Earlier this month, Minnesota joined 19 other states and even more cities and counties nationwide that prohibit discrimination based on hairstyle or hair texture.  

For decades, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) has prohibited discrimination in the workplace (among other settings) on the basis of a person’s membership in a protected class, including their race. On February 1, 2023, Governor Tim Walz signed the CROWN Act (“Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”), HF 37,  into law, which expanded the MHRA’s definition of “race” to include “traits associated with race, including but not limited to hair texture and hair styles such as braids, locs, and twists.”

In a workplace setting, the objective of the CROWN Act is to eliminate unfair terms or conditions of employment based on an employee’s displaying or maintenance of their natural hair. Consider the following examples: 

• An employer has a grooming policy that prohibits cornrows, knots, or “distracting styles.” The CROWN Act prohibits such policy language because it explicitly precludes Black employees from wearing their hair in a natural or protective style without risking discipline.  
• An employer declines to promote a qualified Black employee who wears their hair in an “Afro” style on grounds that their appearance is not “professional,” and instead promotes a white employee who also wears their hair naturally. The CROWN Act permits the Black employee to fairly claim that they had experienced discrimination on the basis of race (with their hair as the proxy for race).

The language of the CROWN Act leaves open several questions about which traits are or could be considered “traits associated with race.” It is fairly clear that employers cannot discriminate in the terms and conditions of employment on basis of someone’s natural hair texture or the way they style their hair (if that texture or style is commonly associated with their race). It is also likely that, given the CROWN Act’s inclusive phrasing, that natural or protective hairstyles not explicitly listed (e.g., Bantu knots, “Afros”) are also protected. 

However, it is unclear whether donning things that are both hair-related and “associated with race” (e.g., wearing beads, durags, or wraps) is protected. And, even more generally, it is unclear whether additional, non-hair-related “traits associated with race” also fall under the Act’s purview. We expect the Minnesota Department of Human Rights to issue further guidance on the application of the CROWN Act.

In view of the CROWN Act, Minnesota employers are encouraged to review their dress-code or grooming policies, or other policies related to expectations for employees’ appearance. They should also update their anti-discrimination policies to reflect the expanded reach and protections under the MHRA.