A US judge has rejected the request of a black Texas student who sought a court order to protect him from punishment at his secondary school over his hairstyle.
Authorities suspended Darryl George, 19, last August, saying his dreadlocks violated the dress code.
Mr. George asked District Judge Jeffrey Brown to issue a temporary restraining order so he can return to his Houston-area school as a federal lawsuit filed over the suspension proceeds.
But in his ruling on Friday, Judge Brown rejected the request and said he had waited too long to seek the order.
Since the beginning of Mr. George’s last year at Barbours Hill High School, starting in August 2023, he has been given several disciplinary punishments for refusing to cut his hair.
The school district cited its dress code, which states that hair should not be “above the collar of a T-shirt, below the eyebrows, or below the earlobe if worn.”
But Mr. George refused to cut his braided hair, citing its cultural significance in the black community.
He was removed from class and suspended in school, and was later asked to attend an off-campus event.
“He has to sit on a stool in a cubicle for eight hours a day,” his mother told the Associated Press news agency last year.
“It’s very uncomfortable. Every day he comes home, saying his back hurts because he has to sit on a stool.”
Mr. George returned to the same school this year.
But Mr. George’s lawyers said last month he was forced to cancel enrollment and transfer to another school because school officials stopped him from attending school on the first and second days of the new school year, which started in August. Was suspended.
The federal lawsuit brought by Mr. George and his mother will continue.
Mr. George has alleged that his sentence violates the Crown Act, a recent state law that prohibits race-based discrimination. The law, which takes effect in September 2023, prohibits employers and schools from penalizing people because of hair texture or protective hairstyles, including dreadlocks.
In February, a state judge ruled that his sentencing did not violate the Crown Act.
