This July marks a significant anniversary for a landmark piece of legislation that expanded protections for employees – the CROWN Act, a law that revolves around prohibiting hair discrimination. As an employment and Title IX attorney, mediator, and commentator, I am uniquely qualified to provide keen insights on discrimination cases in the workplace and have observed how this landmark legislation has reshaped workplace hair and grooming standards and protections for employees nationwide. The recent headlines surrounding the In-N-Out hair discrimination lawsuit serve as a timely and compelling real-world example of how these protections are being tested and enforced.
This unfolding case offers critical insights for employees and employers alike into the ongoing dialogue surrounding identity, professional standards, and legal recourse in the modern workplace. Here is what to know about this law and how it applies to this case.
Unpacking the $3M In-N-Out Hair Discrimination Lawsuit: What is the CROWN Act?
In-N-Out, the iconic West Coast burger chain, has found itself in challenging times after a former employee, Elijah Obeng, filed a hair discrimination lawsuit alleging discriminatory treatment and wrongful termination based on his natural hair, a clear violation of the CROWN Act.
Obeng’s claim that his termination was due to his “ancestry, color and race, including his natural hairstyle and hair texture,” directly invokes the protections of this hair discrimination law. He also claims the company’s grooming policy, which mandated hair be tucked under hats and men be clean-shaven, led to his being targeted.
After attempting to comply by braiding his hair, he was allegedly instructed to cut his sideburns, a request he found “humiliating and discriminatory” because he considers his sideburns intrinsic to his natural hairstyle, protected by the CROWN Act.
This refusal, he claims, led to increased scrutiny, denial of promotional opportunities, and ultimately, his termination, which In-N-Out attributes to prior write-ups. He is seeking $3 million dollars in damages and $200,000 in past and future lost wages.
This case is one of the most recent hair discrimination examples that has captured headlines. Here is what you need to know about it and how the CROWN Act applies to it.
What is Hair Discrimination in the Workplace?
Hair discrimination in the workplace refers to the unfair treatment or negative actions an employer takes against an employee or job applicant based on their hair texture or protective hairstyle.
Is Hair Discrimination Illegal?
Yes, hair discrimination is illegal in many jurisdictions across the United States.
While federal law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employment discrimination based on race, courts have historically varied in their interpretation of whether this explicitly covers discrimination based on natural hairstyles.
This ambiguity of this law led to the movement for legislation. Now, with the CROWN Act and similar laws in place, hair discrimination is explicitly prohibited in numerous states and localities. Still, this begs the question: What’s the CROWN Act? Let’s get into that next.
What is the CROWN Act?
The CROWN Act, an acronym for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,” is a groundbreaking law designed to prohibit discrimination based on an individual’s hair texture or protective hairstyles.
In California, the CROWN Act was signed into law on July 3, 2019, making it one of the first states to explicitly protect against hair discrimination. It legally expands the definition of race to include traits historically associated with race, particularly hairstyles.
This means that practices or policies that disproportionately impact individuals based on their natural hair or protective styles, such as braids, locs, twists, coils, or Afros, can be deemed discriminatory.
The natural hair discrimination law seeks to ensure that employment and educational opportunities are not denied due to biases against these hairstyles.
What Hairstyles Are Protected by the CROWN Act?
The language of each law will vary from state to state, but these laws generally prohibit discrimination based on hairstyles that are commonly associated with a specific culture or race, particularly those referred to as “protective hairstyles.”
These types of hairstyles are called this because they are used to maintain hair health by tucking strands to prevent additional stress and breakage. They also protect hair from the overuse of heat styling tools (e.g., flat irons).
Does the CROWN Act Include Head Wraps?
Yes, the CROWN Act is typically interpreted to include head wraps, as they are often worn as protective styles or for cultural and religious reasons.
Is the CROWN Act a Federal Law?
While the CROWN Act has gained significant momentum nationwide, it is not yet a federal law.
Why Was the CROWN Act Passed?
The CROWN Act was passed to prohibit race-based hair discrimination in the workplace and in schools that leads to the denial of opportunities, disciplinary actions, and emotional distress for individuals simply for wearing their natural hair.
