West Virginia Senate Bill SB 109

West Virginia 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/14/26

Caption

Clarifying racial discrimination includes discrimination based on certain hair textures and hairstyles

Summary

SB 109 is a civil rights and anti-discrimination bill that clarifies that racial discrimination includes discrimination based on certain hair textures and hairstyles. Based on the caption, the measure appears intended to protect individuals from adverse treatment because of natural hair characteristics and culturally associated hairstyles, likely in employment, education, housing, and other settings covered by state anti-discrimination law. The bill’s practical effect would be to expand or clarify the scope of existing racial discrimination protections in West Virginia law so that hair texture and hairstyle-based bias is treated as a form of race-based discrimination. This would affect employers, schools, landlords, and other entities subject to state civil rights requirements by limiting policies or practices that disproportionately target natural hair or protective styles.

Impact

SB 109 would likely amend West Virginia’s anti-discrimination framework to expressly include hair texture and hairstyles within the definition of racial discrimination. That would give individuals a clearer legal basis to challenge discriminatory grooming policies or decisions tied to natural hair, braids, locs, twists, afros, and similar styles, and would provide guidance to covered institutions on compliance.

Sentiment

The available record does not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s caption suggests a remedial civil rights measure, which typically receives support from advocates for equal treatment and clarity in anti-discrimination enforcement.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcript or vote history. In bills of this type, the main issues often involve whether the state should expressly regulate grooming standards, how broadly the protection should apply across public and private settings, and whether existing race discrimination law already covers hair-based bias without further clarification.