District Court Finds Boys’ Basketball Haircut Policy Does Not Constitute Discrimination Or Infringe Student Rights


In Hayden v. Greensburg Community School Corporation, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found that a school’s haircut policy for the boys’ basketball team did not constitute gender discrimination, infringe upon a student’s due process rights, or deny him equal protection.

This case resulted from the removal of a student from the junior high boys’ basketball team for failing to comply with the haircut policy. The haircut policy was established by the boys’ basketball head coach pursuant to a “Dress and Grooming” school board policy and the “Athletic Code of Conduct.” The school’s policy applies to both junior high and high school boys’ basketball teams, and requires that basketball players have their hair cut above their ears, eyebrows, and collar. Before being removed from the team, the student was informed he would not be able to participate in practice or games if he failed to cut his hair. In addition, the student’s mother met with various school officials, the student’s parents were denied a school board hearing, and the student was given a final warning.

Among other more technical legal findings, the Court found that the due process, equal protection, and discrimination claims could not survive on their merits. The Court reasoned that public schools may lawfully enact and enforce dress and grooming policies and may even impose a higher degree of regulation on students who participate in interscholastic sports than the general student body. The student’s equal protection claim failed because the haircut policy applies only to male athletes who play basketball and not all male athletes, thereby eliminating any claims that male athletes were treated differently from female athletes. The Court stated that there was no evidence the school intentionally discriminated against the student because of his membership in the class of male athletes. Similarly, the student’s Title IX gender discrimination claim failed because the haircut policy does not discriminate against the student because of his gender.


More Information

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Franczek Radelet P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.