Senate Bill 897, the North Carolina CROWN Act, would expand the state’s employment discrimination law to explicitly prohibit adverse employment actions based on traits historically associated with race, including hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles. The bill defines protective hairstyles to include styles such as bantu knots, braids, locks, and twists, and makes clear that these traits are covered within the meaning of race for purposes of the employment discrimination statute.
The bill also updates North Carolina’s retaliation protections so that employees are protected when they file complaints, participate in investigations, or otherwise assert rights under the new CROWN Act provision, alongside several existing labor and civil rights statutes. In addition, it appropriates $100,000 to the Department of Labor for employer and employee education about the new rights and responsibilities created by the act. The bill takes effect when it becomes law, with the appropriation beginning July 1, 2026.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend Chapter 95 of the North Carolina General Statutes by creating a new employment discrimination provision and by adding that provision to the state’s anti-retaliation law. It would apply to employers, public and private entities, state agencies, and local governments, and would give workers and prospective workers a clearer statutory basis to challenge discrimination tied to natural hair and protective hairstyles. The Department of Labor would also receive funding to educate the public and employers about the law.
Sentiment
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 title and structure, it appears to be a civil rights measure intended to broaden workplace protections and clarify existing anti-discrimination law. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials suggests no documented controversy in the available record, though the subject matter is one that often draws discussion about workplace grooming standards and racial equity.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided committee transcripts or vote history, because none were supplied. In general, bills like this can raise questions about how employers may enforce grooming policies, how broadly “race” should be defined in employment law, and whether the state should mandate training or education funding. However, those concerns are not attributed to any named legislator, committee member, or stakeholder in the materials provided here.