January 2022 | Issue 13, Volume 6

Watch the video and read the full article from CBS News.

According to the article, an African American man in California is suing his former employer, alleging that the company denied him a job because he refused to cut his dreadlocks.

Jeffrey Thornton of San Diego filed the discrimination lawsuit recently in a state court. In the lawsuit, Thornton's lawyer, Adam Kent, accuses event planning company Encore Global of denying his client a job as a technical supervisor. An unnamed hiring manager at Encore told Thornton that he needed to first trim his locks off his ears, eyes, and shoulders to land the gig, court documents state.

“In order to take the job, Mr. Thornton would have to materially alter his hairstyle, and thus his appearance, cultural identity, and racial heritage,” according to the lawsuit.

Encore is based in Illinois, but the company has an office in San Diego, which is where Thornton applied to work last month. Thornton worked for the company for four years in Florida before being furloughed in March 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic, the lawsuit states.

Encore said in a statement that Thornton misunderstood what the manager said and that he is welcome to rejoin the company.

“We regret any miscommunication with Mr. Thornton regarding our standard grooming policies — which he appears to fully meet, and we have made him an offer of employment,” Encore said in an emailed statement, adding that company officials are “reviewing our grooming policies to avoid potential miscommunications in the future."

Thornton's lawsuit also accuses Encore of having a personal appearance policy that discriminates against Black people. He is suing the company for an undetermined amount of compensatory damages.

The Thornton case marks the first time someone has accused an employer of violating California's CROWN Act since the legislation took effect in January 2020. While there have been lawsuits centered on hair discrimination before that, the Thornton case specifically invokes the CROWN Act, experts noted.

The CROWN Act bans companies from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on natural hairstyles, including afros, Bantu knots, braids, and cornrows. California became the first state to ban discrimination against natural hair in workplaces. A dozen more states, including New Jersey, New York, and Virginia, now have similar legislation. The law draws from decades of Black employees sharing tales of being denied employment or shunned at work for wearing natural hairstyles.

Thornton is a Florida native who handles audio and visual needs for conferences inside hotels. He said that he started growing his locks in 2019 and that they're now 5 1/2 inches long.

“There was no problem with me growing my hair out there,” Thornton said about his time working for Encore in Florida.

Thornton said he moved to San Diego last year in hopes of riding out the coronavirus pandemic and landing a better job in “the number one, or perhaps number two, market in the nation” for hotel conferences.

Thornton said he was surprised to hear a manager tell him the locks were an issue because he thought California was more laid back than other states. Thornton said he has been doing audiovisual work as a freelancer since the Encore incident. Thornton said he has received Encore's job offer but has not decided whether to accept.

Encore made “a clear violation” of the CROWN Act, if what Thornton described in the lawsuit turns out to be true, said Drexel University law professor Wendy Greene, who helped craft California's CROWN Act.

In court, Thornton would likely argue that the length of his hair would have had nothing to do with how well he could perform his work duties, Greene said. If Encore were to argue that it was just trying to make Thornton conform to company appearance policies, then that “signals that locks aren't neat or clean or professional,” she said.

“The goal of the CROWN Act is not to compel someone to cut off their hair,” Greene said. “We're trying to get [employers] not to worry about what's on top of the head and focus on what's inside the head and all the gifts and talents that flow from that.”

Discussion Questions

  1. Describe the CROWN Act.

    As indicated in the article, the CROWN Act (“CROWN” stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”) bans companies from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on natural hairstyles, including afros, Bantu knots, braids, and cornrows. California became the first state to ban discrimination against natural hair in workplaces. A dozen more states, including New Jersey, New York, and Virginia, now have similar legislation. The law draws from decades of Black employees sharing tales of being denied employment or shunned at work for wearing natural hairstyles.
  2. Explain how the CROWN Act relates to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    The CROWN Act is related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the sense that both seek to prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, culture, or religion. The CROWN Act is California state legislation, while Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal legislation.
  3. In your reasoned opinion, who should prevail in this case: the employee, Jeffrey Thornton, or his employer, Encore Global? Explain your response.

    This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. In your author’s opinion, Mr. Thornton has a strong case, particularly since he has the backing of California state legislation (the CROWN Act) and federal legislation (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Additionally, barring a settlement, the case will be tried in a California state court (more particularly, in San Diego), which generally tends to be progressive and “pro-employee” rights.

    To counter the plaintiff’s strong case, Encore Global (the employer) will have to establish that if it indeed requested that Mr. Thornton cut his hair (Encore currently describes the incident as one merely involving “miscommunication”), that doing so is reasonably necessary for compliance with the company’s personal grooming policy, and that the personal grooming policy itself is reasonable