Speaker 1: Welcome to the Boomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. A
Speaker 1: third witness from his inner circle who flipped takes the
Speaker 1: stand against Sam Bankman Freed and his attorney's raised questions
Speaker 1: related to his taking the stand in his own defense.
Speaker 1: A top bankruptcy judge resigns amid ethics questions, and a
Speaker 1: black high school student in Texas sues after being suspended
Speaker 1: over his hairstyle. Prosecutors have built their criminal fraud case
Speaker 1: against Sam Bankman Freed by reaching cooperation deals with his
Speaker 1: inner circle, and the third member of that inner circle
Speaker 1: testified against him today in court. Nishad Singh told the
Speaker 1: Manhattan jury that he was in severe emotional distress in
Speaker 1: the days leading up to ftx's failure as he dealt
Speaker 1: with accusations from ftx's former chief regulatory officer and others
Speaker 1: that he was partly to blame for the company's demise.
Speaker 1: Sing claimed he had only learned about the massive eight
Speaker 1: billion dollar hole in the company's balance sheet and the
Speaker 1: misuse of FTX customer funds in September of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: about two months before the firm file for bankruptcy. Bankman
Speaker 1: Freed faces decades in prison on charges that he funneled
Speaker 1: FTX customer money into Alimeter Research and affiliated hedge fund
Speaker 1: for risky trades, political donations, and expensive property before both
Speaker 1: companies collapsed into bankruptcy last year. Joining me is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: legal reporter Bob van Voris, who's covering the trial. Okay,
Speaker 1: so tell us about him. Who is he? H?
Speaker 2: Nashat saying is the former director of engineering at FTX.
Speaker 2: He's somebody who was a close friend of SBF's younger
Speaker 2: brother Gabriel and worked initially for Elmet Research and then
Speaker 2: came over to FTX. Obviously he was a tech person,
Speaker 2: and he was somebody who admitted to crimes for conspiring
Speaker 2: with Ellison, Garry Wang and Sam Bankman Freed into frauding
Speaker 2: investors and customers.
Speaker 1: What was the most important part of his testimony.
Speaker 2: Well, certainly the most dramatic part was at the end
Speaker 2: when he was talking about the slide of FTX and
Speaker 2: Alameda into bankruptcy and everything was blown up, and there
Speaker 2: were all kinds of crazy accusations. He testified, and at
Speaker 2: the end he said the accusation that he was getting
Speaker 2: for helping to blow up the firm had him suicidal
Speaker 2: in the final days in the early part of November
Speaker 2: twenty two. He claims he only knew about the fraud
Speaker 2: beginning around September of twenty two, and that he wanted
Speaker 2: Sambakmin Freed to step up and take responsibility for all
Speaker 2: of this.
Speaker 1: What did he admit to that he had done was
Speaker 1: he part of the redesign of the computer code.
Speaker 2: Was a part of basically designing a lot of the
Speaker 2: code that allowed Sambankman Freed to allegedly shift money from
Speaker 2: Alameda Research over to f PX and to steal the money.
Speaker 2: But as I say, he didn't understand that there was
Speaker 2: a multi billion dollar hole in FTX customer accounts until
Speaker 2: September twenty two. According to his testimony, he admitted also
Speaker 2: being used as a straw donor for lots of political donations.
Speaker 2: He told jurors about how he was given blank checks
Speaker 2: to sign and that those would go to Gabriel Bankman Freed,
Speaker 2: who was the head of a pack that Sam Bankman
Speaker 2: Free donated to. The money would go to various Democratic candidates.
Speaker 2: And that's saying it acted basically as a donor to
Speaker 2: lots of center left causes. That he really for the
Speaker 2: most part, had no idea.
Speaker 1: Let me understand this did. He claim that he didn't
Speaker 1: know that anything was wrong until the end.
Speaker 2: He claimed he didn't know about the big hole in
Speaker 2: the FTX customer account until the end. Until you know
Speaker 2: the massive fraud. There were certainly crimes that he admits
Speaker 2: being a part of before then, but that he didn't
Speaker 2: know about the big hole in the FTX account until September.
Speaker 1: He felt embarrassed and ashamed at the investment FTX made
Speaker 1: in a firm K five that had ties to many celebrities.
Speaker 1: Say he was embarrassed and ashamed about the rest of his.
