AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Hairstyle and Appearance Regulations & Discrimination
See also: Uniforms, Clothing and Equipment
Monthly Law Journal Article: "Grooming and Appearance Rules for Public
Safety Workers Part Two - Tattoos, Piercings, Jewelry, Dental Ornamentation,
Cosmetics and Religious Headwear," 2007 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 201. [Feb.
2007].
Monthly Law Journal Article: "Grooming and Appearance Rules for Public
Safety Workers Part One - Hair Regulations," 2007 (1) AELE Mo. L. J.
201. [Jan. 2007].
Monthly Law Journal Article: Rights
of Rastafarian Employees and Inmates, 2015 (8) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
A D.C. fireman had a
beard, and was required to shave it by Department policy. He claimed to have a
medical condition rendering him unable to shave without discomfort and
infection. His employer refused to accommodate that condition. He sued,
claiming disability discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA), among other claims. The trial court dismissed the ADA claims, finding
that his condition did not meet the ADA definition of a disability. The
plaintiff appealed that order on an interlocutory basis under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b)
which allows such an appeal “if application is made to it within ten
days after the entry of the order.” He filed a notice of the appeal in the
trial court two days after the court denied reconsideration, but waited several
weeks before filing his application in the appeals court. The appeals court dismissed,
rejecting his contention that the notice of appeal and the order denying
reconsideration, both of which were transmitted to it within the statutory
period, served the same purpose as an application. Kennedy
v. Bowser, #15-7143, 843 F.3d 529 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Federal court finds that management had made
good faith effort to accommodate a Muslim officer's religious belief by
allowing him to grow a one-quarter inch beard - the same length allowed those
with a medical condition. Wallace v. City of Philadelphia, #06-4236, 2010 WL
1730850, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42437, 109 FEP Cases (BNA) 401 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
Orthodox Jewish police detective receives
$350,000 from the Las Vegas Police to settle a lawsuit because he was
prohibited from having a beard and wearing a yarmulke. Riback v. Las Vegas
Metro Police Dept., #2:07-cv-01152 (D. Nev.). Prior decision at 2008 WL 321.
Although a bargaining agreement allowed officers to
wear moustaches, an arbitrator concludes that the chief retained the authority
to require them to be neat and trimmed. Sylvania Twp. and Ohio PBA, FMCS Case
#09/52215, 126 LA (BNA) 1601 (Lalka, 2009).
Citing safety concerns with the use of respirators, a
federal court upholds no-beards rule for police SWAT members. Stewart v. City
of Houston, #H-07-4021, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79174 & 79188 (S.D. Tex.
2009).
Warden who demoted a Rastafarian acting lieutenant
because he wore dreadlocks was entitled to qualified immunity. The right to
wear one’s hair to conform to one’s religious beliefs was not clearly
established. Booth v. State of Maryland, #08-1748, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15965
(4th Cir.).
Appellate court rejects a no-beard rule for
firefighters who claim a religious exemption. "The positive pressure in
the SCBA system is adequate to protect the bearded firefighter from any leakage
that may be caused by facial hair." Potter v. Dist. of Columbia, #07-7164,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 4540 (D.C. Cir.).
Federal appeals panel
partially agrees that Custom’s management is not required to bargain over the
agency’s grooming standards. Customs and Border Protection policy prohibits all
facial hair other than beards maintained for medical reasons and “conservative”
mustaches kept within “the corners of the mouth” and above “the upper
vermillion of the lip.” The court remanded a proposal addressing beards,
because there was a lack of evidence about the use of respirators by customs
officers. NTEU v. Labor Relations Auth., #081015, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 25581
(D.C. Cir.).
The New Jersey Dept. of Corrections' training
academy no-facial hair policy was facially neutral and only incidentally
burdened religious conduct. It was rationally related to compliance with
federal and state health regulations concerning the use of respirator masks and
to a concern about the esprit de corps which comes from uniformity of
appearance. It did not violate the rights of a Muslim trainee removed from the
training program when he failed, on three separate occasions, to keep his beard
within parameters that were allowed to him as an accommodation of his religion.
Valdes v. New Jersey, #07-2971, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 17380 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Article: Regulating Matters of Appearance, 76 (2)
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 25 (Feb. 2007).
Federal court grants a partial summary judgment
for a Las Vegas police officer who converted to Orthodox Judaism and grew a
beard. Agency policy allowed medical exemptions from the no-beards rule for
uniformed personnel, but not for religious reasons. Riback v. Las Vegas Metro
Police Dept., #2:07-cv-0115, 2008 WL 3211279 (D.Nev.).
Court dismisses a privacy action brought by a
uniformed DHS employee who was required to furnish medical reasons why he
should be excused from a ban on facial hair. Boyd v. Chertoff, #07-1098, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 25029 and 25002 (D.D.C.).
New Jersey appellate court reinstates a sex
discrimination claim brought by a male Rastafarian corrections officer who
refused to cut his dreadlocks. Only women officers are allowed to pin or twist
their hair to comply with a collar-length hair standard. "... the record
does not indicate why female corrections officers are still permitted to pin or
twist their long hair to meet the standard, and there is no evidence or data
explaining why any safety hazard cannot be reduced to an acceptable level by
pinning or twisting the hair or by some means other than cutting the hair.
Furthermore, the record does not disclose any detail about the motivation for
the Director's changing the grooming policy in 2004. Defendant does not cite to
any reports on the relevant safety issue, and there is no reference to any
specific incident or study that precipitated the change in policy. Finally,
contrary to the impression formed by the motion judge, plaintiff worked in the
subject environment from 1994 to 2004, ostensibly without incident." Hicks
v. Hudson County Corr. Ctr., #A-2407-05T3 2007 WL 2428429, 101 FEP Cases (BNA)
1075 (Unpub. N.J. App. Div. 2007).
Federal court finds that the grooming standards
for D.C. firefighters and paramedics violates the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act, and management "has not proven or even attempted to prove that
bearded firefighters fail tests more frequently than clean-shaven
firefighters.". Potter v. Dist. of Columbia, #01-1189, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 72507, 2007 WL 2892685, 101 FEP Cases (BNA) 1302. (D.D.C.).
In a 7-to-4 decision, the Ninth Circuit upholds the
firing of a woman employee who refused to wear facial makeup. Jespersen v.
Harrah's, #03-15045, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 9307 (9th Cir. en banc 2006). [2006
FP Jun]
Arbitrator rules that Customs and Border
Protection adopted a new Personal Appearance Standard without first bargaining
with the union. He found no evidence that bargaining would impair the agency's
mission. U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Prot., and N.T.E.U., 43 (2133)
G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1159 (Vaughn, 2005). {N/R}
Arbitrator upholds a three-day suspension for a
city license officer who wore a revealing tank top to work on a "dress
down" day. City of Lake Worth and AFSCME L-1199, 121 LA (BNA) 228
(Almenoff, 2005). [2005 FP Nov]
Citing the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom
Protection Act of 2002, a Philadelphia trial court enjoins the city's fire
dept. from disciplining a Muslim firefighter who refuses to shave his beard.
DeVeaux v. City of Philadelphia, Docket #2005-3103, Control #021818, 2005
Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. Lexis 331 (Cm.Pls. Phila. Co. 2005). {N/R}
Federal court rejects the Title VII suit of a
federal applicant who claimed the agency unlawfully discriminated against him
because of his status as a "single, attractive male." He said he
overhead a personnel officer saying "No pretty boys." The government
showed that the applicant had a poor work record. Blitzer v. Potter, #03CV6124,
43 (2110) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). {N/R}
Jury rejects a discrimination claim of a woman
who claimed she was passed over for promotion because she looked too sexy.
Goodwin v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1:03-cv-11797 (D. Mass.).
[2005 FP Jun]
Army reissues its regulations for hairstyles,
jewelry, piercings and tattoos in light of extreme fashion trends. Army Reg.R
670-1. [2005 FP Apr.]
Distinguishing uniformed public safety employees,
the Fifth Circuit holds that the wearing of a pro union lapel pin by a county
hospital worker, in violation of the employer's dress code, was speech
regarding a matter of public concern, and not speech publicizing a personal
employment grievance. Communications Workers of America v. Ector County
Hospital Dist., #03-50230, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24768 (5th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
Federal appeals court in Boston upholds an
employer's refusal to allow workers to have visible body piercings, even if the
employee claims the jewelry is worn for religious reasons. Cloutier v. Costco,
#04-1475, 390 F.2d 126, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24763, 94 FEP Cases (BNA) 1476
(1st Cir. 2004). [2005 FP Feb]
Ninth Circuit upholds a hotel/casino's dress code
policy that women must wear facial makeup. The plaintiff alleged gender
discrimination. Jesperson v. Harrahs, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 26892 (9th Cir.
