What follows is a summary of the lawsuit filed on September 13^th, 1999 in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (in Tampa) by attorney Robert A. Norgard, Attorney for the Plaintiffs. The complaint is 67 pages long.

Pages 1 - 13 list the 544 plaintiffs. It begins:

CHRISTOPHER HUGHES, individually, and DEBORA HUGHES, individually, and as parents and next friend for JEREMY HUGHES, a minor; DARLENE WILLIAMS, individually, and ROBERT WILLIAMS, individually, and as parents and next friend for ERIC WILLIAMS, a minor; TIMOTHY TILLMAN, individually, and MARIETTA TILLMAN, individually, and as parents and next friend for NICHOLAS TILLMAN, a minor, AARON TILLMAN, a minor, and SETH TILLMAN, a minor;

            Plaintiffs,

vs.

POLK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, A political subdivision of the State of Florida, and
GLENN REYNOLDS, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Polk County Schools,

                Defendants.
 

COMPLAINT, REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

        COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorney, and sue the defendants, request injunctive and declaratory relief, demand a jury trial, and states as follows:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1.        This is an action for damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief to protect the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights pursuant to the United States and Florida Constitutions, and to prevent the Defendants from depriving the Plaintiffs under color of state law, ordinance, regulation, rule, custom or usage their constitutional rights pursuant to the United States and Florida Constitutions, as the result of the Defendants officially adopting and implementing a mandatory school uniform dress code for Polk County public schools that is unconstitutional on its face and in its application.

PARTIES

2.        Plaintiff R______ A______ is an adult resident of Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida, a Parent of children currently attending a Polk County public school, and taxpayer whose taxes are spent by the Polk County School Board and its agents in the operation of the Polk County public schools. She brings this lawsuit as an individual, taxpayer and parent. She also brings this lawsuit as parent and next friend of T____ H______, a minor child, who is 11 years old, and is currently in 5th grade at Boswell Elementary School, and L____ H______, a minor child who is 10 years old, and is currently in 4th grade at Boswell Elementary School.
 

 
157. The Plaintiffs desire to exercise and protect their constitutional rights pursuant to the United States and Florida Constitutions and Laws by challenging and objecting to the Defendant's adoption and implementation of a mandatory school uniform dress code in the Polk County elementary and middle schools. The Plaintiffs want to prevent the Defendants from depriving them under color of state law, ordinance, regulation, rule, custom or usage their constitutional rights pursuant to the United States and Florida Constitutions and Laws, as a result of the Defendants officially adopting and implementing a mandatory school uniform dress code for the Polk County elementary and middle schools. The Plaintiffs object to the use of their tax dollars to implement a mandatory school uniform dress code and further object to the diversion of resources that would otherwise be available for the childrens' education.

158. Defendant Polk County School Board (herein referred to as the Board) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Board is a local school board for the Polk County School District organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, whose members all hold elective office and exercise the powers of a local school board under the laws of the State of Florida The Board is responsible for providing public education to the children within its jurisdiction and for administering the laws and policies that govern the public schools within its jurisdiction, which includes the Polk County School District. The Board is sued in its official capacity for damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief.

159. Defendant Glenn Reynolds is the Superintendent of the Polk County Public Schools (herein after referred to as the Superintendent). The Superintendent holds elective office and is responsible for the operation and administration of the Polk County Schools, including the implementation of the Board's policies. The Superintendent is sued in his official capacity for damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief.

160. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants were and have been acting under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the State of Florida and of the Polk County School District.
 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

161. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, and 2202 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

162. On or about May 11, 1999, the Board by a 4-3 vote adopted a mandatory school uniform dress code (herein after referred to as the Dress Code). A copy of the Dress Code for the Polk County Elementary Schools is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. A copy of the Dress Code for the Polk County Middle Schools is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B.

163. The Dress Code, as adopted by a 4-3 vote of the Board, was to become effective for the 1999/2000 Polk County School year.

164. The 1999/2000 school year has started for all the Polk County Elementary and Middle Schools for which the Dress Code is applicable.

165. The Dress Code is being enforced and has been enforced either by the Board, the Superintendent or their agents, since the start of the 1999/2000 Polk County School year in Polk County Elementary and Middle Schools for which the Dress Code is applicable.

166. The Dress Code purports to be content neutral in that the only expressed exception to content permits a student to wear ".... a button, armband or other accoutrement to exercise the right of Free Speech guaranteed by the United States and Florida Constitutions..."

167. Although the Dress Code provides that a student may wear "a button, armband or other accoutrement to exercise the right of free speech..." a number of students have been required by School personnel to remove such accoutrements (such as a sticker reading "Uniforms Stink").

