The Minnesota House passed the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act, which bans discrimination based on natural hair, on Feb. 28 in a bipartisan fashion by a 104-26 vote.

The CROWN Act has been passed in 10 other states and is going to be reintroduced at the national level by Rep. Ilhan Omar, and others. In Minnesota, the same bill passed the House in 2020 but never received a hearing in the Senate, which meant the full chamber did not vote on it and it had to be reintroduced.

The current version of the bill must still be voted on by the full Senate and be signed by Gov. Tim Walz before it becomes law. If the CROWN Act is signed this session it would be implemented July 1 this year, MDHR said.

The Minnesota bill furthers the definition of race discrimination by including “hair texture and hair styles such as braids, locks and twists” to the Minnesota Human Rights Act list of protected traits, according to the bill text. The CROWN Act coalition’s website states that Black women are 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from work because of their hair.

Sen. Bobby Joe Champion said he wants this to be a single issue bill to ease its passage.

Champion will carry the bill in the Senate, where the bill faced challenges last year. He is more hopeful about getting a hearing this session, mentioning increased support from Repulican party leaders and from Sen. Andrew Mathews, chair of the Civil Law and Data Practices Policy Committee.

“As an individual, I’ve also felt the pressure to conform to beauty standards. I straightened my hair up until the middle of law school,” said Rep. Esther Agbaje, lead author of the bill, in an interview with the Minnesota Daily. “Even then, I was sort of apprehensive about it. On my government job, I usually wore my hair straight.”

In 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found that race-based discrimination made up about 38.2% of all discrimination cases in Minnesota.

“While some discrimination cases contain shockingly overt statements and conduct, most discrimination cases involve circumstantial evidence of discrimination,” said professor Laurie Vasichek, an adjunct professor of employee discrimination at the University of Minnesota Law School.

This bill will fill in gaps in federal court decisions which have allowed for hair to be an enforceable action by an employer by including certain styles of hair as natural hair. The Act will remove ambiguities for judges when interpreting laws, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) said in an emailed statement.

Many courts say “hairstyles are not immutable characteristics since they can be changed,” according to Vasichek, a former EEOC trial attorney.

Champion said the bill will not protect dyed hair and hair length, in workplaces where the latter is a concern. Workplaces, like construction or other industrial jobs, often restrict hairstyles or hair length because of specific safety concerns.

“People who work in a factory or something, they can’t really have long hair,” Agbaje said. “That’s because it’s a specific safety concern. That moves forward first.”

Dyed hair, on the other hand, greatly includes the choice of the individual and will likely be not protected.

“I believe solely in the fact that people should not be judged based on their race and hair, but on their skills and qualifications,” Champion said. “If there’s anything that’s prohibiting individuals from being able to be a part of a welcoming environment and being a part of what I think is good about humanity, then it requires all of our attention.”