By: John Nolan and Robert Maxwell
Pennsylvania Passes CROWN Act
On November 25, 2025, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed House Bill 439, known as the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act, into law during a ceremony at a hair salon in West Philadelphia. This landmark legislation, which amends the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) of 1955, takes effect on January 24, 2026—60 days after signing—and is poised to significantly influence employment litigation across the state by explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on hair type, texture, and protective hairstyles associated with race.
Overview of Pennsylvania’s CROWN Act
The core of HB 439 lies in its expansion of the PHRA’s definition of “race” under Section 4(bb) to encompass “traits historically associated with the individual’s race, including hair texture and protective hairstyles.” Protective hairstyles are explicitly defined in Section 4(cc) as including, but not limited to, “locs, braids, twists, coils, Bantu knots, afros, and extensions.” This amendment addresses an absence in anti-discrimination protections, where grooming policies are said to implicitly target natural hair styles commonly worn by Black individuals, leading to disparate impact in workplaces.
The law’s intent is to combat bias that disproportionately affects Black Pennsylvanians. According to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission it has received 916 complaints related to hairstyle discrimination. By integrating these protections into the PHRA, the Act enables aggrieved individuals to file complaints with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC), which can investigate, mediate, or pursue enforcement actions, including civil penalties up to $10,000 for first offenses, back pay, and injunctive relief. This builds on the PHRA’s existing framework, which prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and education based on protected characteristics.
A unique feature of Pennsylvania’s version is its dual focus on race and religious creed. Section 4(dd) extends similar protections to “head coverings and hairstyles historically associated with religious creeds,” recognizing links between racial and religious discrimination (e.g., dreadlocks for Rastafarians, or hijabs). This broader scope sets it apart from many other state laws.
However, the Act balances employee rights with employer needs by allowing exceptions for “otherwise valid workplace health and safety rules or policies” or those justified as bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs). To qualify, employers must demonstrate that:
- The policy is necessary to prevent impairment to health or safety.
- It is adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons.
- It is specifically tailored to the position and activity.
- It is applied equally to all relevant employees.
Additionally, employers can enforce policies to prevent hostile work environments, provided they are nondiscriminatory and equally applied. Supporters, including the ACLU of Pennsylvania and state legislators like Rep. La’Tasha D. Mayes, hailed the bill as a “win for workers,” emphasizing its role in promoting equity without unduly burdening businesses. Critics, however, argued during legislative debates that the exceptions might be too vague, potentially leading to litigation over what constitutes a “tailored” policy.
Comparison with California and Washington D.C. Versions
Pennsylvania’s CROWN Act joins a growing national movement, with similarities and differences to pioneering laws in California and Washington D.C.
California’s CROWN Act (SB 188, 2019): As the first state to enact such legislation, California’s Senate Bill 188, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 3, 2019, amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) under Government Code Section 12926 and the Education Code Section 212.1. Like Pennsylvania, it redefines “race” to include “traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles,” with the latter defined as “braids, locks, and twists.” The law’s scope is broader than Pennsylvania’s, covering employment, housing, public accommodations, and education, reflecting FEHA’s comprehensive anti-discrimination framework.
Key similarities include the focus on rectifying racial disparities in grooming policies and allowing BFOQ exceptions, though California’s are less explicitly detailed—relying on existing case law requiring policies to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. A standout feature is the bill’s detailed legislative findings, which outline the historical context of hair discrimination as a proxy for racial bias, citing societal norms equating “blackness” with discrimination and referencing federal court interpretations of Title VII. This narrative emphasis, absent in Pennsylvania’s more concise text, has served as a model for other states. However, unlike Pennsylvania, California does not extend protections to religious hairstyles or head coverings under the CROWN Act itself (though FEHA separately protects religious creed).
In practice, California’s law has led to increased enforcement through the Civil Rights Department, which can seek damages, attorney fees, and punitive awards. Contrasts arise in enforcement vigor: California’s broader scope has resulted in more diverse complaints (e.g., in schools and housing), while Pennsylvania’s PHRA focus may center more on employment.
Washington D.C.’s CROWN Act (Protecting Against Discriminatory Grooming Policies Amendment Act of 2022, D.C. Law 24-87): Enacted on March 9, 2022, this amendment to the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA) under D.C. Code § 2-1401.02 redefines “race” to include “traits associated with race, including hair texture, afro hairstyles, and protective hairstyles such as braids, locks, and twists.” The scope is the broadest among the three, prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and educational institutions—similar to California but with D.C.’s unique emphasis on public sector and government interactions.
Similar to Pennsylvania and California, it targets race-based hair bias and permits safety-related exceptions if nondiscriminatory. However, D.C.’s law lacks the detailed criteria for exceptions found in Pennsylvania, instead integrating into the DCHRA’s general BFOQ framework, which requires strict scrutiny for any policy impacting protected traits. A unique aspect is its integration into one of the nation’s most expansive human rights laws, protecting 23 traits (including homelessness and sealed eviction records), making hair discrimination complaints part of a holistic anti-bias system enforced by the Office of Human Rights (OHR). Unlike Pennsylvania’s religious extensions, D.C. addresses intersections through separate protections for religious creed, but not explicitly tied to hair in the CROWN amendment.
In contrast, D.C.’s enforcement allows for private rights of action after OHR mediation, with potential damages up to unlimited compensatory amounts in court, potentially more plaintiff-friendly than Pennsylvania’s capped penalties. While all three laws aim at equity, D.C.’s urban, diverse context has seen it applied in high-profile cases involving public schools and government workplaces, differing from Pennsylvania’s more recent, state-specific focus.
Pennsylvania becomes the 28th state to adopt CROWN Act-style protections, alongside Washington D.C. and numerous localities. Federally, the CROWN Act (H.R. 1638) passed the House in 2022 but has stalled in the Senate, leaving states to lead.
