CROWN Laws and the Post-Catastrophe Compliance Landscape: What Florida Employers Must Know

In 2016, the Eleventh Circuit (which includes Florida) issued a controversial decision in EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, 852 F.3d 1018, ruling that an employer’s ban on dreadlocks did not violate federal law prohibiting race discrimination. Because the ruling applied Title VII narrowly—excluding hairstyle from protected traits—the decision sparked intense criticism and quickly became a rallying point for legislative change.

In the years since, the Catastrophe ruling has been a catalyst for a nationwide wave of CROWN laws. These laws, now adopted in 27 states, explicitly prohibit discrimination based on natural or protective hairstyles such as locs, braids, afros, and twists. While Florida has not yet passed a CROWN law, the legal and cultural momentum around this issue has real consequences for Florida employers.

The Risk After Catastrophe

Although Catastrophe remains binding precedent in Florida, employers should not treat it as a green light to regulate grooming standards without scrutiny. The decision turned on the fact that hairstyle, unlike race itself, was not protected under Title VII. However, it left open the possibility that grooming policies could still trigger liability if they disproportionately impact Black employees or are applied inconsistently.

Federal agencies like the EEOC continue to pursue race discrimination claims where grooming rules function as proxies for racial bias. State and local lawmakers have responded even more aggressively. Many of the state-level CROWN laws that exist today were introduced directly in response to the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in Catastrophe.

In other words, the legal landscape has shifted sharply, and Florida employers are operating in its shadow.

Why Employers Must Be Cautious

Employers who adopt grooming or appearance policies without a specific, job-related business reason take on significant risk. Rules that prohibit hairstyles worn predominantly by Black employees—even if not intended to discriminate—may still violate federal or state law under a theory of disparate impact.

Consider these key points:

• Race-neutral grooming policies may not be legally neutral in effect. If a policy excludes natural or protective hairstyles, it may disproportionately affect Black employees.

• Aesthetic preferences are not a defense. Courts and enforcement agencies will ask whether a rule is necessary for health, safety, hygiene, or other business functions, not whether it aligns with an employer’s image standards.

• Consistency is critical. Uneven enforcement or vague language increases the likelihood of a discrimination claim.

Compliance Tips for Florida Employers

1. Reevaluate your grooming and appearance standards. Any policy that limits hairstyles must be tied directly to an objective business necessity. Document the reasoning.

2. Avoid bans on specific hairstyles. Prohibiting styles like dreadlocks, twists, or braids without a valid justification invites legal scrutiny.

3. Train decision-makers. Ensure managers and HR professionals understand that cultural or racial hairstyle traits may raise Title VII or FCRA concerns.

4. Monitor legislative developments. Florida lawmakers have considered CROWN legislation before, and the pressure to adopt such protections is not fading.

Conclusion

The Catastrophe decision may still define the legal minimum, but it no longer reflects the broader legal or cultural standard. In today’s climate, grooming policies that target natural hair are a liability risk, especially if not grounded in a clear, defensible business reason.

Florida employers should get ahead of the trend. Review your policies now. The cost of inaction may be more than cosmetic.