Speaker 2: Actions, certainly at the end. He described a lot of
Speaker 2: the things that were going on it's dishonest, and that
Speaker 2: he tried to sidestep some of them, not to be
Speaker 2: involved in some of the decisions. He considered quitting many times,
Speaker 2: he said, but didn't want to be responsible for helping
Speaker 2: to hasten the final blow up of the firm. He
Speaker 2: wanted to stay, he said, and hopefully figure out a solution.
Speaker 2: As that became more and more remote, he became just
Speaker 2: more and more despondent.
Speaker 1: I understand that Judge Kaplan was pretty active, asking him
Speaker 1: questions about things like venture investing, blockchain, algorithmic failure.
Speaker 2: Well, same spoke very precisely, but often in a very
Speaker 2: technical manner and used a lot of terms that the
Speaker 2: judge I think was afraid we're going to go over
Speaker 2: Dror's head. Prosecutor Nicholas Ruse here really wasn't, you know,
Speaker 2: setting it up in a way that you know, some
Speaker 2: of these things were explainable. Judge Kaplan, Lewis Kaplan was,
Speaker 2: before he was appointed the bench, was a litigator for
Speaker 2: many years, so he kind of knows how Jerry's work
Speaker 2: and I think sense that some of these terms were
Speaker 2: going over their heads, and so he was jumping in
Speaker 2: quite a bit to ask questions of saying directly and
Speaker 2: just ask him to explain, you know, what he was
Speaker 2: talking about.
Speaker 1: Did they come across as believable contrite?
Speaker 2: I think certainly he came across as both. And I
Speaker 2: think you know, he kind of is in a similar
Speaker 2: sense to Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang, the other two
Speaker 2: people who were senior executives and pleaded guilty and have
Speaker 2: cooperated with the government. These are very brilliant young people
Speaker 2: who are very good at expressing themselves. They were pretty
Speaker 2: good on the stand, and certainly Ellison and Wang were
Speaker 2: able to get through cross examination without too many dents.
Speaker 2: We'll see how Sing does tomorrow, but these are kind
Speaker 2: of the big three witnesses against the guy, and the
Speaker 2: defense is certainly going to look to score some points.
Speaker 1: Sam begman Fried's lawyers have brought up the possibility of
Speaker 1: him testifying in his own defense.
Speaker 2: Well, they discussed it in the letter last night. Sam
Speaker 2: Begminfried has been having a problem all along that they've
Speaker 2: been raising with a judge about getting his adderall prescription.
Speaker 2: He gets the prescription for depression and for ADHD. His
Speaker 2: lawyers claim that he's not able to concentrate and to
Speaker 2: focus to the extent that he needs to, and that
Speaker 2: if he's not able to sort of work this out,
Speaker 2: that it's going to be a problem with him being
Speaker 2: able to meaningfully participate in his defense. And of course,
Speaker 2: you know that's what he needs to do to have
Speaker 2: a fair trial. So this is some serious that they're raising.
Speaker 2: In a letter late last night to the judge, they
Speaker 2: raised this and they said, you know that this is
Speaker 2: a critical time because we're deciding whether or not Bekmin
Speaker 2: Freed is going to get on the stand and testify
Speaker 2: in his own defense.
Speaker 1: I know they brought this up before, and it's surprising
Speaker 1: to me that if someone's on medication, you know, they
Speaker 1: can't get the medication that they're on because they're in
Speaker 1: prison during their trial. It seems sort of ridiculous.
Speaker 2: It certainly does. And the judge said, well, look, I'm
Speaker 2: not a doctor. I can't prescribe him medication, and that
Speaker 2: he only has limited control over the Bureau of Prison,
Speaker 2: whose doctors are the ones who make decisions. For Bekman
Speaker 2: freed while he's confined at the MDC in Brooklyn, the
Speaker 2: federal lock up in Brooklyn, as people probably know, Kaplan
Speaker 2: ordered them locked up in August after he violated the
Speaker 2: terms of his bail at the time. So this has
Speaker 2: been a problem that just keeps popping up, including well
Speaker 2: into the trial.
Speaker 1: I understand that during cross examination of Ellison, the defense
Speaker 1: wasn't able to ask a lot of questions because, you know,
Speaker 1: there were objections that were almost always sustained as to form,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. Did you see that too.
