The Supreme Court in Washington has thrown out a discrimination case. A Rastafarian man in Texas. He was refused a job. Because of his dreadlocks. The company said it was a grooming policy. The man said it was race discrimination. The justices said no. Not under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The law bans discrimination based on race. But not on hairstyles. Even if the hairstyle is closely linked to racial identity. The court was clear: Congress did not include 'hairstyle' in the text. So the courts cannot add it.
British equality groups are ringing alarm bells. They see a precedent. They fear a similar reading of the Equality Act 2010. The UK law is different. It bans discrimination based on race. It also bans discrimination based on religion or belief. That might cover Rastafarians. But the wording is narrow. The EHRC has guidance. It says that a ban on cornrows or dreadlocks could amount to indirect race discrimination. But that guidance is not law. And the courts here look at the US for guidance. There is a common law tradition. The Supreme Court in London might follow the logic in Washington.
The case has kicked off a Westminster debate. Labour MPs are watching. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Equality is meeting next week. They are drafting a letter to the Equalities Minister. They want a statement. They want the government to say that the Equality Act protects natural hair. The Tories are quiet. No comment from No10. The Home Office says the matter is for the courts. That is code for: we will not legislate. Not now.
The polls show a split. Voters under 30 think this is a no-brainer. Over 50s see it as woke overreach. That is a headache for the Whips. They do not want a culture war. But they cannot ignore the backbenchers. There are rumblings on both sides. The right of the party sees this as American import nonsense. The left says it is basic dignity. The Prime Minister is caught. He needs the working class vote. But he also needs the liberal media.
The real game is in the lobby. I hear the Attorney General has been asked to prepare a memo. The question: could the UK courts refuse to follow the US? The answer is yes. But only if Parliament clarifies the law. That is not coming soon. The business lobby is against. They say it would open the floodgates. They cite the US experience: a flood of lawsuits over hair. That is overblown. But it is a good scare story for the boardroom.
So what now? The man in Texas will not get his day in court. But the issue is not going away. It is a slow burn. The next test will be in a UK tribunal. A case is pending in Manchester. A young black woman. She was sent home from work. Because of her afro. The employer said it was unprofessional. The tribunal will decide. They will look at the US ruling. They might not follow it. But they will have to explain why. That is where the pressure will build.
The bottom line: the US ruling is a warning, not a prescription. British courts have more room. But the political will to act is weak. The government is tired. The pandemic is over. The war in Ukraine drags on. Cost of living crisis. This is not a priority. The equality groups know that. So they are pushing now. While the window is open. They are organising a parliamentary lobby. They want a bill. A simple amendment to the Equality Act. Something like 'hairstyles associated with race are protected.' That is the ask. The question is whether the government will give it.
Watch the lobby. Watch the letter from the APPG. If the Equalities Minister gives a sympathetic reply, then something might move. If it is a brush-off, then this goes cold. But the dreadlocks ruling will be cited. In tribunals. In boardrooms. In pub arguments. It is now part of the political lexicon.
