Hairdressers would have to learn how to work with textured hair under new bill

HARTFORD — New Haven resident Gia Cook said she has experienced discrimination because of her hair texture and is backing a bill that aims to prevent that from happening to others.

“No one should be made to feel that the hair that naturally grows out of their head is bad or unruly and this bill is a huge first step to ensuring these sentiments are eradicated by empowering and educating cosmeticians to provide their services to all ranges of people,” she said at the recent hearing on a new state Senate Bill.

The bill would require schools to train student barbers and hairdressers to work with textured hair, or hair that is coiled, curly or wavy.

During her testimony, she said passing the bill would be a “huge step” to fostering inclusivity in Connecticut.

The bill received support from several advocates and the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, who said access to equitable hair care is a civil rights issue.

There were a little over 4,000 professional hairdressers, hair stylists, and cosmetologists in Connecticut in May of 2022, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, many of them are not trained to work with textured hair, which creates an additional cost for consumers with textured hair, who are also often people of color. Because straight hair is the norm in the beauty industry, customers with textured hair are also often required to travel and pay extra to receive services from curl specialists.

“Hair is something that we don’t talk a lot about in this committee, but it impacts a lot of us in our dayto-day lives,” said committee co-chair state Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey, D, Fairfield. “It does have an impact on people’s health and well-being.”

The bill also received support from the Henkel Corporation, which owns the well-known curly hair care brand DevaCurl.

Director of Public Affairs & Government Relations Brian Heindl said DevaCurl is a founding member of the Texture Education Collective, an alliance of professional hair industry leaders that work together to influence cosmetology state board licensing requirements and curriculums to be inclusive of all hair textures and types.

He added that this bill builds on the CT CROWN Act signed by the governor in March 2021. The name stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair” and the law expands civil rights protections to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyles that are commonly associated with people of color, such as afros, braids, twists, headwraps and wigs.

“It’s discrimination when you walk into a salon or a barbershop and you’re turned away because you have textured hair and they don’t know how to cut it,” Heindl said.

The new bill, identified as Senate Bill 178, was introduced by state Sen. Patricia Billie Miller, D, Stamford, who is also the chair of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus.

There are already similar guidelines in place in New York and Louisiana, and a similar bill is in process in New Jersey. The bill was presented in the Public Health Committee, where it received a large majority of votes in favor and was referred to the Office of Legislative Research and Office of Fiscal Analysis on Monday afternoon.

The legislation would not create an additional cost for beauty schools or add hours to the curriculum, Marisa Tukpah, manager of research and development and regulatory innovation at DevaCurl, said during the public hearing. Instead, it is intended for future hairdressers and barbers to have familiarity with textured hair and be able to work with two mannequin heads: one with straight hair and one with curly.

“We don’t want curly hair to be separate from any hair,” she said. “Hair is hair. Everyone should be educated on how to cut it, how to use it, how to style it. But if you want additional specifics and additional help, we can offer that.”

Even though most of the committee voted in favor of the bill, state Rep. Anne Dauphinais, R, Killingly, was one of three Republican members of the committee who voted against it. She raised concerns because it would be a state mandate and the cost of additional training.

“This is a mandate for people who may never even practice in their job or ever even seek to do. While I can appreciate the extra training, it’s going to be an added cost,” she said during the vote. “I would think this is something that should be voluntary and added as needed.”