Speaker 2: There were definitely a lot of objections that were sustained,
Speaker 2: and the judge had put a number of issues, you know,
Speaker 2: out of reach for the defense, including things like whether
Speaker 2: he was acting on the advice of lawyers. You know,
Speaker 2: anytime the defense tried to get near any of these issues,
Speaker 2: there would be an objection. Often there'd be discussion of
Speaker 2: at the bench. Lawyers tell me, this is the kind
Speaker 2: of thing that really just screws up your rhythm, you know,
Speaker 2: when you're trying to get into a groove and cross examination.
Speaker 1: And I know that pre trial Caplan made several important
Speaker 1: rulings that were detrimental to bankman freed.
Speaker 2: You know, if he's convicted, we're going to see this
Speaker 2: on appeal. Judge Kaplan is definitely a judge who wants
Speaker 2: to move things along. He also, you know, can be
Speaker 2: a little cranky with trial counsel if they're not behaving
Speaker 2: in the way he wants them to.
Speaker 1: Seeing testified that he was a millionaire during his time
Speaker 1: at Alameda, Is he still a millionaire?
Speaker 2: Most of this money just slipped through, you know, just
Speaker 2: vanished into thin air. There's not much left for these people.
Speaker 2: They certainly sing is no longer a billionaire.
Speaker 1: So how much is left In the prosecution's case.
Speaker 2: The government is saying that they're going to basically wrap
Speaker 2: up their case. Oh really by the end of the week,
Speaker 2: with maybe a couple of people who have travel issues
Speaker 2: that they're going to have to put over till next week.
Speaker 2: So you know, this is going to move pretty fast
Speaker 2: for the end.
Speaker 1: So then we'll soon know if bankmin Freed is actually
Speaker 1: going to take the stand. And we'll check back with
Speaker 1: you tomorrow, Bob to see how the cross examination of
Speaker 1: sing when. Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Bob
Speaker 1: van voris coming up next. A top bankruptcy judge resigns
Speaker 1: amid ethics charges. President Joe Biden has confirmed thirty six
Speaker 1: judges to the federal appellate courts and one hundred and
Speaker 1: eight judges to the district courts. But you can expect
Speaker 1: to slow down in the confirmation process in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: a presidential year, and there's also the prospect of Democrats
Speaker 1: losing the Senate. Joining me is judiciary expert Carl Tobias,
Speaker 1: a professor at the University of Richmond Law School. Start
Speaker 1: with the Biden numbers. How are his numbers at this
Speaker 1: point compared to other presidents.
Speaker 3: Well, I think they're still pretty solid compared to many
Speaker 3: other presidents, especially recent ones. I think he doesn't have
Speaker 3: quite as many confirmations as Trump did at this point
Speaker 3: in his presidency, but he's not very far behind, and
Speaker 3: there are a number of nominees on the floor who
Speaker 3: could be confirmed before Thanksgiving, for example, and so I
Speaker 3: think he may well catch Trump by the end of
Speaker 3: the year. Though there need to be more nominees forthcoming
Speaker 3: from the White House.
Speaker 1: So is that what's holding it up? The White House
Speaker 1: is not nominated them fast enough.
Speaker 3: Well, it could nominate them faster. Chair Durbin of the
Speaker 3: Judiciary Committee promised to hold hearings every two weeks that
Speaker 3: the Senate was in session, but that hasn't happened every
Speaker 3: two weeks this year, and so that's unfortunate, and I
Speaker 3: think that could be remedied. But there are problems because
Speaker 3: a number of the present vacancies are in states with
Speaker 3: one or two Republican senators, and especially in the district
Speaker 3: courts where most of the vacancies are, they have the
Speaker 3: blueslip privilege and they can reject White House nominees, and
Speaker 3: so that's a more difficult vacancy to fill. Where you
Speaker 3: have one or two home state senators who are GOP
Speaker 3: members and perhaps unwilling to work with the White House,
Speaker 3: though a number have been, for example in Indiana and
Speaker 3: in other states.
Speaker 1: I mean, once twenty twenty four arrives, it's going to
Speaker 1: be slowed down, right, the process.
