Halloween (II): Masks In Louisiana

by

Screen Shot 2013-10-24 at 9.22.25 PMStatutes criminalizing the wearing of masks often have a “Halloween exception.”  But in some states – – – Louisiana, for example – – – the exception has an exception for a certain type of person.

Here’s the statute, §14.313:

A. No person shall use or wear in any public place of any character whatsoever, or in any open place in view thereof, a hood or mask, or anything in the nature of either, or any facial disguise of any kind or description, calculated to conceal or hide the identity of the person or to prevent his being readily recognized.

B. Whoever violates this Section shall be imprisoned for not less than six months nor more than three years.

C. Except as provided in Subsection E of this Section, this Section shall not apply:

(1) To activities of children on Halloween, to persons participating in any public parade or exhibition of an educational, religious, or historical character given by any school, church, or public governing authority, or to persons in any private residence, club, or lodge room.

(2) To persons participating in masquerade balls or entertainments, to persons participating in carnival parades or exhibitions during the period of Mardi Gras festivities, to persons participating in the parades or exhibitions of minstrel troupes, circuses, or other dramatic or amusement shows, or to promiscuous masking on Mardi Gras which are duly authorized by the governing authorities of the municipality in which they are held or by the sheriff of the parish if held outside of an incorporated municipality.

(3) To persons wearing head covering or veils pursuant to religious beliefs or customs.

D. All persons having charge or control of any of the festivities set forth in Paragraph B(2) of this Section, shall, in order to bring the persons participating therein within the exceptions contained in Paragraph B(2), make written application for and shall obtain in advance of the festivities from the mayor of the city, town, or village in which the festivities are to be held, or when the festivities are to be held outside of an incorporated city, town, or village, from the sheriff of the parish, a written permit to conduct the festivities. A general public proclamation by the mayor or sheriff authorizing the festivities shall be equivalent to an application and permit.

E. Every person convicted of or who pleads guilty to a sex offense specified in R.S. 24:932, is prohibited from using or wearing a hood, mask or disguise of any kind with the intent to hide, conceal or disguise his identity on or concerning Halloween, Mardi Gras, Easter, Christmas, or any other recognized holiday for which hoods, masks, or disguises are generally used.

Masks generally prohibited, except on Halloween (or Mardi Gras or other holidays) except for those who have to register as sex offenders.

More about masking as well as persons who must register as sex offenders because of public nudity or indecent exposure is in Dressing Constitutionally.

[image via]

 

Halloween (I): We’re a Culture Not a Costume

by

As Hallowee’en approaches, so too does the question of dress, or more specifically, costume.

The University of Colorado at Boulder has issued a statement  – – – sensible and sensitive and recognizing First Amendment values.  Here’s the statement from their website:

Halloween is a fun and celebratory occasion. It is often a time used to portray a character or symbol different than oneself. Unfortunately, stores often sell stereotypical and offensive costumes. If you are planning to celebrate Halloween by dressing up in a costume, consider the impact your costume decision may have on others in the CU community.

As a CU Buff, making the choice to dress up as someone from another culture, either with the intention of being humorous or without the intention of being disrespectful, can lead to inaccurate and hurtful portrayals of other peoples’ cultures in the CU community. For example, the CU-Boulder community has in the past witnessed and been impacted by people who dressed in costumes that included blackface or sombreros/serapes; people have also chosen costumes that portray particular cultural identities as overly sexualized, such as geishas, “squaws,” or stereotypical, such as cowboys and Indians. Additionally, some students have also hosted offensively-themed parties that reinforce negative representations of cultures as being associated with poverty (“ghetto” or “white trash/hillbilly”), or with crime or sex work.

The goal of CU-Boulder this Halloween and every day is to create a safe and welcoming environment for everyone.

CU-Boulder values freedom of expression and creativity both in and outside of the classroom. The CU community also values inclusiveness, respect and sensitivity. While everyone has the freedom to be expressive, we also encourage you to celebrate that you are a part of a vibrant, diverse CU community that strives toward respecting others.

Have a safe and fun Halloween.

However, some reporting on the issue as just another attempt at political correctness.

The “We’re a Culture Not a Costume” campaign seemingly started at Ohio University with a poster campaign that went viral.

stars-halloween-not-okay-grid-thumb-640xauto-4481

Great reporting in 2011 on the issue from Colorlines and from The Root.  

 

Unisex Hats in the United States Marines

by

The “integration” of women into the United States military (and military academies) has often raised the issue of clothes.  The usual problems involve pants or skirts, pantyhose if skirts, make-up, and shoes.

But there are also hats.

Certain media outlets are headlining articles today “Obama wants Marines to Wear ‘Girly’ Hats.”   For example, the NY Post proclaims,

Thanks to a plan by President Obama to create a “unisex” look for the Corps, officials are on the verge of swapping out the Marines’ iconic caps – known as “covers” — with a new version that some have derided as so “girly” that they would make the French blush.

