[11] In 2019, Dove conducted the CROWN Research Study to "identify the magnitude of racial discrimination experienced by women in the workplace based on their natural hairstyles.

"[12] These results led to Dove, Color of Change, the National Urban League, and the Western Center on Law & Poverty creating the CROWN Coalition.

[13] In response to the gathered data, the CROWN Coalition partnered with then-California State Senator Holly J. Mitchell to introduce a bill to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyle and hair texture.

"[4] Section 2 of the bill explained that people of African descent, particularly in employment and educational settings, routinely face discrimination due to their natural hair or protective hairstyles they are commonly adorned with, including hair that is tightly coiled or tightly curled, or worn in locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, or Afros.

[22] In the Report, the House Judiciary's Majority explained that federal courts in other circuits have since adopted narrower interpretations of Title VII when deciding whether employer grooming policies that restrict certain hairstyles are unlawful.

[17] The Majority referenced the 1981 case Rogers v. American Airlines, in which a federal district court concluded that a workplace grooming policy banning cornrow braids not pulled back in a bun or hair wrap was legally permissible.

[23] It also cited the 2016 case Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, where the Eleventh Circuit concluded that mutable hairstyles, such as dreadlocks, are not extended protection under Title VII.

[24] The Committee Majority further pointed out that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has since issued guidance on Title VII interpretation to prohibit discrimination based on hair texture and certain hairstyles.

[25][26] Moreover, it explained that seven states had already passed similar legislation to the CROWN Act of 2020 but noted that "such protections are incomplete and leave many minorities, especially Black Americans, vulnerable to discrimination.

[27] Congressman Jordan also stated the Democratic Majority did not follow proper protocol since the Committee had not held a legislative hearing on the bill before it was considered on the Floor.

[34] In the Conclusion, the Majority explained that although even more states (14 total) had enacted legislation to prohibit hair discrimination since the bill was first proposed, a federal Act was still needed to ensure protection nationwide.

[34] Like in the 2020 Committee Report,[21] Representative Jim Jordan (OH-R), expressed opposition for the bill on behalf of the House Judiciary's Minority.

[35] He argued that "a race-neutral policy is not disparate treatment simply because it is applied to a member of a protected class," and that the bill was overall "unnecessary as a matter of law.

[8] In early December 2022, the proposed legislation failed to gain enough support to override a filibuster from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), which prevented a vote from being conducted.

[11] The CROWN Act, or similar legislation that prohibits discrimination based on an individual's hair texture or hairstyle, has been passed in 25 states,[42] including: Alaska,[43] Arizona,[44] Arkansas,[45] California,[14] Colorado,[46] Connecticut,[47] Delaware,[48] Illinois,[49] Louisiana,[50] Maine,[51] Maryland,[52] Massachusetts,[53] Michigan,[54] Minnesota,[55] Nebraska,[56] Nevada,[57] New Jersey,[58] New Mexico,[59] New York,[60] Oregon,[61] Tennessee,[62] Texas,[63] Virginia,[64] Vermont[65] and Washington.

[13] Similar ordinances have also been passed at the municipal level across various cities and counties in effort to garner bi-partisan support for the proposed state laws.