Speaker 3: To some extent, Yes, because of a presidential election year,
Speaker 3: and both parties believe that their nominees will win, and
Speaker 3: so they don't want to confirm. Well, at least the
Speaker 3: Republicans won't want to confirm any more Biden nominees than
Speaker 3: they have to. But I think that Democrats are committed
Speaker 3: to confirming as many as possible and will schedule as
Speaker 3: many hearings and committee votes and floor votes as they can,
Speaker 3: even in a lame duck session, as Trump did in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty where he confirmed thirteen district and one circuit
Speaker 3: judge after the election. And so I think that's what
Speaker 3: you're likely to see. So it may not slow down
Speaker 3: that much, but there'll be times, you know, for example
Speaker 3: August recess and then campaigning in the fall, where it'll
Speaker 3: be difficult for the Senate to be in session.
Speaker 1: Let's turn out to some judges who are making news
Speaker 1: or in trouble, whichever way you want to look at it.
Speaker 1: So we talked about Judge Pauline Newman, who was the
Speaker 1: oldest judge in the country and she was suspended from
Speaker 1: new assignments for one year or until she complies with
Speaker 1: orders to submit to medical testing. She was doing an
Speaker 1: interview and she said, I have an open invitation from
Speaker 1: one circuitcause she didn't say which circuit or when that
Speaker 1: invitation came, to preside over a patent trial at the
Speaker 1: district court level. Since she suspended from new assignments on
Speaker 1: the federal circuit, is she allowed to just hear a
Speaker 1: case at the district court level.
Speaker 3: I don't know the precise answer to that. My guess
Speaker 3: is she probably can't. And often judges do entertain those
Speaker 3: kinds of invitations when they have them. Circuit judges may
Speaker 3: do that occasionally have a better sense of what the
Speaker 3: cases look like at the district level if they're competent
Speaker 3: to try them, and she certainly has the expertise in
Speaker 3: the patent area. I don't know that she's tried a
Speaker 3: lot of cases at the trial court level, probably not
Speaker 3: very many, but often you see that happening with appellet judges,
Speaker 3: so we'll see. I don't know maybe it's Delaware, which
Speaker 3: has a lot of patent cases.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I was just wondering because she was suspended
Speaker 1: at the Federal Circuit, and does that mean she's suspended
Speaker 1: everywhere because she's a federal Circuit judge.
Speaker 3: I don't know the answer to that, Okay. I think
Speaker 3: that probably she could sit in some other court, but
Speaker 3: not in the federal Circuit.
Speaker 1: Moving on to Texas, one of the nation's top bankruptcy
Speaker 1: judges who's at the center of an ethics storm, said
Speaker 1: yesterday he's resigning after the Fifth Circuit issued a formal
Speaker 1: misconduct complaint against him. David Jones was the chief bankruptcy
Speaker 1: judge for the Southern District of Texas, and he's come
Speaker 1: under fire for failing to disclose that his living girlfriend
Speaker 1: was a bankruptcy attorney at a prominent Texas law firm
Speaker 1: with business before his court. What ethics rules are involved here?
Speaker 3: I think the Ethics Code twenty eight USC. Four fifty
Speaker 3: five is clear as to that kind of situation. If
Speaker 3: you have a conflict in terms of financial benefit that
Speaker 3: may flow when a judge is ruling, then the judge
Speaker 3: is supposed to recuse in that case. And this sounds
Speaker 3: like that because at least the media reports are saying
Speaker 3: that he decided cases where the person with whom he
Speaker 3: shared a home was involved or her firm was involved,
Speaker 3: and probably he should have accused then and has chosen
Speaker 3: to resign, which is probably the best thing that could
Speaker 3: happen right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he had previously defended his conduct to the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal by arguing that he and the attorney were
Speaker 1: not married, he had no economic interest from her cases,
Speaker 1: and he said he would only have to accuse himself
Speaker 1: if they had been married and had communal property and
Speaker 1: she never personally appeared in his courtroom. Isn't there the
Speaker 1: appearance of impropriety? Or are the strict rules on this
Speaker 1: on having a relationship with an attorney?
Speaker 3: No, I think you're correct. I mean basically that four
Speaker 3: fifty five talks about the appearance of a conflict, and
Speaker 3: that's enough, And there seems to be enough of a
Speaker 3: financial interest there in her former firm when she was
Speaker 3: responsible for some cases that it would look like the
Speaker 3: appearance of a conflict, and so probably should have recused
Speaker 3: himself in any of those cases.
