Abstract

Excerpted From: Tanner C. Fisher, The Disparate Impact of Clean-Shave Policies on Black Men, 18 Drexel Law Review 1091 (2026) (333 Footnotes) (Full Document)

Black men are harmed by policies that require a close skin shave as a condition of employment or military service. Pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) is a disease afflicting up to 85% of Black men, caused by the growth of curved hair follicles following a close skin shave. A close shave for someone with PFB results in “shaving bumps,” or papules and pustules in the neck, chin, and sometimes cheeks. Continual shaving by someone with PFB can lead to irreversible and cosmetically bothersome damage to the skin, including scarring, keloid formation, hyperpigmentation, and secondary infection. “[C]essation of shaving” is “[t]he most definitive treatment for PFB.”

This harm is caused by clean-shave policies, where employers require their employees to maintain a close skin shave as a condition of employment. Employers enforce clean-shave policies that are overburdensome, inflexible, and harmful to black men suffering from PFB. Exemptions to these policies may include temporary or permanent waivers from the shaving requirements of the employer. Black men need accessible shaving exemptions and employer-provided treatment; protection from harassment and retaliation in the workplace because of their shaving exemption; and--if the preceding measures fail--adequate means of legal redress under the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

The history of the United States is littered with examples of racial hierarchy. A hierarchy based, in large part, on the physical characteristics of the people who comprise its ranks. A hierarchy which has traditionally punished those with certain skin color, hair textures, or facial features. Black people have historically found themselves subordinated to the bottom of this racial hierarchy. Hair and grooming are prime examples of the physical characteristics used to achieve this subordination. A historical thread of hair discrimination in the United States can be traced from the period of enslavement to the modern employment context, where advantages are conferred upon those with straight, European-style hair, and disadvantages are levied against black people with curly or kinky hair texture who sport hair styles such as braids, twists, afros, or locs. In addition to historic hair discrimination, employers have enforced clean shave policies since at least the 1970s, despite evidence of these policies’ disproportionate harm upon black men. Historical racial discrimination against black hair, along with the failure to account for the unique grooming problems of black men, result in anti-black employment practices and negative individual biases against black men in the workplace.

Standards of workplace professionalism illustrate how these trends manifest. Professionalism is a tool with multiple purposes. A tool employed to include those who fit the mold. Or a tool wielded to exclude those who do not conform to the prevailing standards of professionalism. Standards which contain built-in biases against non-white persons--especially in the United States. These standards shape workplace policies. Workplace policies which often target hairstyle and grooming and exhibit a preference for straightened hair and shaven faces. Exclusionary notions of professionalism, in conjunction with the historically rooted biases against the physical characteristics of black people, result in employment policies that do not adequately account for black men suffering from PFB and legal approaches that are overly deferential to the employers who implement these discriminatory practices.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to prevent racial discrimination by providing routes of legal redress for certain protected classes. Protection from racial discrimination under the Act also insulates protected classes from the facially neutral policies of employers that generate a disparate racial impact. As with most revolutionary pieces of legislation, the justice system was left to decipher the letter and spirit of the law through litigation. Unsurprisingly, courts developed different interpretations of the 1964 Act, thus creating a confusing legal landscape for those seeking equal protection of the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 codified some of these competing legal methods used by courts to decide disparate impact claims. Although the 1991 Act was adopted with benign intentions, courts have failed to apply the 1991 Act appropriately.

Courts now use a three-part burden shifting framework--adopted by the 1991 Act--to evaluate disparate impact claims. Although courts use the same burden-shifting framework, the underlying evidentiary requirements for each part of the test are assessed very differently by the justice system. The net result is an injustice to black men in the workplace. Black men are subjected to clean-shave policies that are overburdensome, administratively and financially costly, unnecessary, and outright harmful. Employers should be more accommodating to black men with PFB by providing easier access to shaving waivers and punishing employees who harass men with shaving waivers. Employers who maintain strict clean-shaven policies for legitimate safety concerns should provide resources and access to treatment for black men with PFB.

This Article argues for employers to enact grooming policies that account for black men, for policymakers to prohibit unnecessary and harmful clean-shave policies, and for legal advocacy that encourages courts to reconsider the current methods of evaluating disparate impact claims by black men with PFB.

The United States military is the most uncompromising enforcer of clean-shave policies. Despite decades of evidence detailing the harmful impact of shaving, the military has continued to enforce policies that generate an unacceptable bias against black men. Under the new Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, three of the six military branches have adopted more restrictive grooming policies that will produce adverse consequences for black male soldiers.

In 2025, the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force each adopted more restrictive grooming policies. These changes have limited the availability and duration of shaving exemptions for soldiers. Treatment recommendations even include laser hair removal. And now, a soldier’s inability to recover from PFB can provide grounds for an administrative discharge from service.

These changes are unlikely to be repealed under the current Secretary of War. A future administration, however, may be inspired to alter these policies to prevent harm to black soldiers. The current policies force black men to make a choice between laser surgery or being discharged from service. Under the current regime, shaving waivers are more difficult to obtain and re-evaluations to renew shaving waivers are required too frequently. This Article will establish why the Navy’s current grooming policy is the least harmful and enumerate how an ideal military grooming policy should account for black men with PFB.

[ . . . ]

Black men are disproportionately affected by a shaving-related skin condition, yet grooming policies across civilian employment, first responder organizations, and the military continue to ignore this reality. When close-shave requirements are imposed without a legitimate safety justification, they perpetuate a legacy of racial discrimination that should have ended decades ago. Despite credible legal arguments and favorable precedent, the justice system has largely failed to provide meaningful relief for black men affected by these policies. Recent military grooming rules further entrench this harm by forcing black soldiers with PFB to choose between laser surgery and administrative discharge.

In the civilian context, employees may find relief using the legal arguments formulated in this Article, and employers should revise grooming standards to accommodate individuals with PFB. Policymakers should also enact protections against discriminatory clean-shave policies. The outlook for black service members, however, is more uncertain. While the Navy has adopted a comparatively accommodating approach, broader reform across the armed forces appears unlikely under current leadership. Meaningful protection for black soldiers suffering from PFB may ultimately depend on political change driven by the electorate.

Tanner C. Fisher, Attorney.