Pennsylvania has expanded anti-discrimination protections to expressly cover natural hair texture, protective hairstyles and religious head coverings. The Pennsylvania CROWN Act amends the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) to specify that “race” includes traits historically associated with race — such as hair texture and protective hairstyles — and that “religious creed” includes head coverings and hairstyles historically tied to religious practice. The law took effect Jan. 24, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The amendments to the PHRA expand the definition of “race” to include traits historically associated with race, including hair texture and protective hairstyles, and the definition of “religious creed” to include head coverings and hairstyles historically associated with religious practice.
- “Protective hairstyles” expressly include, but are not limited to, locs, braids, twists, coils, Bantu knots, afros and extensions.
- Employers may maintain and enforce otherwise valid health and safety policies, bona fide occupational qualification rules and anti–hostile environment policies if they are adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons, specifically tailored to the job and activity, and applied equally.
What This Means for Employers
Pennsylvania’s CROWN Act will formalize protections already recognized in many states, making clear that discrimination under the PHRA includes adverse actions or policies targeting hair texture, protective hairstyles or religious head coverings associated with race or religious creed. In practice, employers should expect increased scrutiny of grooming, appearance and policies pertaining to personal protective equipment (PPE) where those policies have the effect of restricting protected hairstyles or religious attire.
Employers will not be barred from addressing legitimate health and safety concerns or bona fide occupational requirements. However, policies that affect protected hairstyles or head coverings must be specifically tailored to the role and activity, grounded in nondiscriminatory reasons and applied consistently across similarly situated employees. Generalized preferences for “professional” appearance or unsubstantiated assumptions about client perceptions are unlikely to suffice. Where safety is implicated — for example, compatibility with equipment, sanitation protocols or risk of entanglement — employers should consider whether accommodations or alternative safety measures (such as different PPE, hair securing methods or equipment guards) can achieve the same objective without prohibiting protected hairstyles or head coverings.
Practical Recommendations
Employers in Pennsylvania should review dress code, grooming, PPE and safety policies to ensure they do not unnecessarily limit protected hairstyles or religious head coverings and are justified, job-related and consistently applied.
If you have questions or would like support to evaluate your policies’ compliance with the CROWN Act, to train personnel, review job descriptions or develop prompt response protocols, please contact the authors, your McGuireWoods contact or a member of the firm’s Employment Litigation Practice Group.