Here’s a photo from the article in the Marine Corps Times contrasting the old hats with the proposed new hats and seeking input:

bilde

According to the NY Post, one set of hats for the “leathernecks” is more “shops of Christopher Street” than “Halls of Montezuma,” and might look “too French.” 

In case you cannot tell which is which, the old (masculine) hats are on the left and the new (girly, French) hats are on the right.

Blonde Highlights & Black Woman = Termination from Hooters

by

As reported by a Baltimore local CBS affiliate, Farryn Johnson was terminated from her position as a server with Hooters restaurant because black women can’t have blonde hair.  Here’s the video:

http://youtu.be/13MOmIamrjU

 

Private employers often have wide latitude to “brand” their employees, but should hair color – – – or styles – – – vary by race?  

This certainly isn’t the first time this issue has been raised and it’s treated in the “dressing professionally” chapter of Dressing Constitutionally.  It has vexed a number of courts, who would be less confused if the judges read and understood the scholarship of   several African-American legal scholars who have provided trenchant analysis of the issue:

First of all, there’s Paulette M. Caldwell’s terrific and groundbreaking article,  A Hair Piece: Perspectives on the Intersection of Race and Gender published in Duke Law Journal in 1991.  And there’s  Angela Onwuachi-Willig, ‘Another Hair Piece: Exploring New Strands of Analysis Under Title VII,’  published two decades later.  And there’s D. Wendy Greene’s  spot-on article, Black Women Can’t Have Blonde Hair . . . In The Workplace, published in 2011 in  Journal Gender Race & Justice. 

These scholars provide the nuances of employment discrimination doctrine under Title VII as well as a cultural discussions of hair.

But really, the answer should be rather simple: it’s race discrimination for an employer to terminate a black woman for hair that would be acceptable on the head of a white woman. 

Of course, there is an even simpler answer to a different question: should an employer be mandating the color of any employee’s hair?

[h/t Atiba Ellis]

Listen to Margaret Chin on “Sewing Women”

by

Heidi Knoblauch interviews CUNY Professor Margaret Chin in this week’s episode of JustPublics@365, about Chin’s marvelous book, Sewing Women: Immigrants and the New York City Garment Industry. 

Chin discusses an important piece of “dressing economically” and serves as a reminder that “Made in the USA” does not necessarily mean made under fair working conditions.

https://soundcloud.com/justpublics-365/margaret-m-chin

The Cost of Litigating the Right to be Bearded

by

Baerte_ohne_textA man fired for refusing to shave his beard has been awarded $65,174.83 in back pay, costs, and attorney’s fees. As reported, Abdulkadir Omar refused to comply with demands from his employer, American Patriot Security & Investigations, Inc., to shave, citing his sincerely held religious belief that, as a male Muslim, he is required to keep a beard. (Contrary to the misleading headline of the linked article, Omar was not awarded “$66,000 in back pay” — $50,791.50 went to attorney’s fees.)

The timeline of the firing, as alleged in the complaint, indicates there may be more to the story than a dress code violation. Omar began working for the private company, American Patriot, as a security guard on May 28, 2009. Five months later, a supervisor ordered him to shave his beard. Omar refused, citing his “sincerely held belief.” Almost six months after that, on April 21, 2010, Omar met with Project Manager Nicole Smith to complain that he had not been “paid all his wages for time worked.” During this meeting, Smith repeated the request that Omar shave his beard. He again refused, and contacted the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which issued a letter on April 23 corroborating Omar’s claim. That same day, Scott Jacobs, CEO of American Patriot, suspended Omar without pay over the facial hair issue, and “challenged [his] religious belief.” The statutory claim of religious discrimination is, therefore, alleged as retaliation for Omar’s complaints about unpaid wages.

The judge here found Omar’s claim to be legitimate. The wide latitude given to private employers to govern employee dress and appearance with few constitutional implications is discussed in the “Dressing Professionally” section of Dressing Constitutionally.

As this case shows, regulation of appearance can function as both an end in itself and as a cover for other wrongs: when Omar complained about wages owed, his employer suspended him for a dress code violation, and he won his case on a claim of appearance-based religious discrimination.  Yet as this case also demonstrates, the cost of vindicating rights is high.

[image via]

Isis Brantley and Her Ongoing Battle for Hair Braiding Justice in Texas

by

In 1997, natural hair stylist and hairbraider activist, Isis Brantley was arrested for braiding hair without a barber license, a crime under Texas law. She challenged her arrest, and the Texas legislature eventually created a separate licensing scheme for hairbraiders.

Screen Shot 2013-10-20 at 6.38.12 PM

Isis Brantley

16 years later, Brantley is back in court — this time, filing federal suit against the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. According to Brantley’s complaint, Texas law would require her to “spend 2,250 hours in barber school, pass four licensing exams, and spend thousands of dollars … all to teach a 35-hour hairbraiding curriculum” to her students. She alleges that the law violates her 14th Amendment Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges or Immunities rights, as the 14th Amendment was designed to “protect economic liberty” and prevent unreasonable government interference “with the right to earn an honest living in one’s chosen occupation.”