2004). {N/R}
California appellate court rejects a suit against
the state by a firefighter who lost his job because of a state OSHA regulation
banning facial hair, which he allowed to grow to alleviate a skin disorder
(PFB). Vernon v. St. of California, #A101244, 116 Cal.App.4th 114, 2004 Cal.
App. Lexis 224 (1st Dist. 2004). [2004 FP May]
Appeals court rejects a "non-theistic"
freedom of religion claim by a corrections worker to have long hair. Sincere
beliefs do not implicate religious rights. Luken v. Brigano, #CA2003-01-007,
2003 Ohio 5116, 2003 Ohio App. Lexis 4609 (12th Dist. 2003). [Dec FP 2003]
Fourth Circuit revives a suit brought by a
Rastafarian corrections officer who was repeatedly disciplined for wearing
deadlocks. Booth v. Maryland Dept. of Corr. Serv., 02-1657, 2003 U.S. App.
Lexis 8156 (4th Cir. 2003). [2003 FP Jul]
Federal appeals court holds that a judge can ban
Islamic headwear in the courtroom. "Jews will not wear yarmulkes. I am
Catholic and the Pope would not wear a miter," said the judge. U.S. v.
James, #02-3424, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 9199 (7th Cir.). {N/R}
Reacting to complaints from coworkers about offensive
tattoos, and from superior officers about bizarre body piercings and dental
ornamentation, the U.S. Navy has revised its grooming standards for uniformed
and civilian personnel. Ref: NAVADMIN 021-03 (Jan. 2003) and Army regulation AR
670-1. [2003 FP May]
Maryland fire dept. agrees to allow a
Muslim firefighter to wear a religious scarf, but she must wear hood and helmet
when responding to fires. In re Stacy Tobing and Montgomery Co., Md. “Muslim
Firefighter May Wear Scarf,” Wash. Post, July 13, 2001, p. B05. [2001 FP 136-7]
EEOC negotiates a $70,000 settlement for a Muslim
who was fired for violating an employer's “no-beard” policy. Abdul-Azeez v.
Federal Express Corp., #CV100-50, 69 L.W. 2793 (S.D. Ga., 2001). [2001 FP 119]
Federal court rejects a sex discrimination
challenge to “no beards” policy for paramedics; plaintiff did not claim and
exemption for medical, religious or ethnic reasons. Barrett v. Amer. Medical
Response, #CV-00-1539-ST, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7834, 85 FEP Cases (BNA) 1245
(Unpub., D. Ore. 2001). [2001 FP 119-20]
Federal court upholds a management order that an
employee cover a racially offensive tattoo on his arm. Swartzentruber v. Gunite
Corp., 99 F.Supp.2d 976, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8253, 83 FEP Cases (BNA) 181
(N.D. Ind. 2000). [2001 FP 55]
Ohio Supreme Court generally upholds appearance
standards for corrections officers, but allows an officer to have long hair for
religious reasons, if concealed neatly under his hat. Humphrey v. Lane,
#99-206, 89 Ohio St.3rd 62, 728 N.E.2d 1039, 2000 Ohio Lexis 1283. [2000 FP
119-120]
Justice Dept. sues Newark over its grooming
policy, which impacted Islamic police officers. U.S. v. Newark, #00-2368, 38
(1864) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 666 (D.N.J.); DoJ Civ. Rts. Release #00269. [2000 FP 105]
New Jersey settles facial hair lawsuit with
Muslim correctional officers; documentation requirements eased. Muhammad v.
N.J. Dept. of Corr., #00-1342, 38 (1864) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 666 (D.N.J. 2000).
[2000 FP 105]
Muslim N.Y. park ranger, who was suspended for
wearing a beard, is reinstated and will receive $25,700 in back wages. Muhammad
Ali v. N.Y. State Park Police; settlement reported May 16, 2000. [2000 FP 105]
Law review articles on hairstyles: “No shoes, no
shirt, no education: dress codes and freedom of expression behind the
postmodern schoolhouse gates,” 9 Seton Hall Const. L.J. 337 (1999); “Suits for
the hirsute: defending against America’s undeclared war on beards in the
workplace,” 63 Fordham L. Rev. 1203 (1995); “Only girls wear barrettes: dress
and appearance standards, community norms, and workplace equality,” 92 Mich. L.
