LEP: PART 3- CASE LAW REVIEW 2
Introduction
Schools comes with a lot of rules, one major one being dress code. Dress code
enforcement is with in all schools worldwide. It is the idea that if scholars have a dressing
regulation to follow that they will excel more in school due to their being less distraction. While
the idea is having merit to it, it is not just for the scholars. According to (INSERT), the U.S.
Supreme court has not directly address dress code in the courts, so there are no precedents or acts
set that regulates dress code nationwide. The dress code for Pinellas County School Board in
Saint Petersburg, Florida has some loopholes in their dress code that is not suited for all schools.
In this case law review will be reviewing four cases related to the topic of unjust in school dress
codes, along with the court decision and applying a statement as evidence supporting as the
spokesperson. Four cases as followed are, Blaine v. Board of Education, Jacobs v. Clark County
District, Charter Day School v. Peltier, and
Analysis of Case Law
Blaine v. Board of Education
Like Brown v. Board of Education, this case was not about one person but three. The
named individual Steven Blaine, Kenny Luginbill, and James Vaughn were all students at
Campus High School in, Sedwick County, Kansas. In 1971, those three students were expelled
from school due to their hair length being “extreme” and not incompliance with the school’s
dress code. Campus High had a very odd dress code. The policy has specifications for both male
and female students regarding their hair. The female student’s “hair must be styled or arranged
so as not to cover the eyes.” The male student’s hair code was as follow: "Sideburns,
moustaches, and beards are acceptable if kept clean, well-groomed, and of moderate length.
"Boys hair shall be no longer than the bottom of the ear lobes on the sides and no longer than the
LEP: PART 3- CASE LAW REVIEW 3
bottom of a dress shirt collar in the back when the boy is standing. Hair must be kept clean, well-
groomed, and out of the eyes at all times." This policy was developed by a 20-member
committee consisting of students, parent, and administrative staff. After the implementation of
the policy all male students complied, except the three named plaintiffs. Don Layton, principal,
was not in favor of males with long hair because he stated that it “potentially the ability to
disrupt education within the school” (Blaine v. Board of Education). The Board of Education
ruled in favor of the stating that “the hair provision of the dress code to be an unconstitutional
invasion of the appellants' personal liberty and would order their reinstatement in school.”
(Blaine v. Board of Education).
Jacobs v. Clark County District
Again, Jacobs et al. v. Clark County District is a case involving several different
plaintiffs pressing the same issue, the unjust dress code policies. In 2003, Clark County School
District established a regulation that allowed the schools within the county to implement a
countywide uniform dress code. Clark county stated that the purpose of the dress code change
countywide was to “increasing student achievement, promoting safety, and enhancing a positive
school environment.” Kimberly Jacobs, the named plaintiff, attended Liberty High school where
the dress code was as follows: solid khaki bottoms and solid polos within the following colors,
red, blue, and white, with or without the school logo. Jacobs not agreeing with the dress code, on
several occasions wore a shirt expressing her religious beliefs. Jacobs was suspended from
school on each occasion she wore the shirt to school, totaling in 25 days suspended. Though
Jacobs was provided educational services while on suspension, she claimed “that she missed out
on classroom interactions, suffered reputational damage among her teachers and peers, had a
tarnished disciplinary record, and was unconstitutionally deprived of her First Amendment rights
LEP: PART 3- CASE LAW REVIEW 4
to free expression and free exercise of religion because of Liberty's enforcement of its mandatory
school uniform policy.” (Jacobs, et al v. Clark County SD, et al, no. 05-16434 (9th cir. 2008)).
Jacobs and her parents brough a suit up against the school district declared that the dress code
regulation of Liberty High School were unconstitutional violating the students First
Amendment's Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment's
Due Process Clause. The district court granted Jacobs's motion for a preliminary injunction and
stopped Liberty from further disciplining or suspending Jacobs for failing to comply with the
policy. Following the decision made, the district amended the dress code policy and expunged a
Jacob’s uniformed related discipline.
