On the federal level, the "Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair" Act ("CROWN Act") has been introduced to the United States Congress twice: first in the 116th Congress (2019-2020), The bill clarified that such discrimination violates existing Federal law under the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 1977 of the
Revised Statutes, and the Fair Housing Act. It was then referred to two House Committees: (i)
House Judiciary and (ii)
House Education and Labor. By September 17, 2020, the bill had garnered 63 co-sponsors, all of whom were affiliated with the Democratic Party. In the Committee Report, the House Judiciary's Democratic majority put forth several reasons in favor of the CROWN Act of 2020, with one of the key reasons being the inconsistent rulings among federal courts on cases involving hair discrimination in the workplace. In
Jenkins, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded Title VII should be "construed and applied broadly," and thus discrimination based on a natural hairstyle may be a basis for unlawful racial discrimination under the statute. It also cited the 2016 case
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, where the
Eleventh Circuit concluded that mutable hairstyles, such as dreadlocks, are not extended protection under Title VII. The Committee majority further pointed out that the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has since issued guidance on Title VII interpretation to prohibit discrimination based on hair texture and certain hairstyles. Moreover, it explained that seven states had already passed similar legislation to the CROWN Act of 2020 but noted that "such protections are incomplete and leave many minorities, especially Black Americans, vulnerable to discrimination." He argued that the bill was a tactic for political messaging, and that it was not necessary since existing federal law already prohibits racial discrimination. Senator
Cory Booker (D-NJ) had introduced an identical bill in the Senate on January 8, 2020. The proposed Act had 20 co-sponsors (19 Democrat; 1 Independent). It was read twice, referred to the
Senate Judiciary Committee, but never voted on. The bill was referred to three House Committees: (i)
House Judiciary; (ii)
House Education and Labor; and (iii)
House Budget. The House Judiciary Committee subsequently referred the bill to the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. The main addition was that the House Judiciary's Majority addressed the Minority's previous comment about proper protocol not being followed. The Majority noted the legislative hearing the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties had held in relation to the bill where multiple witnesses testified, thereby it satisfied requirements. He argued that "a race-neutral policy is not
disparate treatment simply because it is applied to a member of a protected class," and that the bill was overall "unnecessary as a matter of law." Of the 235 representatives who voted "yes", 220 were Democrat and 15 were Republican. Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the House with bi-partisan support by a 235-189 vote. In the Senate, Senator
Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a companion "CROWN Act" bill on March 22, 2021. The bill was read twice, then referred to the Senate
Judiciary Committee. The letter emphasized that the CROWN Act had achieved bipartisanship in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and was also supported by the Biden Administration. The Senate never voted on the bill before the Congressional session concluded. The CROWN Act has not been re-introduced in the 118th Congress (2023-2024). However, Congressman
Troy Carter (D-LA) suggested the proposed legislation may be re-introduced in 2024. == State and local government legislative action ==