168. School personnel have engaged in other behavior and actions which chill the students rights of free speech by harassing and embarrassing students who exercise those rights by the wearing of accoutrements protesting the Dress Code.

169. The Dress Code is not content neutral in that "each school may include in its uniform dress code the option of allowing students to wear a "school-sponsored T-shirt...", and such school sponsored T-shirts have speech content on them including the name of the school, school emblem etc.

170. The Dress Code is not content neutral in that it permits a student to wear"... a uniform of a nationally recognized youth organization, such as the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, on regular meeting days...". This organizational attire includes speech content.

171. The Dress Code on its face and in its application prohibits students from wearing clothing that contain political, religious, educational, commercial, and other forms of speech.

172. Students who have exercised their First Amendment rights by the wearing of clothing with political content (such as a United States flag T-shirt), religious content (such as a T-shirt stating "What Would Jesus Do"), educational content (such as a D.A.R.E. T-shirt a nationally recognized drug education program) and commercial content (such as company logos) have been prevented from wearing the clothing. Those who have refused to abandon their First Amendment rights have been subjected to school discipline (typically in school suspension), or have not been allowed to attend school that day.

173. The Dress Code is not content neutral in that some students are permitted to wear shirts that contain commercial speech such as company logos or emblems while others are not.

174. The Dress Code purports to protect freedom of religion by providing an exception to the Dress Code where "The wearing of clothing in compliance with the uniform dress code violates a students sincerely held religious belief."

175. Although the Dress Code creates a purported exception for sincerely held religious belief the Board has failed to establish and develop procedures and criteria for implementing this exception.

176. Each of the Plaintiffs for whom wearing clothing in compliance with the Dress Code violates their sincerely held religious belief have been denied this exception. They have been forced to be in violation of the Dress Code and incur sanctions, which has forced them to withdraw from the Polk County schools and seek alternative means of obtaining an education or to wear clothing that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.

177. The Dress Code provides that students wear a basic uniform, which limits the styles and colors of clothing that can be worn.

178. The Dress Code prevents the student and/or their parents from choosing clothing that expresses their individuality, identity, gender, and ethnic and religious heritage.

179. The Dress Code prevents the student and/or their parents from choosing clothing that they feel comfortable in. No exception is permitted under the dress code to accommodate individual size preferences or style preferences especially for large sized children. Mandatory compliance results in plaintiffs being forced to wear clothing styles which are unflattering, difficult to obtain, and harmful to the self esteem of the minor plaintiffs.

180. The Dress Code prevents students with the help of their parents from learning to make their own choices regarding appropriate clothing, prevents them from learning to accept differences in other people (including dress), and prevents them from learning to be leaders and not followers.

181. Through the implementation of the Dress Code the School Board has improperly interfered with the parent-child relationship by requiring the parent to dress the child in a certain way in complete disregard to the parents' decision and choice regarding what their child wears.

182. By implementing the Dress Code, the Board has improperly interfered with the parent-child relationship by requiring the parent to purchase special and limited types of clothing for their child. In its application the dress code usurps the parent's ability to allocate their financial resources according to their individual needs. Parents are precluded from purchasing clothing that is less expensive than the school uniforms or purchasing clothing that is multifunctional such as clothing that can be worn to school and church etc..

183. The Dress Code purports to protect students from penalties for failing to comply with the Dress Code due to financial hardship and purports to offer assistance to students who "... have or are having difficulty complying with their school's uniform dress code due to financial hardships..."

184. The Dress Code provides that the school principal and QIC or SAC are to develop procedures and criteria to assist students with financial hardship. These procedures and criteria for assisting students with financial hardship either do not exist or are inadequate.

185. The Dress Code provides the school principals and QIC or SAC "... shall develop a program to provide for donations of clothing or financial assistance, consignment shops or reuse of uniform clothing or similar program that would alleviate such financial hardship." These programs either do not exist or are inadequate.

186. Students with financial hardships who have been provided with uniforms by school personnel in some instances have been given an inadequate supply of clothing to reasonably meet the daily uniform needs.

187. Students with financial hardships who have been provided with uniforms by school personnel in some instances have been provided with inferior clothing, visibly used clothing, and ill-fitting clothing which segregates them from those students without financial hardships.

188. Students with financial hardships, in some instances, who have been provided with uniforms by school personnel are forced to wear clothing marked with a visible letter "L" to designate the uniform as a loaner from the school. Being forced to wear the clothing marked with an "L" is a source of embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish etc. for these students and segregates children based upon income.

