Lawrence, KS Passes CROWN Act Ordinance Banning Race-Based Hair Discrimination
ABSTRACT: Last month, the Lawrence City Commission passed a local ordinance, Ordinance No. 10003, which bans race-based hair discrimination in employment and other places of public accommodation, making it the first city in Kansas to do so. The ordinance prohibits restrictions or bans on natural hair or protective hairstyles (i.e., braids, locs, afros, curls and twists, etc.), declaring they violate the anti-discrimination regulations in Lawrence’s City Code.
The CROWN Act, which I posted about last year, stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”. Twenty-four states now have enacted some version of the CROWN Act into law. Kansas is not yet one of those states. Last month, however, the Lawrence City Commission passed a locate ordinance, Ordinance No. 10003, which bans race-based hair discrimination in employment and other places of public accommodation. Lawrence is the first city in the state of Kansas to pass a CROWN Act ordinance into law.
Kansas City, Missouri, Jackson County, Missouri, and St. Louis, Missouri already have enacted similar ordinances, although like Kansas, Missouri has not yet passed such legislation at the state level. A national version of the CROWN Act passed in the U.S. House in 2022 but failed in the Senate.
The Lawrence City Code already prohibited discrimination in employment, housing, and places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, or familial status. The new ordinance expands the definition of “race” to prohibit discrimination based on a person’s hair texture or hairstyle.
You may recall Chick-Fil-A was in the news earlier last month for sending home a 16-year-old girl from a North Carolina restaurant for having “unnatural” hair color. She claimed she was informed her manager noticed blond in her hair, which the manger said was an unnatural color to her. The teen was sent home and told she had to take the blond out of hair and could return when it was gone. Management apparently further noted it understood that was a long process and might take her a while. The teen reportedly was embarrassed and has filed an EEOC Charge. See https://www.today.com/parents/teens/chick-fil-a-hair-color-teen-worker-rcna98590.
Also, yesterday afternoon, the Associate Press published an article about a black high school student in Texas, who was required to serve two weeks of in-school suspensions because of his hairstyle. This case is expected to test Texas’s newly enacted CROWN Act, which became effective on September 1, 2023. I would note the Lawrence ordinance does not directly apply to race-based hair discrimination in schools. It is anticipated that additional bills will be introduced during the next state legislative session to address race-based hair discrimination in Kansas schools.
The various CROWN Act laws that are continuing to be enacted at the local and state level are generally designed to eliminate exactly these types of situations from recurring.
8th Circuit Changes Course in Standing for States to Sue EEOC over Pregnant Workers Fairness Act ...

Truck Driver Misclassification Claim Can Move Forward as Collective Action Under FLSA ...
About Employment & Labor Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Employment & Labor Law Blog examines topics and developments of interest to employers, Human Resources professionals, and others with an interest in recent legal developments concerning the workplace. This blog is focused on the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, including Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and on major developments under federal law, and at the EEOC and NLRB. Learn more about the editor, David M. Eisenberg, and our Employment & Labor practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Employment & Labor Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Employment & Labor Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Employment & Labor Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.