Charter Day School v. Peltier
Bonnie Peltier (parent of a minor), Erika Booth (parent of a minor) and Keely Burks are
all named plaintiffs in this case. Charter Day School is a school in North Carolina with an
outrageous dress code policy that is only harmful to the female student body. According to the
North Carolina Charter School Act, any child eligible to attend a public school may choose to
attend a charter school, but no one is required to attend one (Peltier v. charter day school, inc.,
no. 20-1001 (4th cir. 2021)). Charter schools are operated by private nonprofit corporations and
are exempt from local educational statues. With this Charter Day School adopted a uniform dress
code that required female students to wear skirts, skorts, or a jumper to school, not allowing for
them to wear pants or shorts. The parent of three students sued Charter Day School challenging
the dress code. They stated that “the skirts requirement sends the message that girls should be
less active than boys and that they are more delicate than boys, with the result that boys “feel
empowered” and “in a position of power over girls.” (Peltier v. charter day school, inc., no.
20-1001 (4th cir. 2021)). The female students also complained of a change to the dress code
LEP: PART 3- CASE LAW REVIEW 5
being necessary. The change would stop the restriction the girl’s movements during recess,
prevent their undergarments from showing during drills and allowed students to be warm
come the winter. In the suit, the parents cited sex discrimination under the Equal Protection
Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit agreed thatECharter Day School cannot require girls to wear skirts. The latest regarding
this case is Charter Day School petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Fourth
Circuit’s decision that, as a public charter school, Charter Day School must respect its
students’ constitutional rights as other public schools do. A decision on that request is
expected in 2023 (Peltier v. charter day school, inc., no. 20-1001 (4th cir. 2021)).
Long v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, KY
The plaintiffs in this case are the parents and students from Atherton high school. The
named plaintiff, Sherry Long is a parent of one of the complaining scholars. The plaintiffs
decided to Board of Education in Jefferson County due to the dress code that was created by
and implemented by the school-based decision-making counsel. The counsel has created a
dress code that permitted scholars from wearing any logo in the shirt that isn’t school related
in helps to combat the recent gang related issues they had experienced in previous years. The
students and parent were alleged that the dress code “violated rights guaranteed by the First
Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42. U.S.C
1983 (Long v. Board of Educ. of Jefferson County, Ky., 121 F. supp. 2d 621 (W.D. Ky. 2000)).
The plaintiffs specifically stated that the dress code violates their right to free speech, free
exercise of religion, substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection.
Now this case was quite different than the last three I presented in the rulings. In this case, the
LEP: PART 3- CASE LAW REVIEW 6
sixth circuit affirmed summary judgement in favor of the school officials because their actions
were not “manifestly unreasonable.”
Analysis of Self as Spokes Person
The four cases presented in the previous section is only a snippet of suits that have been
brought regarding student’s rights and dress code within school. Having me as the spokesperson
on behalf of the parents and students would permit Pinellas County School Board from seeing
such a suit as the ones previously mentioned. While Pinellas County currently does not have a
regulation for hair, I have witnessed students harassed and discriminated upon by administration
and teachers. With the update to the dress code policy including and not limiting hair will help
alleviate the probable legal consequences. This is the same for clothing, more specifically
clothing only female students wear and with the added inclusion to the students that identify as
LGBTQ+. I can provide a plethora of information and cite cases that have already been through
some of the legal issue that can arise in Pinellas County and make sure that these issues never
come about as the rightful spokesperson for the county regarding the dress code policy and it
being amended.
LEP: PART 3- CASE LAW REVIEW 7
References
Blaine v. Board of Education. Justia Law. (n.d.-a). https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-
court/1972/46-782-1.html
Jacobs, et al v. Clark County SD, et al, no. 05-16434 (9th cir. 2008). Justia Law. (n.d.).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/05-16434/0516434-2011-02-
25.html
Long v. Board of Educ. of Jefferson County, Ky., 121 F. supp. 2d 621 (W.D. Ky. 2000). Justia
Law. (n.d.-b).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/121/621/2505232/
Peltier v. charter day school, inc., no. 20-1001 (4th cir. 2021). Justia Law. (n.d.-b).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/20-1001/20-1001-2021-08-
09.html
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