189. The Dress Code is being enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner and creates undue financial hardship to families. Faded clothing has been found not to be in compliance with the Dress Code. This practice has placed an unreasonable financial burden on the parents to replace uniform compliant clothing on a more frequent basis or risk sanctions if they fail to do so. This burden is extremely onerous on those families already under a financial hardship.

190. Information provided by the School Board, the Superintendent and school personnel fails to provide adequate notice and guidance as to what is acceptable clothing under the Dress Code at particular schools. Clothing deemed acceptable at one Polk County School may subsequently be deemed unacceptable at another Polk County School. Plaintiffs have purchased clothing relying on county directives which has been deemed non-compliance by the individual schools.

191. Some schools utilize "loaner" programs to assist students with financial hardships by providing the students with clothing upon their arrival at school and collecting the clothing at the designated point in the school day. The implementation of this program takes away from and interferes with instructional time that these students would otherwise benefit from and discriminates against those children with financial hardship with the loss of educational time.

192. The Dress Code fails to create an exception where the wearing of clothing in compliance with the Dress Code would be injurious to the student's health, safety or welfare.

193. The "loaner" programs endanger the health and welfare of students. These programs in which the students exchange their personal clothing that does not comply with the Dress Code for loaner clothing from the school that complies with the Dress Code creates significant health safety, and welfare concerns. Sanitary issues arising from the intermingling of clothing include health problems such as the transmission of head and body lice. In many instances the loaner clothing is not washed daily, thus requiring students to wear unlaundered clothing that was previously worn by other students.

194. The Dress Code compromises the safety of Polk County School children. It hinders the identification of missing or lost children This situation that has already occurred at least one time when a student accidentally got on the wrong school bus and the parent was unable to give the Lakeland Police Department a meaningful clothing description By contrast, in the 1998 school year a student who was dropped off at a wrong bus stop and was easily identified based upon his individualized non-dress code compliant clothing. This rationale applies in other emergency situations in which it is important to be able to identify a particular child rapidly.

195. The widespread practice of requiring students to dress and undress in front of school personnel and other students as part of the implementations of the Dress Code creates an inappropriate mental state with respect to undressing in front of adults and children and places the students in a degrading and embarrassing position with respect to the students.

196. Inadequate supervision of children who are segregated by internal suspension for noncompliance compromises the health safety and welfare of students. In at least one instance a plaintiff had an allergy attack when segregated in a room by herself with no adult supervision because her shirt was the wrong shade of blue.

197. The health, welfare, and safety of the children is endangered by the practice instituted by certain school personnel requiring students to wear uniform clothing over their personal non-uniform clothing despite high temperatures, or having prevented students from removing an item of uniform clothing due to high temperatures in situations where non-uniform clothing would have been cooler.

198. Uniforms do not allow for adequate stranger on stranger identification in situations where there has been a violation of school rules, including criminal acts, thus endangering the health, safety and welfare of the children. School personnel or students who witness a violation of school rules by another student that they do not know cannot provide a meaningful clothing description of the perpetrator.

199. Approved clothing colors under the Dress Code are identical to those colors which are utilized as gang colors by known gang organizations in Polk County. The adoption of these mandatory colors under the Dress Code endangers the health, safety and welfare of students who could be identified as belonging to rival gangs.

200. The Dress Code, by failing to have a health and safety exception, does not specifically address the special needs and requirements of students with disabilities, physical handicaps or other health problems.

201. The findings upon which the Board based its decision to implement the Dress Code are erroneous, flawed, incorrect and unsupported by fact, thus making the Dress Code arbitrary and capricious.

202. The enforcement of the Dress Code is arbitrary and capricious, and fails to provide adequate notice or guidelines as to what clothing is compliant under the Dress Code. Specific instances of these failures include episodes in which a student wears an item of clothing one day without problems and on a later occasion is deemed noncompliant with the same article of clothing; episodes in which a student wears an item of clothing and is disciplined and another student wears an identical or very similar item of clothing and is not disciplined; and episodes in which the schools enforce the Dress Code with respect to only certain uniform items on one day and then enforce the Dress Code as to other uniform items on the other days, such as "belt and shoe day" etc..

203. There is little intra-school consistency in enforcement of the dress code. Clothing deemed compliant at one school is banned at another school. The severity of enforcement and sanctions imposed varies from school to school and is not consistent.

204. The Dress Code has been erroneously enforced resulting in students being disciplined and missing classroom time even though they were in compliance with the Dress Code.

205. The Dress Code prevents students from receiving a public education in that if they choose not to comply with the Dress Code. The sanctions for Dress Code violations include In School Suspension, Out of School Suspension etc..

206. The Dress Code prevents students from receiving a public education in that if they choose not to comply with the Dress Code and not incur sanctions for Dress Code violations, they must withdraw from Public School and seek alternative means of education.