In filing the suit, Brantley joined forces with the Institute of Justice, a well-known libertarian law firm, producing the video below. She also published a piece in Huffington Post, “Hairbraiding is the Latest Civil Rights Struggle.”  Like other civil rights struggles, litigation in the court of public opinion may be just as necessary as in traditional legal forums.

 

[image via]

Woman Sues NYPD for “Topless” Arrest

by

 In a complaint filed in state court earlier this month, Krigsman v. City of New York, Jessica Krigsman seeks money damages for her unconstitutional arrest for not wearing a shirt in a public park in Brooklyn.  The complaint alleges that when the police officers approached Ms. Krigsman on the park bench and  told her to put on a shirt, she

“politely told the police officers that in 1992, in People v. Santorelli, 80 N.Y. 2d 875 (1992), the New York Court of Appeals held that it is legal for a woman to be topless in any public place in New York State where it is legal for a man to be topless.”

450px-Athena_mit_Spiegelbild_der_Medusa_(Museumsberg,_Flensburg)

Statute of Athena

Apparently, the police officers did not credit Ms. Krigsman’s legal expertise, because they arrested her and took her to the precinct where she was held for approximately five hours and issued a summons for “Obstruction of a Sitting Area,” a charge that was dismissed when she appeared in court in October.

Certainly, Ms. Krigman’s lawsuit clears one of the hurdles that can make an award of damages for a constitutional violation difficult: the requirement that the law at the time of the incident be clearly settled.

As discussed in chapter 2 of Dressing Constitutionally, Santorelli involved activist Nikki Craft and other feminists, who had staged an action protesting topless laws as applied to women in a Rochester park; they were arrested for public nudity based upon exposure of their breasts.  A trial judge rejected their equal protection challenge, while dismissing the charges against them based upon a First Amendment analysis of their publicized protest in the park, but an appellate court reversed.  When the case reached New York’s highest court, the court’s succinct memorandum opinion neatly held that the statute was not intended to apply to the type of situation before it, but only “topless waitresses.”

It was concurring Judge Vito Titone who wrote the opinion that is best remembered.  He essentially accused his colleagues of historical inaccuracy, arguing that the “topless waitress” statute was a precursor statute and that the new provision under which Craft and others were convicted  “was aimed at filling a gap”  to clearly proscribe “nude sunbathing by ordinary citizens” and “either men or women appearing bottomless in public places”  Joined by one other judge, Titone’s opinion argued that the court should have taken the equal protection issue more seriously and suggested that any recognition of a governmental interest of protecting public sensibilities that are based on a gendered distinction is itself a constitutional problem.  For Titone, the “underlying legislative assumption that the sight of a female’s uncovered breast in a public place is offensive to the average person in a way that the sight of a male’s uncovered breast is not” is an assumption that replicated gender bias rather than confronting and eradicating sex inequality.  Titone’s concurring opinion stands as one of the most supportive judicial statements of the unconstitutionality of legally imposed gender differentials in required clothing.

[image via]

Banksy’s Uniforms and Masks

by

In his continuing October “residency on the streets of New York,” Banksy’s newest installation may speak to individuality, art, and art markets – – – as the accompanying audio attests – – – but it also features uniforms and masks in mirrored images.  Of course, both uniforms and masks implicate a host of “dressing constitutionally” issues.

Banksy’s website also contains close-up images of the two pieces.

Headgear Hysteria

by

Here’s an Op-Ed from the National Law Journal:

High Fashion or Religious Fervor? Headwear Laws Fraught With Trouble

The distinction between faith-based garb and trendy styles isn’t always clear.

by Ruthann Robson
The National Law Journal
October 14, 2013

459px-Kate_Duchess_Cambridge_2012Passion about head coverings is not limited to intense interest in Kate Middleton’s latest hat or ­fascinator.

Retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, well known for its “look policies,” lost a court battle last month to prohibit its employees from wearing headscarves but won a different federal appeal earlier this month because a 17-year-old employee did not make explicit the religious motives for her scarf. And earlier this month, Turkey made news by further lifting its long-standing ban on headscarves, even while maintaining the prohibition for women judges, prosecutors and members of the military.

Police officers in the Bronx, N.Y., allegedly removed by force the headscarves of teenage girls playing in a park in late August. And last month in Mississippi, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the state Department of Transporta­tion alleging that employees had targeted a truck driver because he was wearing a turban. When the truck driver appeared in court on the charge for failure to obey an order, the judge reportedly had him ejected from the courtroom for his headdress and told his attorney that he needed to remove the “rag” from his head.

It isn’t only Muslims and Sikhs whose head coverings arouse consternation. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the case of S. Simcha Goldman, an Air Force psychologist who had worn a yarmulke without incident for many years, despite a regulation prohibiting . . . . .
Read more on National Law Journal here.

[image of Kate Middleton via]