Gfell v. Rickelman, C 69-1007.
Decision Date | 28 April 1970 |
Docket Number | No. C 69-1007.,C 69-1007. |
Citation | 313 F. Supp. 364 |
Parties | Edward Bruce GFELL, a Minor, by his father and next best friend, Edward B. Gfell, Plaintiff, v. Bernard RICKELMAN et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
E. Frank Jensik, Eugene Bayer, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Charles F. Clarke, William C. Hartman, George W. Pring, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, John W. Jeffers, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants.
In December, 1969, Edward Bruce Gfell was suspended from West Geauga High School for failing to comply with the Dress Code of said school. In particular, Edward B. Gfell was suspended from school for having his hair cover his ears in violation of the Dress Code. Shortly after his suspension, Edward complied with the Dress Code by having his hair cut. He then was allowed back into school. On December 18, 1969, the plaintiff, upon behalf of his son, filed this suit seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the Dress Code in regard to hair was null and void as repugnant to the United States Constitution. On the same day, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a) (2) and with agreement of the parties, the Court ordered that the trial of the action on the merits be advanced and consolidated with the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. The trial was held on January 14, 1970 wherein the Court heard arguments and received evidence. After the trial, the Court directed counsel to submit post-trial briefs. After reviewing the evidence, briefs and pleadings, the Court denies the plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief and for a declaratory judgment.
The Court finds that Edward Bruce Gfell has not been deprived of any constitutional rights with respect to the promulgation and enforcement of the hair length provision of the Dress Code. The Court further finds that the Dress Code, in regard to the hair length of male students, is not unreasonable, arbitrary, nor capricious. Rather, there is, and the Court so finds, a rational basis for this provision of the Dress Code. See Jackson v. Dorrier, 424 F.2d 213 (6th Cir., April 6, 1970); Wood v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, 308 F.Supp. 551 (W.D.Tex. Jan. 27, 1970); Stevenson v. Wheeler County Board of Education, 306 F.Supp. 97 (S.D.Ga. Nov. 17 1969); Leonard v. School Committee of Attleboro, 349 Mass. 704, 212 N.E.2d 468 (1965); Professor Haskell, Judicial Review of School Discipline, 21 Case Wes. L.Rev. 29, 38 (1970). As expressed by Judge Lawrence in the case of Stevenson v. Wheeler County Board of Education, supra:
(Emphasis added.)
In the following respects, the provision of the Dress Code on the hair length of male students has a reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Conyers v. Glenn
...v. Swanquist, N.D.Ill.1970, 314 F.Supp. 1; Giangreco v. Center School District, W.D.Missouri 1969, 313 F.Supp. 776; Gfell v. Rickelman, N.D.Ohio 1970, 313 F.Supp. 364; Corley v. Daunhauer, E.D.Ark.1970, 312 F.Supp. 811; Brownlee v. Bradley County Tennessee Bd. of Education, E.D.Tenn.1970, 3......
-
Gfell v. Rickelman
...and injunctive relief. The District Court held a hearing and then entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the complaint, 313 F.Supp. 364. This appeal Following a recent decision of this court in Jackson v. Dorrier, 424 F. 2d 213 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 850, 91 S.Ct......