CROWN Act Claims: Hair and Grooming Policies for California Employers

Hair texture and protective hairstyles are part of race under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Since the CROWN Act took effect in 2020, Government Code section 12926 has defined race to include them, so a grooming rule that bars braids, locs, or twists, or a manager’s comment about an employee’s natural hair, can support a race discrimination claim. Employers can still enforce safety and hygiene rules that apply to everyone, if they can show the rule is needed.

What does the CROWN Act change?

It writes hair into the definition of race. The statute now provides that “Race” “is inclusive of traits associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles.” It adds that “Protective hairstyles” “includes, but is not limited to, such hairstyles as braids, locs, and twists.”

Because the definition applies throughout the FEHA, hair falls within the basic discrimination ban. Section 12940, subdivision (a) makes it unlawful “because of the race” of any person “to refuse to hire or employ the person,” “to bar or to discharge the person from employment,” or “to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” A refusal to hire an applicant because of locs, or a demand that an employee straighten or cut natural hair to keep a job, is treated as race discrimination.

Why did the Legislature act?

To reach grooming policies that look neutral. In SB 188, the 2019 bill that created the CROWN Act, the Legislature found that “Workplace dress code and grooming policies that prohibit natural hair, including afros, braids, twists, and locks, have a disparate impact on Black individuals.” It also declared that “hair discrimination targeting hairstyles associated with race is racial discrimination.”

Those findings matter in litigation. A plaintiff challenging a professional-appearance rule doesn’t have to prove the employer meant to discriminate. The claim can rest on the rule’s effect, and the Legislature has already said what that effect is for rules against natural hair.

Did the definition change after 2019?

Yes, slightly. The original text covered traits “historically associated with race.” AB 1815, enacted as Chapter 619, Statutes of 2024, removed the word “historically.” The Legislative Counsel’s digest says the bill “would declare that its provisions are declaratory of existing law,” so the change clarifies what the law already covered and doesn’t create a new rule.

In practice, the amendment takes away an argument some employers might have tried. A company can’t defend a hair policy by claiming a style isn’t historically associated with a particular race. If a hair texture or protective style is associated with race, it’s covered.

Which grooming rules create risk?

Rules that single out particular styles or that use subjective standards. A handbook that lists braids, locs, twists, or afros as unacceptable, or that requires hair to look neat or professional without saying what that means, invites a claim. So does a rule that’s neutral on paper but enforced mainly against Black employees.

Manager comments are often the real problem. A supervisor who tells an employee that natural hair looks unkempt, or suggests a different style before a client meeting, creates evidence of discriminatory motive. Repeated comments can also support a harassment claim. Most hair claims begin with something said in a performance conversation, not with the written policy.

Customer preference isn’t a defense. A business that restricts hairstyles because clients or customers might object is applying the same kind of appearance standard the Legislature identified as discriminatory.

Does the CROWN Act apply to hiring decisions?

Yes, and hiring is where the evidence is often hardest to explain. The statute bars refusing “to hire or employ the person” because of race, and race includes hair. An interviewer’s note that a candidate wasn’t polished enough, written after an interview with an applicant wearing locs, can become the center of a failure-to-hire claim.

The fix is structure. Interview scorecards that grade job-related skills, with no space for general impressions of appearance, give the company a clean record. Interviewers should be told not to comment on hair at all, in writing or out loud. A hiring decision that rests on documented qualifications is much easier to defend than one that rests on a sense of fit, which a jury may read as a cover for appearance bias.

What grooming rules can an employer still enforce?

Safety and hygiene rules applied to everyone, when the business can justify them. The FEHA regulations set out the defense for a neutral practice with a discriminatory effect. Under California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11010, the employer “must prove that there exists an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the practice is necessary to the safe and efficient operation of the business and the challenged practice effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to serve.”

The regulation adds a limit. The practice “may still be impermissible where it is shown that there exists an alternative practice that would accomplish the business purpose equally well with a lesser discriminatory impact.” A food plant can require hair restraints for everyone. It can’t ban braids when a hairnet or cap would meet the same hygiene goal. A manufacturer can require long hair to be secured near moving equipment, but should accept any style that keeps hair contained.

Hair that relates to religious practice raises a separate accommodation question. The FEHA definitions treat “religious grooming practice” as part of religious creed, and that analysis follows its own rules.

How do hair and grooming claims compare?

What should an employer do once a hair discrimination claim arrives?

Hair claims are decided by the policy text, how it was enforced, and what managers said. Lock down all three.

1. Preserve every version of the dress code and grooming policy, discipline and coaching records, managers’ emails and texts about the employee’s appearance, and records showing how the policy was applied to other employees.
2. Calendar the deadline on the CRD complaint, demand letter, or lawsuit, and check for an arbitration agreement and an employment practices liability (EPLI) policy with notice requirements.
3. Identify every manager who commented on the employee’s hair or enforced the policy, and pause any further action against the employee until counsel has reviewed it.
4. Pull the safety or hygiene rationale for any hair rule, along with any data on how often it was enforced and against whom.
5. Talk to a lawyer before responding, revising the policy, or offering anything to resolve the claim.

Companies looking for employment defense lawyers for California businesses can review the firm’s practice page.

Hair policy questions from California employers

Can we require all employees to keep hair a certain length?

Only with a real business reason. A length rule falls harder on employees whose protective styles or natural hair require length, so it’s open to a disparate impact challenge. Under 2 CCR section 11010, the employer would have to show the rule is necessary to safe and efficient operation and that no less discriminatory alternative works. Securing long hair usually meets the goal.

Does the CROWN Act cover hair color or dyed hair?

The statute’s examples are hair texture and protective hairstyles. Dyed hair isn’t listed, and a neutral rule on unnatural hair colors is a different question. Apply any color rule consistently and in writing, and avoid enforcing it only against employees of one race, which would bring the policy back into discrimination territory.

Are hair rules for uniformed security or customer-facing staff allowed?

Appearance standards for uniformed roles are allowed if they don’t restrict protected hairstyles. A requirement that hair not obstruct a uniform cap or a safety helmet is defensible. A requirement that customer-facing staff avoid braids or locs isn’t, because the statute treats those styles as part of race.

Should we revise our handbook now?

Yes, if it names specific styles or relies on undefined terms such as a professional look. Replace them with objective, safety-based rules that apply to everyone. Train managers to stop commenting on employees’ natural hair. If a claim is already pending, make the revision with counsel so it isn’t framed as an admission.

If a hair discrimination claim reaches your company

If your company has received a CRD complaint, demand letter, or lawsuit over a grooming policy or a manager’s comments about an employee’s hair, the policy’s wording and the way it was enforced usually decide how much of the claim is real. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving hair and grooming policies. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The statutes are Government Code section 12926 and Government Code section 12940. The bills are SB 188 (2019) and AB 1815 (2024). The regulation is California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11010.

This post is general information about California employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.