette says she encourages people to find ways to get personally involved with local government.
“As hair discrimination laws gain momentum around the country, I’d love to see working people try and enforce their rights through administrative complaints or lawsuits against discriminatory practices.”
Fayette took Public Rights Project behind the scenes to understand the powerful work she’s doing around anti-Blackness and the advocacy that went into creating new guidelines to protect New Yorkers who have been harassed, threatened, punished, demoted or fired because of the texture or style of their hair.
Press play below to hear from Kimberly on why she loves her crown and how your involvement in local government can help end hair discrimination in the workplace.
Looking for ways to get involved?
Sign the petition to help end hair discrimination.
Send a letter to your U.S. Senator to help #PassTheCROWN.
LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR FELLOWSHIPS AND THE AMAZING SOCIAL JUSTICE WORK OUR FELLOWS ARE UP TO.
