Michini v. Rizzo

379 F. Supp. 837
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 9, 1974
DocketCiv. A. 73-1995
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 379 F. Supp. 837 (Michini v. Rizzo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Michini v. Rizzo, 379 F. Supp. 837 (E.D. Pa. 1974).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

EDWARD R. BECKER, District Judge.

I. Preliminary Statement

In Stull v. School Board of Western Beaver Jr.-Sr. H.S., 459 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1972), the Court of Appeals held that the right of an individual to control his personal appearance, including his hairstyle, was sufficiently substantial to be accorded the protection of the liberty assurance of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stull involved a school dress code proscribing the wearing of hair covering the ears and below the collar line. However, the Stull court, following the lead of Gere v. Stanley, 453 F.2d 205 (3d Cir. 1971), another school dress code case, also held that the protected right was not absolute, and that it was necessary that the Court assess the reasonableness of the regulation in relation to its object and balance the right sought to be protected against the legitimate but countervailing interests of the community. 1 That balancing test is central to decision of the case before us, which presents the question whether a municipal fire department can justify an infringement upon the constitutionally protected right of a fireman to control his own hairstyle and appearance. In the Stull and Gere cases, the justification asserted by the authorities was principally that of decorum and discipline in the ambience of the classroom and the schoolyard. In the present case the community interests asserted are those of safety, the integrity of the fire department as a “paramilitary” organization, and good grooming for public appearance’s sake. 2

The plaintiffs are two former Philadelphia firemen who were discharged for noncompliance with Directive 13 of the Philadelphia Fire Department (Department), a regulation which prescribes the length and neatness of hair at the front, back, and sides of the head. They have sued under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking an injunction against enforcement of Directive 13 against them and a declaration that the regulation is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, together with reinstatement, back pay, and counsel fees. Named as defendants are Joseph R. Rizzo, the Philadelphia Fire Commissioner, Hillel S. Levinson, the City’s Managing Director, 3 and the City of Philadelphia.

*840 Trial on the merits was consolidated with the hearing of the application for a preliminary injunction as authorized. by F.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2). The taking of testimony lasted five days, during which the court heard from the plaintiffs, several Department officials including defendant Rizzo himself, and expert witnesses offered by both sides. The expert testimony, as well as much of the lay testimony, focused on the potential safety hazard presented by the wearing of facial hair or long hair by firemen, with particular emphasis on the effect of facial hair and long hair upon the safe use of the Scott Air Pak self-contained breathing apparatus. In this-Opinion we set forth and discuss our findings of fact and conclusions of law.

II. Findings of Fact

A. Directive 13

Prior to August 26, 1968, the Department had no written appearance regulations. 4 On that date, Assistant Chief Ralph Kress issued a short memorandum to the divisional chiefs regarding personal appearance which was superseded by a series of written orders culminating in Directive 13. 5 Directive 13 reads as follows:

SUBJECT: PERSONAL APPEARANCE

I. POLICY
A. This directive is disseminated in order to ensure a neat personal appearance that does not interfere with nor detract from the safe and proper wearing of uniforms and equipment.
II. APPEARANCE STANDARDS
A. HAIRCUTS
1. Members will have their hair properly cut and neatly trimmed on the sides.
2. Hair at the back of the neck will be kept trimmed in an even and tapered fashion.
3. Hair on top of the head will not be overly long and will be combed or brushed in such a manner that it will remain clear of the forehead. It will not protrude from under the band of the cap or helmet.
4. Bush, Afro, Natural, Freedom or other similar styles will be worn in moderation.
a. If hair is combed, picked, blown, or teased, it will not exceed l1/^" in height, nor protrude from under the band of the cap or helmet at the front or sides.
b. Hair at the back of the neck will be kept trimmed in an even and tapered fashion.
5. The attached illustrations will be used as a guideline.
B. FACIAL HAIR
1. Members will be clean shaven.
2. Moustaches will be permitted, but must conform to the following provisions:
a. Moustaches will be kept neat and closely trimmed.
b. Moustaches will not extend beyond the corners of the mouth or below the upper lip.
*841 c. Moustaches will be trimmed in such a manner as to leave the upper lip visible.
3. Beards or goatees will not be permitted.
4. The attached illustrations will be used as a guideline.
C. SIDEBURNS
1. Sideburns will be kept neatly trimmed and close to the face.
2. Sideburns will not extend below the middle of the ear.
3. The attached illustrations will be used as a guideline.

BY ORDER OF JOSEPH R. RIZZO, FIRE COMMISSIONER

DIRECTIVE 13

Attached to Directive 13 are six photographs, depicting front, side, and back views of a black and a white fireman with hairstyles which are incorporated by reference “as a guideline” and which depict the acceptable appearance of a fireman’s hair. 6 Commissioner Rizzo, Personnel Officer McNulty, and Capt. Kenney, the Department’s safety officer, all agreed that Directive 13 is imprecise without reference to the photographs.

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

Related

Aiello v. City of Wilmington, Del.
426 F. Supp. 1272 (D. Delaware, 1976)
McClung v. Board of Education
346 N.E.2d 691 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1976)
Smith v. Wickline
396 F. Supp. 555 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1975)
Michini v. Rizzo
511 F.2d 1394 (Third Circuit, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
379 F. Supp. 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michini-v-rizzo-paed-1974.