Rev. 2541 (1994); “A hair piece: perspectives on the intersection of race and
gender,” 1991 Duke L.J. 365 (1991). Also see the topic, “Uniforms, Clothing and
Equipment” below.
Jury awards DC police officer $37,000 as a result
of disciplinary action taken against him because of his deadlocks hairstyle. He
was a practicing Nazarite, a sect that do not believe in haircuts. Robinson v.
Dist. of Col., #1:97CV00787, 37 (1816) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 662 (D.D.C. 5/4/99).
[1999 FP 123]
Federal appeals court strikes down a NJ police
dept’s no-beards rule in a suit brought by Muslim officers. F.O.P. L-12 v. City
of Newark, #97-5542, 170 F.3d 359, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 3338, 79 FEP Cases
(BNA) 323 (3rd Cir.); cert. den., 1999 U.S. Lexis 5004. [1999 FP 73-4]
Federal court in Ohio upholds a ban on long
ponytails for male correctional officers. A officer's spiritual beliefs, as a
Native American religious practitioner, and the fact that women officers are
permitted to pin up their hair, is not dispositive. Blanken v. Ohio Dept. Reh.
& Corr., 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis 16540, 944 F.Supp. 1359, 72 FEP Cases (BNA)
887 (S.D. Ohio). [1997 FP 9-10]
Federal court rejects a damage suit, brought by
six federal guards, that a new hairstyle policy caused a disparate impact on
women. Separately, another judge found the agency improperly imposed the policy
without negotiating with the union. Batson v. Powell, 912 F.Supp. 565, 1996
U.S.Dist. Lexis 358 (D.D.C.). [1996 FP 168-9]
EEOC sues a private security firm that enforced a
“no beards” policy against a black guard with pseudofolliculitis barbae. EEOC
v. Healthcare Security Services, #C96-2970-WHO (N.D.Cal. 1996). {N/R}
Article: “Employees’ personal appearance,” 11 (2)
The Labor Lawyer (ABA) 261-272 (Summer 1995), www.abanet.org/ {N/R}
U.S. District Court allows Rastafarian NY
corrections officers to wear dreadlock spikes. No nexus shown between the
regulation and safety or security needs. Brown v. Keane, 888 F.Supp. 568, 1995
U.S.Dist. Lexis 7981 (S.D.N.Y.). [1995 FP 151-2]
Arbitrator upholds employer ban on wearing beards
and long mustaches by employees who must wear OSHA mandated breathing
apparatus. Dyno Nobel and O.C.&A.W. Local 5-713, 104 LA (BNA) 376 (Hilgert,
1995). [1995 FP 121-2]
Arbitrator upholds management's order requiring a
telephone operator to cover up or remove a nose hoop while on duty. M.P. &
T. Fund and Hosp. & Serv. Emp. Un. L-399, 103 LA (BNA) 988 (Gentile, 1994).
[1995 FP 88]
D.C. appellate court overturns the termination of
a D.C. firefighter who refused to remove a handlebar mustache and beard. Fire
Dept. could not ban beards but may require them to be short and neatly trimmed.
Kennedy v. Dist. of Columbia, 65 FEP Cases (BNA) 1615, 654 A.2d 847 (D.C.App.
1994). [1995 FP 39]
NY appellate court reinstates a corrections
officer who was terminated for wearing long hair for religious reasons. Rourke
v. N.Y. Dept. of Corrections, 615 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1994 N.Y.App.Div. Lexis 8009.
