New York Second State to Prohibit Discrimination Based on Hairstyle

29 July 2019 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Felicia S. O'Connor

New York recently became the second state, after California, to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyle.  On July 12, 2019, Gov.  Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that amends the state’s civil rights law to make it clear that its ban on racial discrimination includes “traits historically associated with race,” including hair texture and protective hairstyles.  The law goes on to define protective hairstyles to include “braids, locks and twists.”

California enacted a very similar law just nine days earlier, on July 3, 2019.  The California law, called the “Crown Act,” amends the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act to include in the definition of race “traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles.”  Like the New York law, it defines “protective hairstyles” to include “such hairstyles as braids, locks, and twists.”  The idea behind such laws is that restrictive dress and grooming codes that prohibit such hairstyles have a disparate impact on African American employees and applicants. 

According to Section 1 of the California law,

Despite the great strides American society and laws have made to reverse the racist ideology that Black traits are inferior, hair remains a rampant source of racial discrimination with serious economic and health consequences, especially for Black individuals. . . . In a society in which hair has historically been one of many determining factors of a person’s race, and whether they were a second class citizen, hair today remains a proxy for race. Therefore, hair discrimination targeting hairstyles associated with race is racial discrimination.

The concern that restrictions regarding hair could be used as a proxy for race have existed for some time.  However, the issue gained national attention in late 2018 when a New Jersey high school student was ordered to cut his hair, which he wore in dreadlocks, during a wrestling match, because a referee alleged his hairstyle was not in compliance with league regulations.  In response, the Civil Rights Division of the New Jersey Attorney General’s office opened an investigation regarding the incident and potential bias in high school sports.

Employers with California and/or New York employees should review their handbooks and other policies to ensure they do not have any grooming policies that conflict with the new state laws.  In addition, it would be wise to take this opportunity to review employee handbooks generally for employees in all states to ensure that no grooming or dress code policies include restrictions that have a disparate impact on certain races or genders, or prohibit things that could be used as a proxy for race or another protected category.  Such policies have come under scrutiny in the past for prohibitions on certain types of dress or grooming requirements that have a disparate impact on one gender (such as requirements for women to wear makeup). 

The new California and New York laws should serve as a reminder to all employers that they must be careful to ensure that such policies do not also have a disparate impact on other protected categories, such as race, even in locations without specific hairstyle discrimination laws.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services