Crown Act; create to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyles in workplace and schools.
HB365 would create Mississippi’s “Create A Respectful And Open Workplace For Natural (CROWN) Hair Act,” prohibiting employers, schools, school districts, and administrators from adopting dress codes or policies that ban natural hairstyles. The bill defines natural hair to include afros, braids, twists, locs, and similar styles, and bars discrimination based on hair texture in pay, promotions, employment opportunities, discipline, expulsion, or dismissal. It also prohibits retaliation against people who oppose or report violations of the act.
The bill further establishes a private right of action for aggrieved persons and allows civil suits in court within two years of the discriminatory practice. Remedies include unpaid wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages in cases of malice or reckless indifference, equitable relief, attorney’s fees, and costs. For compensation claims, withheld amounts are treated as unpaid minimum wages or unpaid compensation, and the bill includes exceptions for seniority systems, merit systems, production-based systems, and bona fide job-related factors other than hairstyle.
HB365 would add a new state-level anti-discrimination framework focused specifically on natural hairstyles and hair texture in both employment and educational settings. It would restrict workplace and school dress codes that prohibit natural hair, and it would create enforceable rights against wage discrimination, promotion denials, discipline, and retaliation tied to hairstyle choices. The bill would also expose covered employers and school officials to civil liability and damages, making hairstyle-based discrimination actionable under Mississippi law.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented legislative opposition or support in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, the measure is framed as a civil-rights and equity bill intended to address discrimination affecting African Americans, Latinas, and other ethnic groups. The overall tone of the legislation is affirmative and remedial, emphasizing fairness, opportunity, and protection from discriminatory grooming policies.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope of the prohibition and the breadth of liability. The bill applies not only to employers but also to schools, school districts, and administrators, and it reaches dress codes, compensation decisions, discipline, and retaliation. Another likely issue is the private right of action and the availability of liquidated, compensatory, and punitive damages, which could raise concerns among employers and school systems about compliance costs and litigation exposure. The bill’s exceptions for seniority, merit, production, and bona fide job-related factors may be intended to address those concerns, but they also define the boundaries of the protection and could be debated.