[1995 FP 6-7]
Federal appeals court rejects a suit by black
firefighters that challenged a rule prohibiting beards. Fitzpatrick v. City of
Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 24682, 62 FEP Cases (BNA) 1484, 2 AD
Cases (BNA) 1270 (11th Cir. 1993). [1994 FP 7-8]
Private employer's policy requiring drivers to
have conservative hair styles without beards did not violate the employment
agreement. Albertsons, Inc. and Teamsters L. 952, 102 LA (BNA) 641 (Darrow,
1994). {N/R}
Federal court awards back and front pay to
employee for constructive discharge which was prompted because he wore a beard
for religious reasons. Plaintiff need not follow an orthodox religion to have a
constitutional protection of sincerely held religious beliefs. Note: this case
did not involve uniformed public safety personnel! Carter v. Bruce Oakley Inc.,
64 FEP Cases (BNA) 967 & 970 (E.D.Ark. 1994). {N/R}
Arbitrator finds that a U.S. Border patrol
officer with pseudofolliculitis barbae was improperly denied permission to grow
a beard; the grievant presented satisfactory medical evidence of his skin
condition. INS Border Patrol and AFGE L-1929, FMCS #92/16394, 100 LA (BNA) 1084
(Rezler, 1993). {N/R}
Federal appeals court says a county can enforce a
restrictive hairstyle policy for its uniformed EMTs, even if the policy is
“silly.” Hottinger v. Pope Co. Ark., 971 F.2d 127 (8th Cir. 1992). [1993 FP
24-5]
Federal appeals court upholds state police
grooming standards. Weaver v. Henderson, 984 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1993). [1993 FP
43]
Firefighter did not have a First Amendment right
to expose his chest hair. Stalter v. City of Montgomery, 796 F.Supp. 489
(M.D.Ala. 1992). [1993 FP 55]
Appellate court orders reinstatement and back pay
of officer who refused to shave; he suffered from PFB (pseudofolliculitis
barbae). Univ. of Maryland v. Boyd, 1992 Md.App. Lexis 231, 3 AD Cases (BNA)
1471, 93 Md.App. 303, 612 A.2d 305, 3 AD Cases 1471 (1992). [1993 FP 55]
Federal appeals court enforces a no mustache rule
against police officers who were previously allowed to wear them. Weaver v.
Henderson, 8 IER Cases (BNA) 431 (1st Cir. 1993). [1993 FP 88]
DC Fire Dept. beard prohibition struck down;
“esprit de corps” not a sufficient basis to require uniformity. Dept. also
failed to prove beards impair facial seals of firefighters who wear breathing
apparatus. Kennedy v. Dixon, 57 FEP Cases (BNA) 494 (DC Super. 1991). [1992 FP
6-8]
Minnesota Supreme Court holds that sheriff’s
grooming policy was a “managerial prerogative” avoiding necessity of bargaining
with the certified union. Law Enforcement Labor Services v. Co. of Hennepin,
449 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 1990). Earlier decision [438 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. App.
1989)] is reversed.
St. Louis Police Dept. adopts jewelry and
grooming order. Order covers number of finger rings and ear studs that can be
worn on duty; nose rings or studs and sculptured or lined hairstyles are
banned. Special order 91-S-3, interpreting Police Manual Rule 10, City of St.
Louis, Mo. (1/14/91). [1991 FP 39-40]
Federal appeals court upholds police dept. policy
forbidding male officers from wearing earring studs while off-duty. Rathert v.
Village of Peotone, 903 F.2d 510 (7th Cir. 1990).
Appellate court upholds ban on all moustaches in
county sheriff's department. Dake v. Bowen, 521 N.Y.S.2d 345 (A.D. 1987).
Federal appeals court affirms dismissal of female
jail employee for wearing her hair “down” and “excessive” makeup. Wislocki-Goin
v. Mears, 831 F.2d 1374 (7th Cir. 1987).
Order of chief to firefighter to shave beard was
not binding because facial hair regulation was not adopted by board. Ittig v.
Huntington Manor Fire Dept., 463 N.Y.S.2d 870 (A.D. 1983).
Islamic detective entitled to injunctive relief
against Chicago police beard rule; religious reasons cited. Sharif v. City of
Chicago, 530 F.Supp. 667, 27 FEP Cases (BNA) 1607 (N.D. Ill. 1982).
Medical reasons can excuse non-compliance with
department facial hair regulations. Shelby Township Fire Dept. v. Shields, 320
N.W.2d 306 (Mich. App. 1982).
Summary discharge of uniformed employee with
handlebar moustache reversed; entitled to hearing on whether termination is
appropriate. Worrall v. Ogden City Fire Dept., 616 P.2d 598 (Utah 1980).
Federal court in Georgia overturns the firing of
a county road worker who wore a beard. Cases involving police officers and
schoolteachers distinguished. Nalley v. Douglas Co.,498 F.Supp. 1228, 1980 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 14063 (N.D.Ga. 1980). {N/R}
Massachusetts appellate court upholds police
hairstyle rule. Board of Selectmen, Framingham v. Civil Service Cmsn., 387
N.E.2d 1198 (Mass. App. 1979).
