Patrick Hayden v. Greensburg Community School Co
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3420
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Greensburg, Indiana public schools adopt Policy 5511 Dress and Grooming requiring principals to set grooming guidelines including athletic dress standards.
- Junior high basketball players are subject to an unwritten hair-length policy: hair must be above the ears, eyebrows, and collar; Mohawks banned; no coloring; coaches determine acceptable length per sport.
- A.H. is 17, a Greensburg High School sophomore, who wishes to play basketball with longer hair than allowed and has repeatedly resisted cutting.
- A.H. initially complied while on the junior high team, but ultimately was removed when he refused to cut.
- Girls’ teams reportedly are not subject to a hair-length policy, though broader grooming policies apply to both genders; there is limited record of female grooming standards.
- This case was litigated after a prior district court ruling denying injunctions, with parties submitting stipulated facts for final judgment; the district court held the hair-length policy rational but not sex- or Title IX-discriminatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the hair-length policy violate substantive due process? | Haydens assert hair length is a fundamental liberty. | Greensburg may regulate grooming under school authority; policy rationally related to interests. | No fundamental-right violation; standard applied is rational-basis (non-fundamental liberty). |
| Does the policy discriminate on the basis of sex under Equal Protection? | Policy burdens only male athletes (basketball/baseball) with hair-length rule; girls are not restricted. | Policy applies to only some male athletes; grooming standards may be comparable and not gender-based. | Yes, violates Equal Protection because burden rests on male athletes only and lacks comparably burdensome female standards. |
| Does Title IX liability attach for sex discrimination in the grooming policy? | Disparate grooming policy against boys violates Title IX. | No intent shown; policy not clearly discriminatory when viewed with grooming standards. | Yes, Title IX claim survives to same extent as Equal Protection; district liable for sex discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Breen v. Kahl, 419 F.2d 1034 (7th Cir. 1969) (hair length as liberty interest; substantial burden of justification)
- Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1976) (appearance regulation may be regulated with societal norms; not fundamental right)
- Glucksberg v. Washington, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (fundamental rights must be deeply rooted in history; limits on adding new fundamental rights)
- Virginia (United States v. Virginia), 518 U.S. 515 (U.S. 1996) (intermediate scrutiny for gender classifications; separate but equal discussed in context of grooming)
- Parker v. Franklin County Cmty. Sch. Corp., 667 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2012) (equal protection in school athletic context; discrimination in grooming standards analyzed)
- Barker v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 549 F.2d 400 (6th Cir. 1977) (grooming standards may differ by sex if largely comparable and applied evenly)
- Knott v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 527 F.2d 1249 (8th Cir. 1975) (grooming rule for men only upheld where similar standards applied to both sexes)
- Willingham v. Macon Tel. Pub. Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975) (grooming policy differences not per se discriminatory when generally applicable)