United States: The CROWN Act Movement

United States: The CROWN Act

The Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, known as the CROWN Act, represents the most advanced legislative response to hair discrimination anywhere in the world. Since California became the first state to enact the CROWN Act in July 2019, twenty-four states have followed, establishing explicit legal protections against discrimination based on natural hair texture and protective hairstyles including locs, braids, twists, Bantu knots, and cornrows.

The CROWN Act movement provides a case study in how rigorous data, strategic coalition-building, and sustained advocacy can translate a documented social problem into enforceable legal protections.

Origins: Data as a Catalyst

The CROWN Act did not emerge from abstract policy debates. It was catalysed by quantitative evidence.

In 2019, the Dove CROWN Coalition was co-founded by Dove, the National Urban League, Color of Change, and the Western Center on Law & Poverty. The coalition’s founding research, conducted in partnership with LinkedIn, produced a statistic that would appear in virtually every subsequent legislative hearing: Black women’s hair is 2.5 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional in the workplace (Dove/LinkedIn, 2023).

This single data point, alongside a broader body of research documenting the prevalence and impact of hair discrimination, provided the empirical foundation that legislators needed. It transformed what might have been dismissed as anecdotal or subjective into a measurable, systematic problem. For a detailed examination of the research underpinning the movement, see CROWN’s analysis of the data behind the CROWN Act.

The Coalition Model

The Dove CROWN Coalition brought together actors from different sectors, each contributing distinct capabilities:

Corporate backing. Dove, a Unilever brand, brought brand visibility, marketing infrastructure, and research funding. The corporate involvement lent institutional credibility and demonstrated that addressing hair discrimination was consistent with commercial interests in the beauty sector.

Civil rights organisations. The National Urban League and Color of Change brought advocacy expertise, community networks, and political relationships developed over decades of civil rights work.

Legal expertise. The Western Center on Law & Poverty provided legal analysis, bill drafting support, and litigation strategy.

This multi-sector model proved effective because it combined resources that no single organisation possessed. The lessons from this coalition approach are directly relevant to emerging European efforts.

State-by-State Strategy

The CROWN Act movement adopted a state-level strategy rather than pursuing federal legislation exclusively. This approach offered several advantages:

Lower legislative threshold. State legislatures are generally more accessible than Congress, with shorter legislative cycles and more direct constituent relationships.

Demonstration effect. Each state adoption created precedent and political momentum. When California enacted SB 188, it established that hair discrimination legislation was legally viable. When New York and New Jersey followed within months, the concept gained bipartisan credibility.

Adaptation to local context. State-level adoption allowed the legislation to be tailored to existing anti-discrimination frameworks. California amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act. New York amended its Human Rights Law. Each state integrated hair protections into its existing legal architecture.

Building toward federal action. The cumulative effect of state adoptions created pressure for federal action while demonstrating that the concept was politically viable across diverse jurisdictions.

The CROWN Act timeline documents the progression from California’s adoption in 2019 through the twenty-four states that have enacted protections as of 2024.

What the CROWN Act Protects

While specific provisions vary by state, the core CROWN Act framework establishes that:

Natural hair texture is a protected characteristic. Employers, schools, and other covered entities may not discriminate against individuals based on the natural texture of their hair.

Protective hairstyles are protected. Hairstyles including but not limited to locs, braids, twists, Bantu knots, cornrows, and Afros are explicitly protected.

Employment and education are covered. Most state CROWN Acts apply to both workplace and educational settings. Employers may not make hiring, promotion, or termination decisions based on hair. Schools may not enforce grooming policies that discriminate based on natural hair.

Existing frameworks are amended. Rather than creating standalone statutes, most CROWN Acts amend existing anti-discrimination law, integrating hair protections into established enforcement mechanisms.

Federal Legislation

The federal CROWN Act (H.R. 2116) passed the United States House of Representatives in March 2022 with a vote of 235-189. However, the bill did not advance in the Senate during that congressional session and would need to be reintroduced. The federal bill would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include hair texture and protective hairstyles as protected characteristics, extending coverage nationwide.

The contrast between state-level progress and federal stagnation illustrates a broader pattern in US civil rights legislation: significant social change often begins at the state level before achieving federal codification.

Key Research Driving the Movement

The CROWN Act’s legislative success was built on a foundation of quantitative evidence. Key studies include:

Dove/LinkedIn CROWN Workplace Research Study (2023). Found that Black women’s hair is 2.5 times more likely to be perceived as unprofessional. Black women are 54% more likely to feel they must wear their hair straight to a job interview.

Dove CROWN Research Study for Girls (2021). Found that 86% of Black teens who experience hair discrimination report the experience by age 12. Black students are 2 times more likely to face hair-related disciplinary action.

Yale University, The Impact of Hair Discrimination (2024). Documented the correlation between hair discrimination and reduced workplace confidence, career aspiration changes, and mental health outcomes.

UConn Hair Satisfaction Study (2025). Found that 54% of Black girls aged 12 report hair-related teasing, establishing the early onset of discrimination experiences.

For a complete analysis of the research landscape, see Data Behind the CROWN Act.

Impact and Enforcement

The evidence on CROWN Act enforcement is still developing. Early indicators suggest that:

Awareness increases after enactment. States with CROWN Acts report increased filings of hair-related discrimination complaints, suggesting that explicit legislation makes individuals aware of their rights and more willing to report violations.

Grooming policies are revised. Employers in CROWN Act states have proactively revised grooming and dress code policies to ensure compliance, producing preventive effects beyond formal enforcement.

Case law is emerging. Courts in CROWN Act states are beginning to develop precedent on the scope and application of hair discrimination protections, though the body of case law remains limited given the legislation’s recency.

Measurement challenges persist. Quantifying the impact of CROWN Act legislation requires baseline data on discrimination prevalence before enactment and follow-up data after. In most states, such baseline data does not exist. This measurement gap is precisely what CROWN’s CDI methodology is designed to address for European jurisdictions.

Implications for European Advocacy

The US CROWN Act experience carries several implications for the European context:

Data precedes legislation. In every state where the CROWN Act passed, quantitative evidence established the problem before political action addressed it. Europe’s legislative gap is, in significant part, a data gap. CROWN’s research programme is designed to fill this gap.

Coalition models work. The combination of corporate, civil society, and legal expertise proved more effective than any single sector working alone. European efforts, including France’s Serva bill, benefit from similar multi-sector approaches.

Specificity matters. General anti-discrimination provisions have proven insufficient. Explicit enumeration of hair texture and protective hairstyles provides clearer legal standards, easier enforcement, and stronger deterrent effects.

State-by-state applies to nation-by-nation. The CROWN Act’s state-level strategy has a European analogue: building legislative momentum nation by nation before seeking EU-wide protections. France’s Serva bill may play the same catalytic role that California’s SB 188 played in the United States.

For a detailed case study of how European legislators can apply CROWN Act lessons, see Lessons from the CROWN Act for Europe.

Individual State Pages

CROWN maintains detailed analysis of CROWN Act legislation in each of the twenty-four states that have enacted protections. Each page covers the specific bill, provisions, adoption date, and any notable cases or state-specific variations.

CROWN provides technical analysis and quantitative evidence for legislative deliberation. For questions about our US legislative monitoring, contact contact@crown.ngo.

United States: The CROWN Act Movement