WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2652

Relating to intercollegiate sports.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Paul Evans

Arizona HB 2652 bans discrimination based on protective hairstyles in employment and education, protecting workers and students from unfair grooming rules tied to hair texture.

In committee upon adjournment.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2652

Summary — HB 2652 (Documents include two different state bills sharing the HB 2652 number)

Note: the provided document contains two distinct bills from different states that both use the designation “HB 2652.” This summary treats them separately.

A. Arizona — HB 2652 (Protective Hairstyles; anti‑discrimination)

  • Introduced: February 11, 2025
  • Primary sponsor: Rep. Quantá Crews (co‑sponsors listed)
  • Legal change: Adds two sections to Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 41, Chapter 9:
    • Section 41‑1469 (employment) — prohibits discrimination by employers, labor organizations, and apprenticeship/training programs based on an individual’s “protective hairstyle,” race, or ethnicity.
    • Section 41‑1492.13 (education) — prohibits discrimination by private nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate or postgraduate schools or other places of education for the same protected characteristics.
  • Definitions:
    • “Protective hairstyle” explicitly includes braids, locks, and twists of any length.
    • “Race or ethnicity” includes ancestry, color, ethnic group identification and background, and traits historically associated with race (explicitly listing hair texture and protective hairstyles).
  • Who is affected: Employers, labor organizations, apprenticeship/training programs, and private educational institutions in Arizona; individuals who wear protective hairstyles (including students and job applicants/employees).
  • Intent/impact: Clarifies that policies or practices that single out protective hairstyles (or traits historically associated with race) constitute unlawful discrimination. This would limit grooming, appearance, or uniform policies that disproportionately affect people with certain hair textures or styles.
  • Procedural note: Bill text placed in Title 41 (state civil rights/administration chapters). Enforcement mechanisms are not detailed in the text excerpt beyond declaring the practices unlawful (would operate within Arizona’s civil‑rights enforcement framework).

B. Illinois — HB 2652 (Department of Human Services — licensing restriction for substance use facilities)

  • Introduced: February 6, 2025 (Rep. Curtis J. Tarver, II)
  • Legal change: Adds Section 15‑50 to the Substance Use Disorder Act (20 ILCS 301/15‑50 new).
  • Key provision: Beginning on the effective date, the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS) must not approve any initial or renewal license application for a facility where substance use treatment or intervention services will be provided if the facility would be located within 1,000 feet of:
    1. Any building or real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school (including adjacent school yard, playing field, or playground);
    2. A community college, college, or university;
    3. A public playground; or
    4. Any public park building or real property comprising a public park.
  • Definitions: “Public playground” = land owned/controlled by local government designated primarily for children’s recreation. “Public park” includes parks, conservation areas, trails, bikeways, etc., under state or local jurisdiction.
  • Grandfathering: The prohibition does not invalidate licenses approved prior to the effective date.
  • Who is affected: Entities seeking licensure to provide substance use treatment/intervention (providers, prospective facilities), DHS licensing decisions, and communities near schools/parks.
  • Status/legislative actions (from provided timeline): Multiple readings, committee referrals, and recorded votes are shown in the provided actions (including passage steps dated April–May 2025). Companion bill: SB 1249.
  • Intent/impact: Seeks to prevent placement of substance use treatment facilities in close proximity to educational institutions and children’s recreation areas. Potential impacts include restricting available sites for new/residential treatment facilities, shifting siting decisions, and possible service access implications for individuals seeking treatment.

Considerations / Implications (both bills)

  • Arizona text narrows the scope for permissible grooming/appearance rules and may prompt policy reviews by employers and private schools to avoid disparate impact claims.
  • Illinois text imposes a fixed buffer zone (1,000 feet) that could reduce siting options for providers and influence service availability; it delegates licensing gatekeeping to DHS and preserves existing licenses.
  • Both measures are statutory changes that would require agencies and covered entities to update policies and compliance procedures once enacted.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.