SCOTUS Has Long Avoided Ruling on Hair Discrimination—A Brief History
📝Summary:
This SCOTUSblog piece examines the surprising gap in U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence: despite decades of hair discrimination claims, the Court has never directly ruled on the legality of race-based grooming policies—and has declined to hear major cases, including one involving an Alabama woman whose job offer was rescinded over her dreadlocks.
One prominent case is EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions (Chastity Jones), where Chastity Jones lost a job offer because she refused to remove her locs. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that hair is a mutable characteristic and therefore not protected under Title VII. In 2018, Jones petitioned the Supreme Court for review—but SCOTUS declined to intervene, leaving the circuit split intact.
The article situates this non-decision within a broader legal context. Earlier landmark cases like Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins expanded Title VII protections to cover sex-stereotyping, including appearance-based discrimination. Courts have since upheld that systemic stereotypes—including those about natural Black hair—can constitute unlawful bias, even if the trait is mutable.
Meanwhile, grooming-policy cases like Rogers v. American Airlines (1981) upheld bans on cornrows and braids, reasoning they were race-neutral and changeable, thus not discriminatory.
In 2015, the Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch protected a Muslim job candidate denied hire for wearing a hijab. While this facial-religious-garb decision did not directly involve race or hair, it laid groundwork for Title VII’s accommodation requirements.
Unable to rely on federal precedent, advocates have focused on legislative solutions. The CROWN Act, first passed by California in 2019 and since adopted in multiple states and the House, explicitly bans race-based hair discrimination and defines protective hairstyles—including locs, braids, twists, and Afros—as protected. But a federal version remains stalled.
The article argues the Supreme Court’s refusal to take hair-related discrimination cases means that individuals often lack recourse under federal law. Lawsuits alleging bias over hair continue—but outcomes depend heavily on jurisdiction.
Advocates and legal scholars highlight the contradiction: grooming policies that center whitenormative standards disproportionately exclude Black individuals, yet without Supreme Court reversal or congressional action, such policies remain legal. Efforts like Jones’s petition are seen as catalysts pushing toward broader statutory reform.
⚖️ Key Legal & Historical Takeaways
-
SCOTUS has never issued rulings on race-based hair discrimination—consistently denying review in major cases. Wikipedia+4Law Commentary+4Wikipedia+4
-
Chastity Jones’s 2018 petition was not granted certiorari—the Court let the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling stand. Glamour
-
Title VII precedent like Price Waterhouse supports challenges to stereotype-based discrimination, even on mutable traits. Law Commentary+2Virginia Law Review –+2Legal Defense Fund+2
-
Early cases like Rogers v. American Airlines upheld grooming bans against cornrows and braids on race-neutral grounds. Teen Vogue+5Wikipedia+5Wikipedia+5
-
EEOC v. Abercrombie reaffirmed reasonable accommodation under Title VII—though not specific to hair discrimination. WikipediaEEOC
❗ Why It Matters
-
Without SCOTUS intervention, enforcement depends on geography, leaving protections uneven.
-
Employers may continue enforcing Eurocentric hair norms with little legal resistance.
-
Discrimination rooted in stereotypes persists, especially in workplaces and schools.
-
The CROWN Act’s legislative approach has become essential for formal protections.
-
Supreme Court’s inaction underscores need for renewed legal efforts for civil rights parity.
SCOTUSblog – Read full article
Published: July 24, 2025
🔍Tags
hair discrimination, crown act, supreme court hair rulings, chastity jones case, title vii hair bias, price waterhouse stereotype, race-based grooming bans, black hair workplace rights
