A significant issue that has gained considerable attention over the past year is the treatment of Black natural hair in the workplace. Workplace dress codes often require hair to be "neat" or "professional," and Black women with natural hair, even when styled neatly, are frequently seen as violating these policies. Consequently, they may face hiring discrimination, reprimands, or demands to change their hairstyle. These policies often fail to recognize that Black women's natural hair differs from that of white, Asian, Hispanic, or other women, leading to unfair treatment $($Bennett$-$Alexander, $2021).$

Kerry potentially has a Title VII claim against her employer. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of $1964$ prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Discrimination based on race includes discriminatory practices based on characteristics associated with race, such as hair texture and protective hairstyles like dreadlocks. While federal courts have had differing opinions on whether dreadlocks specifically are protected under Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission $($EEOC$)$ has interpreted Title VII to include protection against discrimination based on natural hair or hairstyles closely associated with race $($Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of $1964,$ n$.$d$.).$

In Kerry's case, her supervisor, Benjamin, singled out her dreadlocks, a natural hairstyle popular among African Americans, saying that they went against the company's requirement for "neat and professional" hair. This policy and its enforcement against Kerry's natural hair could be viewed as discriminatory because it disproportionately affects African American employees.