The CROWN Act in Maryland: Suing for Hair Discrimination in Corporate and Retail Jobs

Understanding Hair Discrimination in Maryland

For decades, Black employees in America have faced immense pressure to alter their natural hair texture to conform to Eurocentric standards of "professionalism." Whether you work in Silver Spring, Columbia, or Bowie, Maryland law now strongly protects your right to wear your natural hair. Maryland was one of the early adopters of the CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair), which amended the Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-101 to explicitly define race discrimination as including traits historically associated with race, such as hair texture, afros, braids, and locs. This means a company's dress code can no longer legally be used as a weapon to exclude Black talent. If your workplace is punishing you for your natural hair, our directory can help you find a skilled employment lawyer to hold them accountable.

How Grooming Policies Violate the Law

Hospitality and Retail Jobs: The Ban on Locs and Braids

In the hospitality and retail sectors, employers often rely on vague "neat and tidy" policies to discriminate. For example, a high-end restaurant or luxury hotel might explicitly ban locs or thick braids, claiming they do not fit the "brand image." Under Maryland's CROWN Act, these policies are illegal. Refusing to hire a candidate for a front-facing customer service role, or forcing an employee to work in the back room away from customers simply because they wear protective hairstyles, is a direct violation of state civil rights laws.

Corporate Dress Codes: The Myth of "Professionalism"

In corporate environments, hair discrimination is often more insidious. Managers might pull Black employees aside and suggest that their natural afro is "distracting" or "too casual" for an upcoming board meeting, implicitly threatening their promotion prospects unless they straighten their hair. The federal standard outlined in cases involving 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, combined with Maryland's specific statutes, establishes that forcing an employee to undergo expensive, time-consuming, and potentially damaging chemical treatments to assimilate is unlawful. "Professionalism" cannot be dictated by race-based aesthetics.

Healthcare: Uniform Policies and Hair Covers

Healthcare facilities frequently cite safety and hygiene as reasons to restrict hairstyles. While a hospital can require hair to be tied back or covered in sterile environments (like operating rooms), they cannot selectively enforce these rules. If a Black nurse is repeatedly reprimanded because their natural hair does not perfectly fit under a standard-issue surgical cap, while a white colleague with long hair receives no pushback, the policy has a discriminatory impact. Employers must provide reasonable uniform alternatives, like larger scrub caps, rather than demanding the employee alter their hair.

Proving Disparate Impact in Grooming Policies

You do not always need to prove that your boss used racist language to win a hair discrimination case. Instead, lawyers often rely on the legal theory of "disparate impact." This principle, rooted in the landmark Supreme Court decision Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (US Supreme Court 1971), means that even if a grooming policy looks neutral on paper (e.g., "all hair must be kept flat"), it is illegal if it disproportionately burdens employees of a certain race. Your attorney will gather evidence showing that the policy specifically targets Black hairstyles while allowing other employees to wear their natural hair without issue.

Step-by-Step Process to File a CROWN Act Claim

Step 1: Document the Policy and Comments

The first step is gathering evidence. Save a copy of your employee handbook, specifically the dress code or grooming section. If a manager makes a verbal comment about your hair, document the date, time, and any witnesses. Send a polite email to HR summarizing the conversation so there is a written record of the incident.

Step 2: File with the State or Federal Agency

Before filing a civil lawsuit, you must file a formal charge. You can submit this to the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, Baltimore or the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Baltimore. The standard document used is Form 5, FED, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Charge of Discrimination. This initiates a formal government investigation into your employer's policies.

Step 3: Mediation and Lawsuit

The investigating agency will often offer free mediation to help both sides reach a financial settlement and compel the company to change its grooming policies. If the employer refuses to settle, your options depend on whether you proceed under state or federal law. Under Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-1013(a), you do not need agency permission to file a civil lawsuit in a Maryland Circuit Court once 180 days have passed since filing your administrative charge. For federal claims under Title VII, the EEOC will conclude its process by issuing a 'Right to Sue' letter, allowing your attorney to file in court for lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages.

How Much Does it Cost in Maryland?

Fighting discrimination does not have to drain your savings. The legal industry is structured to help victims seek justice affordably.

Timelines and Deadlines

Do not wait to take action. In Maryland, you generally have up to 300 days from the date of the discriminatory event (like being fired or officially disciplined over your hair) to file an administrative charge with the EEOC or MCCR. For a state civil lawsuit under Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-1013(a), you may file in circuit court once 180 days have elapsed from filing your administrative complaint, provided the suit is brought within 2 years of the discriminatory act (the limitation period is tolled while the agency proceeding is pending). For federal claims, you must file your lawsuit within 90 days of receiving a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)