Seventh Circuit: High School’s Hair Cut Policy for Boys Basketball Players Discriminatory
In a majority decision, the 7th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court and found that a high school’s policy requiring boys playing interscholastic basketball to keep their hair cut short is discriminatory based on sex as there was not a similar policy in place for girls.
This case arose after A.H., the son of plaintiffs Patrick Hayden and Melissa Hayden, was removed from the Greensburg Junior High School boys’ basketball team because he did not comply with an unwritten haircut policy that required him to wear his hair above his ears and collar.
The family sued, alleging that the defendants’ removal of A.H. from the basketball team for failing to comply with the haircut policy violated his right to equal protection and his right to procedural and substantive due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
They named the following as defendants: the Greensburg Community School Corporation; Greensburg Community School Board Members Lisa Tressler, David Weigel, Valerie Moorman, Dave Meyer, Al Moore, Tony Owens, and Steve Taylor; the superintendent of Greensburg Community Schools, Tom Hunter; the principal of Greensburg Junior High School, Dave Strouse; the assistant principal and athletic director of Greensburg Junior High School, Debbie Smith; and Greensburg varsity boys basketball team head coach, Stacy Meyer.
At the time, plaintiffs’ attorney Ron Frazier told the media: “It seems like there were actions directly taken by the school administration to punish the Hayden family for challenging the policy. At that point they just wanted to have a discussion, and if a system is so broken that you can’t even discuss the policies and the discipline, then lawsuits have to be filed. You should be able to walk into school and talk to administrators about policies that affect your children. Every parent wants that.”
The panel of judges for the 7th Circuit reviewed the Hayden’s “two principal arguments:
“(1) the hair-length policy arbitrarily intrudes upon their son’s liberty interest in choosing his own hair length, and thus violates his right to substantive due process, and
“(2) because the policy applies only to boys and not girls wishing to play basketball, the policy constitutes sex discrimination.
“The district court rejected both claims and granted judgment to the defendants.” (Sports Litigation Alert, Vol. 10, Iss. 8)
The panel reversed in part.
“Because the hair-length policy on its face treats boys and girls differently, and because the record tells us nothing about any comparable grooming standards applied to girls playing basketball, the evidence entitles the Hayden’s to judgment on their sex discrimination claims.”
The panel elaborated:
“The Hayden’s plainly have made out a prima facie case of discrimination. The hair-length policy applies only to male athletes, and there is no facially apparent reason why that should be so. Girls playing interscholastic basketball have the same need as boys do to keep their hair out of their eyes, to subordinate individuality to team unity, and to project a positive image. Why, then, must only members of the boys team wear their hair short? Given the obvious disparity, the policy itself gives rise to an inference of discrimination. To defeat that inference, it was up to the school district to show that the hair-length policy is just one component of a comprehensive grooming code that imposes comparable although not identical demands on both male and female athletes. In the face of such evidence, the parties might cross swords on such questions as whether community norms dictate separate grooming standards, whether the burdens imposed by those standards on boys and girls are indeed comparable, whether the respective grooming standards are enforced equally, and, irrespective of comparability and even-handedness, whether a sex-specific grooming standard like the hair-length policy is compatible with Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 250-51, 109 S. Ct. 1775, 1790-91, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1989). But absent any evidence as to the content of the grooming standards that are applicable to female athletes, we are not prepared to simply assume that an otherwise facially-discriminatory rule is justified.”
Patrick Hayden and Melissa Hayden, on behalf of their Minor Child, A.H. v. Greensburg Community School Corporation, et al.; 7th Cir.; No. 13-1757, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3420; 2/24/14
Attorneys of record: (for plaintiffs) Ronald William Frazier, Thomas W. Blessing, FRAZIER & ASSOCIATES, Indianapolis, IN. (for defendants) Jason Thomas Clagg, William T. Hopkins, Jr., BARNES & THORNBURG, Fort Wayne, IN; Thomas E. Wheeler, II, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Indianapolis, IN.
