Committee advances Crown Act ordinance to ban hair‑texture discrimination; legal scope and enforcement debated

Cuyahoga County’s Human Resource Appointments and Equity Committee approved an amended ordinance, commonly called the Crown Act, to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of hair texture or hairstyles commonly associated with a particular race or national origin. The ordinance amends sections 15.01 and 15.02 of the Cuyahoga County Code and adds similar language to section 3.02 of the county employee handbook; the committee voted to advance the measure and incorporate a technical substitute for consistency with recently adopted language.

Trevor Maclure, County Council staff, presented the substitute and described it as technical: "The substitute is technical in nature. What it does is incorporates the language from the conversion therapy ban that council recently approved," he said, and asked the committee to approve the updated legislation so "that's the most up to date legislation in front of you."

The proposed ordinance amends the county code's definition of race to include language covering "hair texture or hairstyle commonly associated with a particular race or national origin," and lists examples including "curled hairs, locks, cornrows, twists, braids, knots, and afros." The same language would be added to the county employee handbook to state that the county provides equal employment opportunities regardless of hair texture or hairstyle.

Enforcement would follow the county's existing Human Rights Commission process. Maclure explained complaints would be filed with the Human Rights Commission, which would review allegations and, if a violation were found, could impose civil penalties under the county's human-rights ordinance. Victor Manilacci, assistant law director who staffs the Human Rights Commission, described the typical complaint path: intake, an offer of mediation through the bar association, a hearing before the commission if mediation fails, and an appealable final determination to the Court of Common Pleas.

The proposal prompted extended committee discussion about legal risk and enforceability. Council members asked whether the county had seen local complaints like this and whether the Department of Equity and Inclusion had reviewed the draft; Maclure said he was not aware of local cases and that HR and the personnel review commission had reviewed the draft but DEI had not. Manilacci and several council members raised the possibility of constitutional or home‑rule challenges and said the county could face litigation on novel ordinances. "There is always a risk... the risk of a home rule challenge from the state or some kind of preemption is... always there," Manilacci said.

Council members also asked whether the text would cover dyed hair and other appearance elements. Maclure noted the ordinance is limited to hairstyles and textures "commonly associated with a particular race or national origin," and that legal interpretation could be needed to determine whether hair color would fall under the definition.

Supporters included the county executive's office and the Human Rights Commission, and Human Resources Director Sarah Nemestel said the administration co‑sponsors the ordinance and "fully supports the Crown Act" and the handbook amendment. Council sponsor (Councilmember Hauser) framed the ordinance as a dignity and access measure: "This ordinance says no more. Here in Cuyahoga County, we will continue to hold the line because your opportunity should not be dependent on how you look," he said.

Opponents or skeptical members urged caution. One council member recommended a resolution to signal support to the state rather than an ordinance because of legal risk and enforcement limitations; members noted that civil penalties under the county code are modest and that a defendant could appeal and seek relief in the courts.

The committee approved the amended ordinance by voice vote, accepted the technical substitute, and moved the measure forward for full Council consideration. Committee members recorded support for incorporation into the employee handbook; the committee also discussed outreach and education as enforcement complements should the ordinance become law.