Secretary of state authority over counties.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Chris Knapp

HB 322 aimed to ban hairstyle-based discrimination in work and school settings, protecting natural textures and protective styles (afros, braids) and requiring policy reviews.

H:Died in Committee Returned Bill Pursuant to HR 5-4

Summary — HB 322 (The Crown Act)

Status: Introduced Nov 12, 2024 — Died in Committee
Subjects: Business and commerce; Judiciary A

Overview / Purpose
- HB 322, titled “The Crown Act,” was a proposed law to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyles in workplaces and schools. Its primary intent was to expand anti‑discrimination protections to explicitly cover naturally textured hair and protective hairstyles commonly associated with race and national origin (for example, afros, braids, twists, locs, cornrows, and similar styles).

Key provisions (as described in the bill synopsis)
- Prohibition on hairstyle‑based discrimination: The bill would have made it unlawful for employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, schools, and educational institutions to discriminate against a person because of their hair texture or hairstyle.
- Coverage in employment and education contexts: Protections would apply in hiring, firing, discipline, terms and conditions of employment, school admission and discipline, and other official actions taken by public or private employers and schools.
- Prohibition on discriminatory policies: The bill aimed to bar policies or practices (including grooming or dress codes) that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of hairstyles typically associated with a protected characteristic.
- Definitions: The Act typically defines covered hairstyles and hair texture explicitly to remove ambiguity and prevent evasion by facially neutral grooming rules.
- Enforcement and remedies: While the full text is not provided here, such measures usually create or rely on existing administrative complaint procedures (state civil rights or labor agencies) and often preserve private rights of action with remedies that may include injunctive relief, back pay, compensatory damages, and civil penalties.

Who would be affected
- Individuals: Employees, job applicants, students, and prospective students who wear naturally textured or protective hairstyles.
- Institutions: Private and public employers, schools (K–12), colleges and universities, employment agencies, and labor organizations would need to review and likely revise grooming and appearance policies.
- Enforcers: State civil rights, labor, and education agencies (and courts, if private suits were permitted) would handle complaints and enforcement.

Procedural / timeline notes
- Introduced: November 12, 2024.
- Legislative outcome: Died in committee (no enactment).
- Because the bill did not advance, no legal change occurred; existing protections (if any) remained as previously codified.

Practical implications (if enacted)
- Employers and schools would need to audit grooming and appearance policies for disparate impact and explicit bans on natural/protective hairstyles.
- Training and updating nondiscrimination policies and handbooks would be advisable to avoid complaints and litigation.
- Affected individuals would gain an explicit statutory basis to challenge hairstyle‑based discrimination.

Note
- The summary above is based on the bill title and synopsis. The full statutory text and any committee amendments would be needed to state precise definitions, enforcement mechanics, exceptions (e.g., legitimate safety or uniform requirements), and remedies.