Is the CROWN Act Passed in All 50 States?
No, the CROWN Act has not been passed in all 50 states.
How Many States Have Passed the Crown Act?
There are currently 27 states with the CROWN Act law or a similar hair discrimination bill prohibiting hair discrimination in employment and/or educational settings.
What States Have Anti-Hair Discrimination Laws?
According to the CROWN Act website, The 27 CROWN Act states, along with Washington, D.C., are:
- Alaska
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Illinois
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- Oregon
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Kentucky (through executive order)
- Arizona (through executive order)
It’s important to note that specific provisions can vary slightly from state to state. Additionally, many cities and counties have also passed local ordinances prohibiting hair discrimination, even in states where a statewide law might not yet exist.
This patchwork of laws underscores the need for a comprehensive federal standard to ensure consistent protection for all individuals across the nation and how complicated these cases can get.
Interpreting the Former In-n-Out Employee’s Hair Discrimination Lawsuit in California Through the Legal Lens of the Crown Act
Elijah Obeng’s lawsuit against In-N-Out highlights the very issues the CROWN Act in California was designed to combat, making it the perfect case study of this law in honor of its anniversary.
Obeng’s lawsuit asserts that In-N-Out’s actions violated California’s CROWN Act, alleging that In-N-Out’s policy, despite seeming neutral on the surface, was applied in a way that disproportionately affected Obeng’s natural hair and cultural identity, specifically his sideburns, which he regarded as part of his natural hairstyle.
This distinction is crucial under the CROWN Act, as it moves beyond alleged overt racial discrimination to address policies that, while not explicitly racist, have a discriminatory impact. This is an important nuance to keep in mind when looking at these cases.
Ultimately, the case brings to light the complexities employers face in balancing appearance standards with anti-discrimination laws. While companies are generally permitted to have grooming policies for safety, hygiene, or brand image, these policies cannot be a pretext for racial discrimination or perpetuate historical biases.
The central question in Obeng’s lawsuit will likely revolve around whether In-N-Out’s enforcement of its grooming policy, particularly regarding Obeng’s sideburns and subsequent treatment, constituted discrimination based on his protected hair texture and style under the CROWN Act.
The outcome of this lawsuit will provide further judicial interpretation of the CROWN Act’s scope and its application in corporate settings, so we will surely keep an eye on it. For a broader view of the litigation we have seen since this bill was passed, here are some other hair discrimination cases:
- 2023: Darryl George, a Texas teen, sued Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the state’s attorney general for allegedly failing to enforce the state’s CROWN Act after he was suspended for wearing his hair in braids or a ponytail, saying they violate his high school’s dress code.
- 2021: Jeffrey Thornton sued Encore Global, an events management company, for discriminating against him in an interview for an audio-visual job at the Hilton San Diego Bayfront when the company asked him to cut his dreadlocks.
Do You Need an Expert to Discuss The Crown Act and Hair Discrimination? Book Me for a Segment Today.
The In-N-Out hair discrimination lawsuit and other recent cases underscore the continued relevance and evolving interpretation of the CROWN Act. As workplace policies and societal norms continue to adapt, understanding the nuances of anti-discrimination laws is more critical than ever.
Whether you need a seasoned, objective employment law expert to provide insights on hair discrimination, the CROWN Act, or broader workplace legal issues, I am available to offer informed commentary. Book me today for a segment to ensure your audience receives accurate, balanced, and insightful analysis on these pivotal topics.
To hear more from me on employment law and other issues, listen and subscribe to my podcast on Simplecast or by clicking below!
Also, learn more about my book – The Workplace Transformed: 7 Crucial Lessons from the Global Pandemic – here – https://angelareddock-wright.com/book/.
To follow me and the Legal Lens show, please do so at @iamangelareddockwright or click here.
To learn more about my mediation practice or my work as an employment and Title IX mediator, reach out to me on LinkedIn @Angela J. Reddock-Wright, Esq., AWI-CH, or click here.
For media inquiries, please reach out to josh@kwsmdigital.com.
This communication is not legal advice. It is educational only. For legal advice, consult with an experienced employment law attorney in your state or city.