Business and Labor

Hair discrimination would be banned

The Business and Labor Committee heard testimony Feb. 3 on a bill that seeks to extend employment discrimination protections.

Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh
Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh

LB1060, sponsored by Omaha Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh, would expand the definition of race for purposes of employment discrimination to include traits historically associated with race, such as hair texture and protective hairstyles, including braids, locks and twists.

A 2016 Perception Institute study revealed a strong implicit bias against natural hairstyles traditionally worn by black women and men, Cavanaugh said.

“African American men and women have reported that they—due to their natural hairstyles, such as dreadlocks and afro—have been unable to participate in school, sports and even maintain their employment,” she said.

Terri Crawford of Omaha supported the bill. She said that her son explicitly was told when interviewing for a job that he must cut off his dreadlocks to adhere to a company policy against long hair, despite seeing several white employees whose hair violated that policy.

National incidents of discrimination against natural hairstyles highlight a problem experienced daily by many black women and men, Crawford said.

“These stories disturb me to my core because I think I continue to experience the effects and incidents of slavery, which we know is deeply rooted in racist ideology, particularly [control of] our hair,” she said. “It’s my culture, my race, my ethnicity and my hair.”

Cynthia Gooch-Grayson of Omaha also spoke in support of LB1060. Judging a person’s ability or professionalism by their hair is “unfair and absurd,” she said.

“For someone to limit access to one’s employment, as well as exert discrimination or harassment based on one’s hair is nonsensical,” Gooch-Grayson said. “I offer that those who bring attention to those like myself who choose to wear their hair in a natural state … cause more disruption and perpetuate intolerance and bigotry in the workplace.”

No one testified in opposition to the bill and the committee took no immediate action on it.

Bookmark and Share
Share