Booth v. State.U.S. District Court RACIAL DISCRIMINATION FREE SPEECH RELIGION APPEARANCE Booth v. State, 207 F.Supp.2d 394 (D.Md. 2002). An employee brought a [section] 1983 action against a correctional agency after he had been subjected to progressive disciplinary action for wearing his hair in modified dreadlocks dread·locks pl.n. 1. A natural hairstyle in which the hair is twisted into long matted or ropelike locks. 2. A similar hairstyle consisting of long thin braids radiating from the scalp. while on duty as a uniformed officer, in violation of policy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of upon the side of; favorable to; for the advantage of. See also: favor the defendants. The court held that the progressive enforcement of the hairstyle policy was not a violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights (part of the Constitution). As it states in full: , and that heightened scrutiny of the hairstyle policy was not required. According to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians. 2. In keeping with: according to instructions. 3. the court, the hairstyle policy was rationally related to a legitimate government interest in public safety, discipline, and esprit de corps esprit de corps Graduate education The degree of happiness of the 'campers' in a place . The agency asserted that requiring officers to have traditional military or law enforcement hairstyles allowed them to be distinguished from prisoners during attempted uprisings or escapes, that such hairstyles engendered respect from prisoners, and that the hairstyles fostered esprit de corps among the officers. (Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center, Maryland) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion