Unveiling the Federal Aspect- The Crown Act’s Prodigal Path in National Governance

Is the Crown Act Federal?

The question “Is the Crown Act federal?” has sparked a heated debate among legal experts, educators, and policymakers. The Crown Act, also known as the California Fair Pay Act, was initially introduced in California to address discrimination against individuals with natural hairstyles. As the debate continues, it is crucial to understand the implications of the Act and its potential federal reach.

The Crown Act was signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom in 2019. It prohibits employers from enforcing policies that discriminate against individuals based on their hair texture or protective hairstyles, such as braids, locks, and twists. The Act was designed to protect African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinx individuals, and Native Americans, who are disproportionately affected by such discrimination.

The debate over whether the Crown Act is federal revolves around the issue of jurisdiction. The Act was specifically enacted at the state level, which raises questions about its applicability outside of California. Proponents argue that the Act should be considered federal because it addresses a national issue that affects individuals across the country. They point out that discrimination based on hair texture is a systemic problem that requires a national response.

On the other hand, opponents argue that the Act’s federal reach is limited due to its state-specific nature. They contend that the Act does not have the authority to override existing federal laws or policies that govern employment discrimination. Furthermore, they argue that federal intervention could undermine the ability of states to address their own unique issues.

One of the key arguments in favor of the Act’s federal applicability is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) stance on hair discrimination. In 2017, the EEOC issued guidance that stated that discrimination based on natural hairstyles constitutes race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This guidance suggests that the Crown Act aligns with federal law and should be recognized as such.

Another argument in favor of the Act’s federal reach is the growing number of states that have enacted similar legislation. New York, New Jersey, and New Mexico have all passed their own versions of the Crown Act, which further supports the notion that the issue of hair discrimination is a national concern that requires a federal response.

In conclusion, the question of whether the Crown Act is federal is a complex issue that hinges on the interpretation of federal and state laws. While the Act was initially introduced and enacted at the state level, its alignment with federal guidance and the growing number of states enacting similar legislation suggest that it may have a broader impact than initially thought. As the debate continues, it is essential for policymakers and legal experts to consider the Act’s potential federal reach and its implications for the fight against hair discrimination across the United States.