 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Luken v. Brigano9/29/2003
Plaintiff-appellant, Robert Luken, appeals from a judgment of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Anthony Brigano, former Warden of the Warren County Correctional Institution ("WCI"), and Reginald Wilkinson, the Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
From June 1972 until his retirement in July 2002, appellant was an employee of ODRC. Beginning in 1990, appellant worked at WCI as a psychology assistant under the supervision of Dr. James Baron and Dr. Ken Washington. During appellant's employment at WCI, appellee, Anthony Brigano, served as the warden.
In 1980, in accordance with his spiritual beliefs, appellant stopped cutting his hair. Appellant maintains that his spiritual beliefs are "non-theistic," and that he has identified his hair as a spiritual "totem." Appellant claims that he does not cut his hair, because it symbolizes his spiritual development and serves as a reminder that he must "live simply and avoid excessive pride." Appellant states that he has voluntarily cut his hair only once since 1980, which he claims was for charity.
In the early 1990s, ODRC instituted a grooming policy, a portion of which provides that male employees' hair must not extend below the bottom of the collar in the back, must not cover the entire ear on the side, and must be styled above the eyebrow in the front. When the grooming policy became effective, Dr. Baron told appellant that he had to get a haircut and provided him with a copy of the grooming policy. Appellant refused, and wrote on the acknowledgement of his receipt of the policy that ODRC lacked the authority to implement the policy based on a collective bargaining agreement. However, appellant did not inform his supervisor that he believed the policy violated his spiritual beliefs.
As a result of appellant's refusal to comply with the grooming policy, he was given an oral reprimand, a written reprimand, and a oneday suspension. Appellant still did not inform ODRC or WCI that the policy violated his beliefs. After his suspension, appellant cut his hair whenever his supervisors requested him to do so, which occurred approximately every nine months.
After the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision in Humphrey v. Lane (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 62, appellant refused to maintain his hair in accordance with the grooming policy. Based upon his interpretation of Humphrey, appellant felt that he was not required to comply with the policy because of his spiritual beliefs.
In April 2001, Dr. Washington ordered appellant to cut his hair. Appellant refused and asked for an accommodation or waiver pursuant to Humphrey. Appellant's request was denied, and appellant still refused to cut his hair. Appellant was given an oral reprimand, a written reprimand, a two-day suspension, a five-day suspension, and a ten-day suspension. For reasons unrelated to this case, appellant voluntarily retired in July 2002.
On April 23, 2002, appellant filed a complaint against Brigano and Wilkinson, claiming that the ODRC grooming policy violated his right of conscience as guaranteed by Section 7, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and requesting that the court enjoin appellees from taking any disciplinary action against him. Appellees moved for summary judgment on October 23, 2002, and the trial court granted the motion on December 17, 2002. In its decision, the trial court stated, "Reasonable minds could certainly conclude that Mr. Lukens' beliefs regarding his hair are sincerely held. There can be no issue, however, that they are not in deference to o
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|