Disrobing Student Dress Codes—A Freedom of Expression Analysis
Because clothing is an expression of oneself, and because students do not shed their expressive rights at the schoolhouse gate, public schools must examine their student dress codes to be cognizant of those rights of expression and the liability of inconsistent and discriminatory enforcement.
August 09, 2022 at 11:08 AM
8 minute read
It's a safe bet to suggest that we all, at one point in our lives, have put on an item of clothing or some accessory that has made us feel something—immensely proud, out-of-place, nostalgic, "official," confident, etc. Even before we selected our own clothes to wear, our parents were robing us in articles of clothing that reflected something—a holiday, beachwear, party time, or birthday milestones. Throughout history, and to this day as well, what people wear and how they wear it reflects their economic place in society, an outlook, a perspective. From a public school perspective, dress codes are intended to ensure that items worn at school do not interfere with the health, safety or welfare of any student. But as Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 S. Ct. at 503 (1969) taught us, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." In Tinker, the U.S. Supreme Court held that students could wear armbands in protest to the Vietnam War because their expression did not substantially disrupt the school environment. Because clothing is an expression of oneself, and because students do not shed their expressive rights at the schoolhouse gate, public schools must examine their student dress codes to be cognizant of those rights of expression and the liability of inconsistent and discriminatory enforcement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readPenn State Agrees to $1.25M Settlement in Novel 'Cyber-Whistleblower' Suit
4 minute readDechert Partners With Wharton School for Associate-Level Business Training Program
Phila., Del. Firms Handling UArts' Ch. 7 Petition Fall Far Below Top Bankruptcy Rates
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250