House Bill 135, introduced in the Georgia House Legislature on January 29, 2025, aims to address discrimination based on protective hairstyles in educational institutions and workplaces. The bill defines "protective hairstyle" to include braids, locs, twists, and other textured hairdressing associated with an individual's race, color, or national origin. It seeks to ensure that individuals are not subjected to discrimination in programs or activities conducted by educational institutions that receive state financial assistance or enroll students who benefit from state financial aid.

Key provisions of the bill include a broad definition of discrimination, which encompasses various forms of exclusion or differentiation based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, or age. However, the bill also includes a clause that allows employers to avoid liability for religious discrimination if they can demonstrate that accommodating an employee's religious observance would impose an undue hardship on their operations.

The introduction of House Bill 135 has sparked notable discussions among lawmakers and advocacy groups. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary step toward promoting inclusivity and protecting the rights of individuals with textured hair, who often face discrimination in educational and professional settings. Critics, however, express concerns about the potential implications for employers and the challenges of defining "undue hardship" in accommodating religious practices.

The bill's implications extend beyond educational institutions, potentially affecting workplace policies across Georgia. If passed, it could lead to significant changes in how employers approach grooming standards and discrimination policies, fostering a more inclusive environment for individuals of diverse racial and cultural backgrounds.

As the legislative process unfolds, stakeholders are closely monitoring the bill's progress, anticipating debates and possible amendments that could shape its final form. The outcome of House Bill 135 may set a precedent for similar legislation in other states, reflecting a growing national conversation about race, identity, and workplace equality.