Louis LONGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLISLE DeCOPPET & CO., Defendant-Appellant

537 F.2d 685, 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1668
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJune 23, 1976
Docket1135, Docket 76-7151
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 537 F.2d 685 (Louis LONGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLISLE DeCOPPET & CO., Defendant-Appellant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Louis LONGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLISLE DeCOPPET & CO., Defendant-Appellant, 537 F.2d 685, 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1668 (2d Cir. 1976).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals, pursuant to certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Title VII sex-discrimination action for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff alleged that he was fired because of the length of his hair, which would have been permissible on a female employee. Although defendant disputes the factual premise of the suit (contending that Longo was fired for other reasons), it argues that even assuming the' truth of his version, defendant did not violate Title VII. We agree.

All four courts of appeals that have ruled on the question have held that requiring short hair on men and not on women does not violate Title VII. Knott v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 527 F.2d 1249 (8th Cir. 1975); Willingham v. Macon Telegraph Publ. Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc), vacating 482 F.2d 535 (5th Cir. 1973); Baker v. California Land Title Co., 507 F.2d 895 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1046, 95 S.Ct. 2664, 45 L.Ed.2d 699 (1975); Dodge v. Giant Food, Inc., 160 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 488 F.2d 1333 (1973); Fagan v. National Cash Register Co., 157 U.S.App.D.C. 15, 481 F.2d 1115 (1973). Without necessarily adopting all of the reasoning of those opinions, we are content to abide by this unanimous result.

Judgment reversed with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.
883 F.3d 100 (Second Circuit, 2018)
Viscecchia v. Alrose Allegria LLC
117 F. Supp. 3d 243 (E.D. New York, 2015)
Jespersen v. Harrah's
Ninth Circuit, 2006
Miller v. Safeway, Inc.
102 P.3d 282 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2004)
Pecenka v. Fareway Stores, Inc.
672 N.W.2d 800 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2003)
Austin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
20 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (N.D. Indiana, 1998)
Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp.
139 F.3d 1385 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
BD. OF TRUSTEES OF BASTROP INDEPENDENT SCH. DIST. v. Toungate
958 S.W.2d 365 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
Rivera v. Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino
702 A.2d 1359 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1997)
Devine v. Lonschein
621 F. Supp. 894 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc.
527 F. Supp. 229 (S.D. New York, 1981)
Valdes v. LUMBERMEN'S MUT. CAS. CO., ETC.
507 F. Supp. 10 (S.D. Florida, 1980)
Indiana Civil Rights Commission v. Sutherland Lumber
394 N.E.2d 949 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
537 F.2d 685, 12 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-longo-plaintiff-appellee-v-carlisle-decoppet-co-ca2-1976.