Weaves as Weapons: Texas Jail Removes All “Fake” Hair

by

A county jail in Texas recently made news when Gregg County Sheriff Maxey Cerliano commented publicly about the jail’s policy of “removing [inmates’] fake hair.” The jail requires “male and female inmates … to relinquish weaves, wigs and toupees” for reasons of “safety and security” and “the inmate’s personal hygiene.”  And Sheriff Cerliano estimates that they confiscate hair “pretty regularly” as the jail houses 11,000 people every year.

Per standard policy, an arrested person must turn over all personal property before she is placed in general population housing. At Gregg County Jail, a person’s property includes “artificial hair integrations.” When she is released, the jail will return her hair along with all her other property.

hair

According to Sheriff Cerliano, an arrested person may remove her hair voluntarily, but Texas law gives staff the right to remove her hair for her, and even “the authority to cut [her] hair if [they] have to.” The Texas Administrative Code on Jail Standards states, “whenever clearly justified for health or sanitary reasons, the sheriff/operator may require a haircut” of the person.

In justifying the policy, Sheriff Cerliano told reporters that weaves specifically can be used as a weapon for someone to cause harm to herself or others. He also warns that hair can be used for storage and concealment of contraband. As discussed in Dressing Constitutionally, courts have often found this rationale convincing, but have also found that accommodations can be made for religious reasons or that the concerns have less force depending on the person’s gender.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has received several anonymous complaints about the removal of hair at Gregg County Jail. But Sheriff Cerliano says the policy is applied “without regard to race or gender” — it “applies to male, female, white, black, Hispanic and any other national origin. It’s not about race.” Regardless of that statement, one might still wonder who is asked if her hair is fake, thus triggering the policy, and who is not asked. 

[image via]

Turkey’s Democratization Package Includes Further Relaxing the Ban on Headscarves

by

Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced a democratization package that includes further relaxing the ban on women wearing headscarves.  Women in universities have been able to wear headscarves, but Erdogan’s announcement extended this ability to women government employees, except prosecutors, judges, and military and security personnel.

Here’s a video of Erdogan’s speech, with English subtitles; the relevant section starts at about 2:19:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOzlt0rVLKI#t=145

 

Man with Dreadlocks Sues Government Employer over Gendered Hair Policy

by

Last month, Richard Williams filed suit against the Georgia Department of Corrections after he was fired for refusing to trim his hair.

As reported, Williams worked for the Department for over 10 years as corrections officer. During that time, he began to grow his hair longer, and for the last for 5 years the length of his hair went down his back.

According to Williams’s complaint, in June 2010, the Department Chief told Williams to “consider cutting [his] hair.” A month later, dreadlocksafter being asked again, Williams refused, saying “I do not plan to cut my hair and forcing me to do so would violate my indelible rights, religious beliefs and spiritual faith.” 

Then, in January of 2012, the Department passed a new policy stating, “males will not adorn dreadlocks or braids and hair shall not extend over the top of a shirt collar.” Two days later, Williams was told “to leave work, get a hair cut and return to work within two (2) hours.” He refused, and in February, the Department reduced his pay by 5% and required Williams to turn in all of his Department issued equipment. Williams then filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

As discussed in the Dressing Religiously chapter of Dressing Constitutionally, incarcerated persons have successfully used religious arguments to challenge dress codes prohibiting dreadlocks, albeit with some difficulty. But in his EEOC filing, Williams alleges that he was discriminated against because of his race, sex, and in retaliation, rather than religion. He adds that “African American males as a class are adversely impacted by respondent’s Dress Code and Appearance Policies.” Shortly after the filing, Williams’s employment was terminated.

After reviewing Williams’s claim, the EEOC found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act gives Williams a right to bring a civil action. Representing himself, Williams has filed a civil suit against the Department in federal court. And now, at the very least, the Department may have to justify why it forbids men and allows only women to have dreadlocks, braids, and longer hair styles in light of the equality claims asserted.  Although differences in men and women’s hair lengths have often been upheld, the rationales for such differences are more and more tenuous.

[image via]

LawProf Josh Blackman on “Urban Thug” and Saggy Pants Banned in Houston and Memphis

by

Law professor Josh Blackman has a post about dress codes in restaurants banning inappropriate “thug wear.”  He includes terrific photos, including the one below (used by permission); pay special attention to the third sign.