207. The Dress Code prevents students from receiving the full benefits of a public education in that the time spent changing into and out of uniforms, uniform inspections etc, deprive children of instructional time.

208. The Dress Code prevents students from receiving a free public education in that the students' parents must expend money for the purchase of uniforms which are required in order to attend a public school in Polk County under the Dress Code. Additional monetary requirements are also being implemented at certain schools such as the requirement that a student rent a belt at 25 cents a day if they forget to wear one.

209. The Dress Code permits an exception to the mandatory uniform which allows a student to wear ".... a uniform of a nationally recognized youth organization, such as the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, on regular meeting days;...."

210. School personnel refused to permit certain youth organizations that meet this definition to utilize this exception, such as Royal Rangers, a national religious youth organization, and the Brownies, a nationally recognized youth organization.

211. Even though organizations like Boy Scouts are specifically recognized, students who belong to these organizations are being told by school personnel what constitutes a permissible uniform for the organization and are being told they cannot wear certain recognized uniforms of the organization.

212. All of the Plaintiffs, have been adversely effected by the Dress Code on its face and in its application, and will continue to be adversely effected for as long as the Dress Code is allowed to remain in effect and continues to be enforced.
 

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

213. Paragraphs 1 through 211 are incorporated herein by reference.

214. The Dress Code as enacted and implemented by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional on its face and in its application in that it prevents the Plaintiffs from exercising their freedom of speech and expression in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §Constitution, Article I Sections 2 and 4 Florida Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

215. Paragraphs 1 through 211 are incorporated herein by reference.

216. The Dress Code as enacted and implemented by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional on its face and in its application in that it prevents the Plaintiffs from exercising their freedom of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

217. Paragraphs 1 through 211 are incorporated herein by reference.

218. The Dress Code as enacted and implemented by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional on its face and in its application in that it violates the Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

219. Paragraphs 1 through 211 are incorporated herein by reference.

220. The Dress Code as enacted and implemented by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional on its face and in its application in that it violates the Plaintiffs' rights to due process of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

221. Paragraphs 1 through 211 are incorporated herein by reference.

222. The Dress Code as enacted and implemented by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional on its face and in its application in that it violates the Plaintiffs' rights of privacy, both as individuals and in the parent child relationship, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

223. Paragraphs 1 through 211 are incorporated herein by reference.

224. The Dress Code as enacted and implemented by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional in that it deprives the Plaintiffs of rights because of physical handicap in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, The Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

225. Paragraphs 1 through 211 are incorporated herein by reference.

226. The Dress Code as enacted and implemented by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional on its face and in its application in that a violates the Plaintiffs right to free public education as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

227. Paragraphs 1 through 211 are incorporated herein by reference.

228. The Dress Code as enacted and implemented by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional on its face and in its application in that it violates the Plaintiffs freedom of association as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution Article I, Section 2 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

229. Paragraphs 1 through 211 are incorporated herein by reference.

230. The Dress Code as enacted and implemented by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional on its face and in its application in that it violates the Plaintiffs' right of privacy, both as individuals and in the parent child relationship, as guaranteed by Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution.
 

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

231. Paragraphs 1 through 211 are incorporated herein by reference.

232. The Dress Code as enacted and implemented by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional on its face and in its application in that it prevents Plaintiffs from exercising their freedom of religion in violation of Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Florida Constitution and the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
 

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

233. Paragraphs 1 through 211 are incorporated herein by reference.

234. The Dress Code as enacted and by its implementation by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional on its face and in its application in that it violates the Plaintiffs' right to a free public education as guaranteed by Article I, Sections 2 and 9 of the Florida Constitution.
 

DAMAGES

235. As a result of the acts of the Defendants and their agents complained herein the Plaintiffs have been injured in their persons and the said Defendants are liable to plaintiffs for actual damages.
 

EQUITABLE RELIEF

236. There is real and actual controversy between the parties. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law other than this action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable injury as a result of the acts of the Defendants and their agents complained herein and that injury will continue unless enjoined by this Court.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

1) Take jurisdiction of this matter;

2) Issue a declaratory judgment that the Dress Code as enacted and implemented by the Defendants and their agents is unconstitutional on its face and in its application;

3) Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants and their agents from enacting and implementing the Dress Code;

4) Grant Plaintiffs a jury trial on the issue of actual damages against the Defendants, jointly and severely;

5) Award the Plaintiffs costs and attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

6) Such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
 
 

ROBERT A. NORGARD, Attorney at Law
Trial Counsel

Florida Bar No. 322059
P.O. Box 811
Bartow, FL 33831

Attorney for Plaintiffs