Planchet v. New Hampshire Hospital
| Decision Date | 30 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 7004,7004 |
| Citation | 341 A.2d 267,115 N.H. 361 |
| Parties | , 13 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 764, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,299 Pierre PLANCHET v. NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Malloy & Sullivan and James J. Barry, Jr., Manchester, for plaintiff.
Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., and Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for N.H. Hospital.
Sulloway, Hollis, Godfrey & Soden and Martin L. Gross, Concord, by brief, for Amica Mut. Ins. Co. as amicus curiae.
This is an appeal by the New Hampshire Hospital to the superior court from an order of the commission on human rights. RSA 354-A:10. The commission found that the New Hampshire Hospital was in violation of RSA 354-A:8, subd. I (Supp.1973) when it dismissed the plaintiff from employment since it discriminated against the plaintiff because of his sex.
Plaintiff was hired by the hospital as a security guard in 1970. In order to have the authority to effectuate arests outside of the hospital, a security guard was required to secure appointment as a special officer of a law enforcement agency as a prerequisite of employment. Plaintiff applied and was accepted as a special police officer by the Concord Police Department. On December 26, 1972, plaintiff was informed by the Concord police chief of the unwritten departmental hair grooming standards and that he would be dismissed as a special police officer if he did not obtain a haircut by Jauary 1, 1973. Thereafter plaintiff was dismissed as a special police officer of the Concord police and after the hospital sought without success to obtain his special officer status from the State police and the sheriff's office plaintiff was discharged by the hospital. The Trial Court (Batchelder, J.), by agreement of the parties, transferred without ruling the following threshold question: 'Does enforcement of a differential hair length standard between male and female employees constitute discrimination because of sex within the meaning of RSA 354-A:8 I?'
The question transferred is a narrow one of statutory construction. RSA 354-A:8, subd. I (Supp.1973) has a federal counterpart in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Both as they relate to sex are designed to prevent discrimination in employment between men and women. Hair grooming requirements of employment which provide different standards for men than for women have not been dealt with by the Supreme Court but numerous cases have been determined by the federal district courts and the courts of appeal and they lend persuasive assistance in answering the transferred question. Plaintiff relied primarily on Willingham v. Macon Telegraph Publishing Company, 482 F.2d 535 (5th Cir. 1973), a two to one panel decision holding that to require men to wear shorter hair than women was sex discrimination in employment in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Subsequent to oral argument the case was reheard en banc resulting in an eleven to four decision holding that there was not violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1) in disparate hair grooming requirements of employment for men and women. Willingham v. Macon Tel. Publishing Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975). Other federal courts of appeal have also held different hair grooming...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Trustees of Bastrop Independent School Dist. v. Toungate
...491 N.W.2d 275 (1992) (private employer's hair-length regulations did not violate Michigan's Civil Rights Act); Planchet v. New Hampshire Hosp., 115 N.H. 361, 341 A.2d 267 (1975) (private employer's dismissal of security guard for refusing to cut hair did not violate state statute); Page Ai......
-
Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Sutherland Lumber, 3-378A52
...(1976), 170 Conn. 327, 365 A.2d 1210; Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. Doyal (La.App.1974), 289 So.2d 882; Planchet v. New Hampshire Hosp. (1975), 115 N.H. 361, 341 A.2d 267; Albertson's Inc. v. Washington Human Rights Comm'n. (Wash.App.1976), 11 Emply.Prac.Dec. P 10,682; Greyhound Lines-Wes......
-
Pik-Kwik Stores, Inc. v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
...to the Connecticut provision, has also held that employee grooming codes do not discriminate on the basis of sex. Planchet v. New Hampshire Hospital, H.H., 341 A.2d 267. Although the language of the federal statute and that of the Connecticut statute differ slightly, it is clear that the in......
-
The central mistake of sex discrimination law: the disaggregation of sex from gender.
...forbade moustaches was not discriminatory to the extent that it denied equal employment opportunities); Planchet v. New Hampshire Hosp., 341 A.2d 267, 268 (N.H. 1975) (holding that enforcement of a differential hair length standard between male and female employees did not constitute discri......