Hair should not determine whether someone gets hired, promoted, disciplined, or treated differently at work. Maryland’s CROWN Act makes that principle part of state anti-discrimination law.
For employees asking, “But what is the CROWN Act exactly?” think of it as a law that protects traits associated with race, including hair texture, Afro hairstyles, braids, twists, and locks, under the state’s existing protections against race discrimination.
At work, that protection reaches beyond an employer simply saying, “We don’t hire people with locks.” A grooming policy, hiring decision, disciplinary action, or demand that an employee change a protected hairstyle can raise the same discrimination concerns when race sits underneath the rule or decision.
Smithey Law Group LLC focuses exclusively on labor and employment law, so its attorneys can examine more than a grooming policy’s wording. I
f your hair has become a condition of getting hired, keeping your job, advancing at work, or receiving equal treatment, the firm can help determine whether discrimination shaped that decision and what you can do to protect your rights.
What Is the CROWN Act in Maryland?
Maryland enacted its CROWN Act in 2020 to clarify that race discrimination can include discrimination tied to hair. Rather than creating a separate protected class, the law expanded the meaning of “race” within Maryland’s existing civil rights laws to include traits associated with race.
For employees, that definition protects several hair traits and styles, including:
- Hair texture falls within the definition of race. An employer cannot avoid a race-discrimination claim simply by characterizing its objection as one about an employee’s hair rather than race.
- Afro hairstyles receive express protection. Maryland specifically names Afro hairstyles among the racial traits covered by its anti-discrimination law.
- Protective hairstyles fall within the law. The statute defines this category to include braids, twists, and locks rather than limiting protection to hair worn in one particular form.
- The list does not necessarily stop with the named styles. Maryland uses the word “including” when defining both racial traits and protective hairstyles. The statutory language, therefore, identifies examples rather than stating that only braids, twists, locks, and Afros can qualify.
The law closed an important gap in how employers could frame hair-related decisions. Calling a requirement a grooming or appearance standard does not insulate it from discrimination law when the policy targets a race-associated trait.
Maryland now places that question where it belongs: not simply under workplace style rules, but within the state’s protections against racial discrimination.
What Are Employers Prohibited from Doing Under the Maryland CROWN Act?
Maryland did not outlaw workplace grooming standards when it enacted the CROWN Act. Employers may still establish reasonable appearance, dress, and grooming requirements directly related to the job.
Those policies cross a legal line, however, when an employer uses them to discriminate on the basis of race, which now expressly includes associated hair traits.
In practice, Maryland law prohibits an employer from:
- Refusing to hire someone because of protected hair. An employer cannot reject an applicant because of hair texture or a hairstyle associated with race when that decision amounts to race discrimination.
- Imposing discriminatory grooming standards. A company cannot turn a supposedly neutral appearance policy into a way to exclude protected hair traits while claiming the issue concerns only “professionalism” or presentation.
- Changing the terms of someone’s employment. Maryland prohibits race discrimination in compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, so the protection reaches beyond hiring and firing to other employment decisions.
- Limiting an employee’s opportunities. An employer may not classify or segregate workers in a way that deprives them of opportunities or adversely affects their employment status because of race.
- Retaliating when someone objects. An employer cannot punish an employee or applicant for opposing prohibited discrimination, filing a charge, or participating in an investigation or proceeding.
A grooming rule does not become lawful simply because an employer applies a polished label. The useful question is what the rule actually does.
If a policy forces employees with race-associated hair traits to change their natural texture or protected hairstyle to receive the same opportunities as everyone else, Maryland’s anti-discrimination protections may apply.
What Can Employees Do About Hair Discrimination or Retaliation?
Hair discrimination doesn’t always show up as a written policy. A supervisor may repeatedly criticize one employee’s appearance, demand a hairstyle change, pass someone over for a customer-facing position, or discipline a worker under a grooming rule that treats race-associated hair differently. When that happens, what the employee does next can affect the strength of a later claim.