20130705_143832He’s definitely spot on with his imagining that such signs tempt a disparate impact lawsuit.  As private, such places would be subject to “public accommodation” regulations that prohibit discrimination, but constitutional challenges such as free expression and due process would not be applicable.

Recall the “saggy pants” ban by Atlantic City we discussed in early summer, which attracted much publicity, followed by an Ocean City proposal.  And Ada Calhoun’s piece looks at saggy pants ban for a fast food restaurant.  And of course, the issue is discussed in Dressing Constitutionally.

Another Student NRA T-Shirt

by

A student in the Orange County California Unified School District wore a NRA shirt to school, was asked to remove it, and then when her parent protested – – – and the NRA got involved – – – the school apologized and allowed her to wear the shirt.

As Adolfo Flores reports in the LA Times, “the white T-shirt — featuring an American flag and silhouette of a hunter with a rifle and the slogan: “National Rifle Association of America, Protecting America’s Traditions Since 1871″ — campus officials apparently decided that it violated dress codes disallowing, among other things, depictions of violence, criminal activity and anything that’s degrading to ethnic values.”

Here’s a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ7LcG4-n60

The LA Times site also has a video, with the shirt and the student, from the television station KTLA.

Recall that earlier this year a student in West Virginia had a similar situation with a NRA t-shirt; our substantive constitutional analysis is here.   Student symbolic speech, including on t-shirts, is discussed in Dressing Constitutionally.

Paintings Depicting Nudity Removed from County Exhibition

by

Botticelli_VenusSan Bernardino County officials removed two paintings by Efron Montiel Jiminez and one by Armando Aleman from the annual National Hispanic Heritage Month exhibition at the County Government Center. The paintings feature nude figures from various angles, and their removal has raised First Amendment issues concerning the display of nudity in public buildings.

The county reportedly invited artists to submit works without stipulation, accepted the three, and then installed them in public space inside Government Center. After receiving complaints from “several visitors and county employees,” county officials removed the paintings and asked the artists to pick them up. A third artist reportedly censored his own paintings, with a sign apparently reading “Censored for a ‘Government’ Building.”

The National Coalition Against Censorship and the ACLU of Southern California have taken issue with the removal of the paintings, reportedly sending a letter to the County Board of Supervisors. The letter alleges that the First Amendment applies to Government Center, as a “public space opened to exhibiting artwork,” and that “government officials cannot arbitrarily impose their prejudices on a curated exhibition.” The letter cites the Ninth Circuit case of Hopper v. City of Pasco for the proposition that, “by opening its display space to expressive activity,” it has “evinced ‘an intent to create a designated public forum.’” In a “designated public form” with First Amendment protections, a court should apply strict scrutiny, requiring a “compelling state interest” and a means “narrowly drawn to achieve that end.”

San Bernardino spokesman David Wert has attempted to distinguish the situation at Government Center, reportedly saying, “The county doesn’t believe it’s censorship because the county isn’t an art gallery. People don’t go to the Government Center to see art.” He goes on to cite personnel rules that “guarantee employees a work environment where they’re not subjected to offensive images” and the usual appeals to the sensitivities of children. He describes the removal of the paintings as an act of “discretion” rather than censorship, but acknowledges, “In retrospect, I wish we had taken a look at the artwork in advance.”

[image via]

Orthodox Store Owners v. NYC: The Continuing Dress Code Battle

by

As we previously discussed, the New York City Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) has filed complaints against seven Jewish Orthodox-owned stores in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, for their conservative dress codes — codes for patrons rather than employees. 

The stores – – – and the Orthodox Jewish Public Affairs Council – – – are fighting the cases not only in the administrative proceedings, but in the courts of public opinion.  Here’s one advert:

The stores’ argument is that lots of places have dress codes, including court rooms.  (This is certainly true; recall the Tennessee judge who ordered women to wear only long sleeve jackets this summer).   As for the NYCCHR, it argues that the gendered nature of the dress code – – – focusing on modesty rules for women – – – makes women, a protected class, feel unwelcome.

More on Gothamist here.

Again, this is definitely litigation to watch. 

