School that Forced Girls to Wear Skirts to Promote “Chivalry” 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. — 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’s “skirts only” rule for girls, which the school says it adopted based on the belief that every girl is a “fragile vessel” and to promote “chivalry.” 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’s hair — worn long by Waccamaw Siouan men and boys for thousands of years — was “faddish” and must be cut.
“I 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,” said Bonnie Peltier, the parent of a former student and plaintiff in the case. “It took eight years, but I’m grateful to have played a part in establishing that North Carolina charter schools cannot trample students’ rights.”
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’ constitutional rights and that the school’s “skirts only” rule for girls violated civil rights laws. In ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the Fourth Circuit noted that CCSA “imposed the skirts requirement with the express purpose of telegraphing to children that girls are ‘fragile,’ require protection by boys, and warrant different treatment than male students, stereotypes with potentially devastating consequences for young girls.”
“This 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,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “Schools should adopt gender-inclusive dress codes — or risk facing steep costs.”
“Our 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,” said Kristi Graunke, legal director of the ACLU 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 ACLU Women’s Rights Project, the ACLU of North Carolina Foundation, and the law firm Ellis & Winters LLP.
Separately, last spring the ACLU 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’s short hair rule for boys likely infringed his religious and cultural beliefs and constituted sex discrimination. Ashley Lomboy, the boy’s mother and a member of the Waccamaw Siouan Tribe, was told by a CCSA administrator that her son’s hair was “faddish” and must be cut because “we want them all to look the same.” 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.
“We are thankful no other boys will be told they don’t 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’t look and dress the way the school says you should,” said Ashley Lomboy, member of the Waccamaw Siouan Tribe and parent of a former student at the school. “It’s a reminder that freedom is not free, and we must continue to fight to protect it.”
The ACLU 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 About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, 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’s 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 “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The 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.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ 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 “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s 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’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ 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,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” 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 ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU 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’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.