Employees who suspect a CROWN Act violation can take several practical steps:
- Preserve what actually happened. Save grooming policies, emails, texts, performance reviews, photographs, disciplinary notices, and other records that show what the employer required and how it treated employees. Details can help distinguish an ordinary workplace rule from discriminatory treatment.
- Document comparisons when possible. Note whether the employer allows similar hairstyles, lengths, or grooming choices for other workers while objecting to hair traits associated with race. Unequal enforcement can provide important context for a discrimination claim.
- Report discrimination carefully. Employees may use an employer’s HR or complaint process to identify conduct they believe violates their rights. Maryland law prohibits employers from retaliating against workers who oppose practices prohibited by the state’s anti-discrimination law.
- Watch for retaliation afterward. A sudden write-up, undesirable reassignment, reduced opportunities, or termination after a discrimination complaint may raise a separate retaliation issue. Maryland protects employees who oppose unlawful practices or participate in a discrimination proceeding.
- Pay attention to filing deadlines. The Maryland Commission on Civil Rights generally requires an employment discrimination complaint within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act. An internal grievance, union process, arbitration, or mediation generally does not extend that deadline.
An employee does not need to wait to be fired to take hair discrimination seriously. The sooner someone preserves the record, identifies the pattern, and understands the deadlines, the more options they may have for protecting their position.
Smithey Law Group LLC focuses exclusively on labor and employment law, and its attorneys can help employees evaluate whether a grooming rule, disciplinary decision, or retaliation crossed the line into unlawful discrimination.
The goal is not simply to document what happened, but to use that record strategically before the employer controls the story.
How Does the Maryland CROWN Act Compare with Federal Law?
Employees may have protection under both Maryland and federal law, but the two describe hair discrimination differently.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination because of race, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recognizes that race discrimination can involve physical characteristics such as hair texture.
Maryland goes further by putting hair directly into its statutory definition of race:
- Federal law protects against racial discrimination. The EEOC interprets Title VII to cover discrimination involving hair texture and recognizes that discriminatory enforcement of grooming policies can violate federal law.
- Maryland expressly names protected hair traits. State law defines race to include hair texture, Afro hairstyles, and protective hairstyles, including braids, twists, and locks.
For Maryland employees, the distinction removes some of the ambiguity surrounding hair under federal law. The CROWN Act does not require workers to fit hair discrimination awkwardly into a statute that never mentions hairstyles. Maryland law expressly recognizes that discrimination based on certain race-associated hair traits can constitute race discrimination.
Protect Your Rights Under Maryland’s CROWN Act
Hair discrimination can affect a career long before someone loses a job. It can influence who gets hired, who meets clients, who advances, and who feels pressured to change part of their identity simply to remain in good standing at work.
When that happens, employees deserve counsel that understands both the protections Maryland created and the employment laws surrounding them.
Smithey Law Group LLC focuses exclusively on labor and employment law. Founding member Joyce Smithey authored the Fourth Edition of Maryland Rules Commentary, contributes to the MSBA Maryland Employment Law Deskbook, and has taught employment and labor law.
Firm attorneys also hold leadership positions within the Maryland State Bar Association and have earned recognition from Chambers, Best Lawyers, Super Lawyers, and Lawdragon. Those distinctions matter because they reflect the depth of knowledge and professional trust clients need when an employer’s seemingly ordinary workplace decision raises a much larger discrimination issue.
If hair discrimination or retaliation threatens your job or career, contact Smithey Law Group LLC to put a team devoted to Maryland employment law behind you.
Official Legal and Other Sources Used to Inform This Page
To ensure the accuracy and clarity of this page, we referenced official legal and other sources during the content development process.
- Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-101: Definitions
- Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-605: Exceptions
- Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t §20-606: Unlawful Employment Practices
- Maryland Commission on Civil Rights: Start A Complaint/Timelines
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