Garment Workers USA

by

800px-Spinner's_WeaselWhat is today’s garment industry like in the USA?  Terrific read from NYT in the article, “American Made: A Wave of Sewing Jobs as Orders Pile Up at U.S. Factories,” by Stephanie Clifford:

The American textile and apparel industries, like manufacturing as a whole, are experiencing a nascent turnaround as apparel and textile companies demand higher quality, more reliable scheduling and fewer safety problems than they encounter overseas. Accidents like the factory collapse in Bangladesh earlier this year, which killed more than 1,000 workers, have reinforced the push for domestic production.

But because the industries were decimated over the last two decades — 77 percent of the American work force has been lost since 1990 as companies moved jobs abroad — manufacturers are now scrambling to find workers to fill the specialized jobs that have not been taken over by machines.

 In Clifford’s previous article, she discussed the mechanization – – – and technologization – – – of textile plants, including  “the absence of high-paid American workers in the new factories” that “has made the revival possible.”  

Excellent reporting by Clifford that is pertinent to anyone interested in “dressing constitutionally.”

Sikh Man’s Ordeal in Mississippi

by

According to the ACLU, a Sikh man was targeted for his religious attire by both law enforcement and a judge.

In the first part of his ordeal,  Jageet Singh was allegedly harassed for his turban and his kirpan by employees of the Mississippi Department of Transportation.   We’ve previously discussed the wearing of small ceremonial knife of the kirpan as a First Amendment free exercise of religion issue. Yet according to the ACLU report, the kirpan was not the sole issue: “One officer declared that all Sikhs are “depraved” and “terrorists.” They continued to taunt him, and forced Mr. Singh to circle his truck with his hands on his turban while they searched the vehicle.”

The officers’ arrest of Singh for failure to obey an order, however, allegedly led to an even more egregious experience when Singh appeared for his court date at Pike County Justice Court in Mississippi:

Waiting for his attorney in the back of the courtroom, he was stunned when four Highway Patrol officers approached him and ordered him to leave the courtroom. The officers stated that Judge Aubrey Rimes had ordered them to eject Mr. Singh from the courtroom because he did not like Mr. Singh’s turban. Moreover, they told Mr. Singh that Judge Rimes would punish him if he failed to remove his headdress.

The judge subsequently allegedly told Singh’s attorney that Singh needed to remove the “rag” from his head.  Again, according to the ACLU,

459px-1730_Kupecky_Maennerportrait_anagoria

“Portrait of a Man,” 1730

The Pike County Board of Supervisors recently recognized that Judge Rimes’s harassment of Mr. Singh was unacceptable. In response to an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Board revised the County’s harassment and non-discrimination policy to explain that religious discrimination includes “requiring an individual to remove a head covering or denying that individual access to a County office, building, program or activity because they are wearing a head covering, if that head covering is worn for religious reasons.”

However, the ACLU stated it plans to pursue the matter with the state judicial commission. 

The judge’s actions bring to mind the famous “transcript” The Peoples Ancient and Just Liberties Asserted, In the Tryal of William Penn and William Mead at the Old Bailey, 22 Charles II 1670, written by themselves.  As discussed in Dressing Constitutionally, Penn and Mead – – – both Quakers – – – honored their religious beliefs and refused to remove their hats and provide the so-called “hat honor” when in an English court and were adjudged in contempt.

The alleged actions of both the law enforcement officers and the judge clearly violate Singh’s First Amendment free exercise of religion rights.  Like the alleged removal of girls’ headscarves by Bronx police officers earlier this month, there is little question of constitutional violations by government actors is the facts prove true.

image via

Ted Cruz and His Supreme Court Argument Boots

by

From a profile of Ted Cruz in GQ:

“When I was Texas solicitor general, I did every argument in these [ostrich-skin cowboy]  boots. The one court that I was not willing to wear them in was the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was because my former boss and dear friend William Rehnquist was still chief justice. He and I were very close—he was a wonderful man—but he was very much a stickler for attire.” 

It was only after Rehnquist died that Cruz felt comfortable wearing his cowboy boots in the Supreme Court—and only then because John Roberts (“a friend for many years”) blessed it. “I saw John shortly after his confirmation,” Cruz said, “and I guess I was feeling a little cheeky, because I took the opportunity to ask, ‘Mr. Chief Justice, do you have any views on the appropriateness of boots as footwear at oral argument?’ And Chief Justice Roberts chuckled and he said, ‘You know, Ted, if you’re representing the state of Texas, they’re not only appropriate, they’re required.’ “

 

800px-Ostrich_foot

Ostrich foot