House Bill 168, the North Carolina CROWN Act, would amend state employment discrimination law to explicitly protect natural hair and protective hairstyles as traits associated with race. The bill defines “protective hairstyles” to include styles such as bantu knots, braids, locks, and twists, and clarifies that “race” includes hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles. In practical terms, it would make it unlawful for employers and other covered entities to deny employment or discharge a person on the basis of these characteristics.
The bill also expands North Carolina’s retaliation protections by adding the new hair-discrimination provision to the list of laws protected under the state’s anti-retaliation statute. That means an employee who files a complaint, participates in an investigation, or otherwise asserts rights under the CROWN Act would be protected from retaliatory action. The act would take effect when it becomes law and would apply to employers, employees, and prospective employees going forward.
HB168 would amend Chapter 95 of the North Carolina General Statutes by creating a new employment discrimination section, G.S. 95-28.1B, and by updating G.S. 95-241(a) to include complaints and actions under that new section in the state’s retaliation protections. The bill would affect public and private employers, state agencies, local governments, and other covered entities by prohibiting adverse employment decisions based on hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles tied to race. It would also give workers and job applicants a clearer legal basis to challenge hair-based discrimination in employment.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no direct transcript evidence of support or opposition. Based on the bill’s subject and sponsorship, the measure appears to be framed as a civil rights and workplace fairness bill intended to align North Carolina law with the broader CROWN Act movement. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials suggests the bill was at least procedurally advanced without documented controversy at this stage.
The main point of contention, if any, would likely center on whether state law should expressly define race to include hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles, and whether employers need additional statutory guidance beyond existing anti-discrimination protections. Supporters would view the bill as closing a gap in civil rights law and preventing discrimination against Black and other individuals who wear natural or protective styles. Potential critics could argue about the scope of the definition or the need for a separate statutory provision, but no specific objections are documented in the provided materials.