Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Manco v. Town of Irvington

Decided: June 12, 1973.

DONALD MANCO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
TOWN OF IRVINGTON AND SAL DI COSTANZO, FIRE CHIEF AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF FIRE, TOWN OF IRVINGTON, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS



On appeal from Superior Court, Law Division.

Carton, Mintz and Seidman.

Per Curiam

Plaintiff, a member of the Irvington Fire Department, challenged the constitutionality of Department Directive No. 5A, concerning style and length of hair. He also challenged the hearing procedure whereby the Fire Chief who had ordered plaintiff to cut his hair sat as the hearing officer at the departmental hearing.

The court ruled that the regulation was valid and that the Director (Fire Chief) acted fairly and impartially as hearing officer. Upholding the Director's determination that plaintiff was in violation of the directive, the court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff was ordered by a Captain McBain of the Irvington Fire Department to cut his hair because he was in violation of the directive. He testified that he got a haircut the following day. Three days later McBain and a Deputy Chief Cunningham informed plaintiff that his hair was still in violation

of the directive. Directive No. 5A, dated January 21, 1970, in pertinent part, provides:

Because of safety standards it becomes incumbent upon us to adhere to good safety procedures and it becomes the responsibility of all officers and members of the department to practice simple safety standards to the effect that sideburns because of the safety feature extend to the lower ear lobe, be parallel to each other and closely (not bushy) trimmed. In line with the same safety practices, the hairline shall not extend below the collar of one's shirt or uniform. * * *

The directive also stated that "[r]espirators shall not be worn when conditions prevent a good face seal" and "[s]uch conditions may be a growth of beard, sideburns * * *."

After reviewing the testimony, DiCostanzo concluded that plaintiff had refused to comply with the directive. He also concluded that plaintiff's hairstyle and sideburns would interfere with the face-seal on a gas mask. Plaintiff was penalized five days' pay.

At the Superior Court trial defendant produced two expert witnesses who testified essentially that they doubted gas masks would properly seal over plaintiff's face because of his hairstyle. Plaintiff's single witness testified that he had tested the mask on plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney, whose hair was longer than plaintiff's. He expressed the opinion that the gas mask would safely seal on him.

The court, in ruling that Directive No. 5A was valid in all respects, stated that there is "an overriding or countervailing public need to curtail the otherwise fundamental right of the plaintiff with respect to having his hair worn in the style which he would prefer * * *." The court also ruled that DiCostanzo had not assumed the role of investigator, prosecutor and judge in handling the case, and that plaintiff received a fair hearing, comporting with due process requirements.

It is apparent that there was a sharp dispute among the experts as to the reasonableness of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.