Housing; discrimination based on hairstyles associated with race, color, or national origin; prohibit
HB 135 would prohibit discrimination based on hairstyles associated with race, color, or national origin, commonly referred to as hair discrimination or “CROWN Act” style protections. The bill defines “protective hairstyles” to include braids, locs, twists, and other textured or natural hairstyles, and it expands the definition of race in several parts of Georgia law to include hair texture and protective hairstyles.
The bill applies these protections in housing, education, employment, and state fair employment practices. In housing law, it updates fair housing definitions so that race includes hair texture and protective hairstyles. In education, it bars discrimination in programs or activities receiving state financial assistance or serving students who receive state aid. In employment, it prohibits employers from refusing to hire, firing, or otherwise discriminating against a person because of a protective hairstyle unless the hairstyle actually prevents the person from performing the job. It also creates a private civil cause of action for aggrieved individuals, with a one-year filing deadline and possible remedies including injunctions, reinstatement, back pay, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.
HB 135 would amend multiple sections of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, including fair housing, education, labor and industrial relations, and fair employment practices provisions. The practical effect is to make hairstyle-based discrimination tied to race, color, or national origin unlawful in several settings and to give affected individuals a direct civil remedy in employment cases. It would also require state-law definitions of race to expressly include hair texture and protective hairstyles, thereby broadening existing anti-discrimination protections under Georgia law.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or vote history, so there is no documented split in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s text and caption, the measure appears to be a civil rights and anti-discrimination bill intended to expand protections for people who wear natural or protective hairstyles. The overall framing is protective and remedial rather than regulatory or punitive.
The main potential point of contention is whether employers, schools, or housing providers may maintain grooming or appearance standards that could affect protective hairstyles, especially where they claim a job-related or operational justification. The bill addresses this in employment by allowing an exception only when the hairstyle restricts the person’s ability to perform the particular job. Another possible issue is the creation of a private right of action, which could raise concerns about litigation exposure for employers and institutions. No specific opposing arguments are included in the provided transcripts or vote record.