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), {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.

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu