Legal Opinion
Blanken v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided October 30, 1996No. C-2-94-991PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
GEORGE C. SMITH, District Judge.
Plaintiff Blanken is a correctional officer who works for Defendant Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”). Blanken practices Native American Spirituality, and believes that growing one’s hair at the base of the neck is essential to obtaining spiritual knowledge and wisdom. ODBC’s Employee Grooming Policy (the “Policy”) requires male uniformed personnel such as Blanken to keep their hair “collar length or shorter in the back.”
The conflict between the ODRC Policy and Blanken’s desire to keep his eight-inch ponytail has brought…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Humphrey v. LaneOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Madison v. RiterDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2003
- Davie v. WingardDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1997
- Booth v. MarylandDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2002
- Humphrey v. LaneOhio Supreme Court · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.