Alaska superior court grants preliminary
injunction upholding long hair, but not facial hair, of correctional officers.
Analoak v. Sothan, Super. Ct. 1st Dist. at Juneau, #1JU-78-1265 Civil
(1979);1979 (63) Fire & Police Persnl. Rptr. 6.
Fifth Circuit holds that a public schoolteacher's
liberty interests were not infringed when he was terminated for refusing to
shave a beard. Ball v. Bd. of Trustees , 584 F.2d 684 (5th Cir. 1978). {N/R}
D.C. police grooming rule does not violate
freedom of religion. Marshall v. District of Columbia, 559 F.2d 726 (D.C. Cir.
1977).
Ninth Circuit Court extends the holding in Kelley
v. Johnson to all public employees. Jacobs v. Kunes, 541 F.2d 222 (9th Cir.
1976). {N/R}
$6,285.80 - The cost of an errant dismissal over
hair length, New Orleans firefighter wins reinstatement and back pay. Hebbler
v. Dept. of Fire, 299 So.2d 224 (La. App. 1973); Hebbler v. New Orleans Fire
Dept., 299 So.2d 825 (La. App. 1974), 310 So.2d 113 (La. 1975).
New York firefighters lose bid to enjoin hair regulation.
Kamerling v. O'Hagan, 512 F.2d 443 (2d Cir. 1975).
Supreme Court upholds “paramilitary” image of
uniformed public employees; hairstyle regulations do not violate the federal
constitution. Kelley v. Johnson, 96 S.Ct. 1440 425 U.S. 238 (1976).
Federal appeals court upholds Omaha Police
hairstyle regulations. An officer must “obey strict disciplinary procedure and
rules” to command community respect. Stradley v. Andersen, 478 F.2d 188, 1973
U.S. App. Lexis 9903 (8th Cir.). {N/R}
Hair and grooming standards upheld by a trial
court in Long Island N.Y. Greenwald v. Frank, 70 Misc. 2d 632, 334 N.Y.S.2d
680, 1972 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 1759. {N/R}
N.Y. trial court upholds a police facial and head
hair-grooming standard. “A policeman while in uniform does not have a
constitutional right to determine his own appearance.” Greenwald v. Frank, 70
Misc.2d 632, 334 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1972 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 1759. {N/R}
Federal appeals courts in three circuits conclude
that the wearing of long hair is not protected by the First Amendment. Richards
v. Thurston, 424 F.2d 1281 (1st Cir. 1970); Freeman v. Flake, 448 F.2d 258
(10th Cir. 1971); Karr v. Schmidt, 460 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. en banc 1972). {N/R}
Federal appeals court upholds military hair
length regulations at an air force base. Doyle v. Koelbl, 434 F.2d 1014; 1970
U.S. App. Lexis 6196 (5th Cir.). {N/R}
Law articles: “Avoiding claims of discrimination
based on personal appearance, grooming and hygiene standards,” 15 (1) The Labor
Lawyer (ABA) 19-45 (1999); “No shoes, no shirt, no education: dress codes and
freedom of expression behind the postmodern schoolhouse gates,” 9 Seton Hall
Const. L.J. 337 (1999); “Secondhand Codes: An Analysis of the Constitutionality
of Dress Codes in the Public Schools,” 80 Minn. L. Rev. 715 (1996); Employees'
personal appearance, 11 (2) The Labor Lawyer (ABA) 261-272 (Summer 1995);
“Suits for the hirsute: defending against America's undeclared war on beards in
the workplace,” 63 Fordham L. Rev. 1203 (1995); “Grooming and weight standards
for law enforcement: the legal issues,” 63 (7) FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
27-32 (Jul. 1994); Only girls wear barrettes: dress and appearance standards,
community norms, and workplace equality 92 Mich. L. Rev. 2541 (1994); A hair piece:
perspectives on the intersection of race and gender, 1991 Duke L.J. 365 (1991);
Restricting gang clothing in public schools: does a dress code violate a
student's right of free expression?, 64 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1321 (1991); Soul
Rebels: The Rastafarians and the Free Exercise Clause, 72 Geo. L.J. 1605
(1984).
See also: Disciplinary
Hearings; Uniforms, Clothing and Equipment.