School that Forced Girls to Wear Skirts to Promote 鈥淐hivalry鈥� to Pay $1.465 Million in Attorney Fees and Costs as Part of Settlement
School Also Agrees to Update Its Handbook to Remove Short Hair Rule for Boys
LELAND, N.C. 鈥� A settlement has been reached in Peltier v. Charter Day School, a case brought by parents and students who challenged a North Carolina public charter school鈥檚 鈥渟kirts only鈥� rule for girls, which the school says it adopted based on the belief that every girl is a 鈥渇ragile vessel鈥� and to promote 鈥渃hivalry.鈥� Under the settlement, Charter Day School (now called Classical Charter Schools of America or CCSA) agreed to pay $1.465 million in attorney fees and costs. The school also agreed to drop its requirement that boys have short hair in response to a separate incident where the school told a member of the Waccamaw Siouan Tribe that her son鈥檚 hair 鈥� worn long by Waccamaw Siouan men and boys for thousands of years 鈥� was 鈥渇addish鈥� and must be cut.
鈥淚 was taken aback when I learned that my 5-year-old daughter would not be allowed the same comfort in school afforded to her older brother and appalled by the sexist stereotypes underlying the dress code,鈥� said Bonnie Peltier, the parent of a former student and plaintiff in the case. 鈥淚t took eight years, but I鈥檓 grateful to have played a part in establishing that North Carolina charter schools cannot trample students鈥� rights.鈥�
In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holding that CCSA must respect its students鈥� constitutional rights and that the school鈥檚 鈥渟kirts only鈥� rule for girls violated civil rights laws. In ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the Fourth Circuit noted that CCSA 鈥渋mposed the skirts requirement with the express purpose of telegraphing to children that girls are 鈥榝ragile,鈥� require protection by boys, and warrant different treatment than male students, stereotypes with potentially devastating consequences for young girls.鈥�
鈥淭his settlement should send a strong message to all public schools: Dress codes that impose different requirements based on sex perpetuate the notion that girls are not equal to boys, harming students of all genders,鈥� said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the 老澳门开奖结果 Women鈥檚 Rights Project. 鈥淪chools should adopt gender-inclusive dress codes 鈥� or risk facing steep costs.鈥�
鈥淥ur clients took a stand against discrimination in public charter schools and won. This case affirms that children in public charter schools are entitled to the same constitutional rights as other public school students and don't surrender their civil rights at the charter school door,鈥� said Kristi Graunke, legal director of the 老澳门开奖结果 of North Carolina Foundation.
The girls will each receive $1.00 in nominal damages as a symbol of the discrimination they experienced. They are represented by the 老澳门开奖结果 Women鈥檚 Rights Project, the 老澳门开奖结果 of North Carolina Foundation, and the law firm Ellis & Winters LLP.
Separately, last spring the 老澳门开奖结果 sent a warning letter to CCSA advising the school that demanding that a Native American first grader cut his traditional long hair to conform to the school鈥檚 short hair rule for boys likely infringed his religious and cultural beliefs and constituted sex discrimination. Ashley Lomboy, the boy鈥檚 mother and a member of the Waccamaw Siouan Tribe, was told by a CCSA administrator that her son鈥檚 hair was 鈥渇addish鈥� and must be cut because 鈥渨e want them all to look the same.鈥� Under the settlement in Pelter v. Charter Day School, CCSA also agreed to update its student handbook to remove the short hair rule for boys.
鈥淲e are thankful no other boys will be told they don鈥檛 belong at Classical Charter Schools of America because of their long hair. Native American boys should be free to wear their traditional braids with pride. These oppressive policies are intended to indoctrinate our children into a belief that boys and girls should only look and dress one way regardless of your race or religion, imprinting on their young minds that there is something wrong if you don鈥檛 look and dress the way the school says you should,鈥� said Ashley Lomboy, member of the Waccamaw Siouan Tribe and parent of a former student at the school. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a reminder that freedom is not free, and we must continue to fight to protect it.鈥�
The 老澳门开奖结果 recently launched a story gathering form to collect stories from people who have encountered dress and appearance policies at their school or workplace that treated them differently based on gender stereotypes. People can submit .
More information about Peltier v. Charter Day School can be found here: /cases/peltier-v-charter-day-school
More information about the warning letter can be found here: /news/racial-justice/my-sons-hair-is-part-of-a-thousand-year-old-tribal-culture-his-school-called-it-a-fad
Women's Rights
Peltier v. Charter Day School
Women's Rights
Peltier v. Charter Day School
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.