Speaker 1: And this judge has issued rulings in multi billion dollar reorganizations,
Speaker 1: and some legal experts say that both he and his
Speaker 1: girlfriend face the possibility of disbarment and criminal charges. So
Speaker 1: we'll see whether the resignation is the end of this
Speaker 1: or if there's more to come. Thanks so much, Carl.
Speaker 1: That's Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond Law School.
Speaker 1: Coming up next. A black high school student in Texas
Speaker 1: sues after being suspended over his hairstyle. I'm June Grasso,
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg. After serving more than a
Speaker 1: month of in school suspension over his hairstyle, a black
Speaker 1: student in Texas was told he'll be removed from his
Speaker 1: high school and sent to a disciplinary alternative education program.
Speaker 1: Eighteen year old Darryl george, a junior at Barber's Hill
Speaker 1: High School, has been suspended since August thirty first. Last month,
Speaker 1: his family filed a formal complaint with the Texas Education
Speaker 1: Agency and a federal civil rights lawsuit against the state's
Speaker 1: governor and attorney General, alleging they fail to enforce a
Speaker 1: new law outlying discrimination based on hair styles. The family
Speaker 1: alleges Georgea's suspension and subsequent discipline violate the state's Crown Act.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Melanie Jordan, a labor and employment attorney
Speaker 1: at Dorsey and Whitney. So, first of all, tell us
Speaker 1: about the Crown Act that was signed into law in
Speaker 1: Texas in May.
Speaker 4: That's right. So the Crown Act actually sits an acronym
Speaker 4: and it means creating a respectful and open world for
Speaker 4: natural hair. Now, this law prohibits discrimination based on race
Speaker 4: based hair styles such as twist, lacks, braves, et cetera.
Speaker 4: And so what the Crown Act does is extends statutory
Speaker 4: protection to hair texture and protective styles. And it does
Speaker 4: so in the workplace and in public schools.
Speaker 1: How many states have this law.
Speaker 4: So the Crown Act is currently law in more than
Speaker 4: forty localities cities like New Orleans, and in twenty four states,
Speaker 4: which includes Texas. Texas. Actually this law went into effect
Speaker 4: in September. September. First, you know the Crown Act. It's
Speaker 4: the brainchild of a coalition led by Dove, you know,
Speaker 4: the maker of soap shampoos. Dove partnered with several organizations
Speaker 4: such as Western Center on Law and Poverty in the
Speaker 4: National Urban League. And what this coalition did was they
Speaker 4: undertook a study and they only corroborated what's been experienced
Speaker 4: by generations of black and brown people, and especially black women,
Speaker 4: and that is that a fairly large percentage, over twenty
Speaker 4: percent of Black women aged twenty five to thirty four
Speaker 4: were sent home from work because of their hair. And
Speaker 4: I would even go as far as to say that,
Speaker 4: you know, as every black woman in the workplace knows,
Speaker 4: this is impactful because it's something that we've dealt with
Speaker 4: for honestly our whole entire life.
Speaker 1: Has there been a lot of litigation around the Crown
Speaker 1: Act in different states or localities.
Speaker 4: You know, a lot of these laws are new, right,
Speaker 4: they're passing on on a monthly basis, and so the
Speaker 4: first one in California that was passed in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 4: and we saw some litigation arising from that. There was
Speaker 4: a case that I think the first one in California
Speaker 4: was in twenty twenty one, as it relates to an
Speaker 4: out of state's job applicant who is intending to move
Speaker 4: to California and take a job, but he was informed,
Speaker 4: you know, allegedly that he needed to cut his hair. Right.
Speaker 4: And so as these laws take shape and they're being
Speaker 4: an act, it will see some litigation coming from them.
Speaker 1: So tell us what happened to this Texas high school
Speaker 1: student Darryl George in Barber's.
Speaker 4: Hill Independent School District or ISIC. We have a student,
Speaker 4: Darryl George. Darryl George, I think he was seventeen and
Speaker 4: now he's eighteen. He attends their high school and he
Speaker 4: wears his hair in locks. I know some people call
Speaker 4: it dreadlocks, but that's actually become more of a pejeorative term.
Speaker 4: So he wears his hair and twisted locks, and he
Speaker 4: typically ties it back with a headband and twisted away
Speaker 4: from his face in order to comply with barbars Hill's
Speaker 4: dress and group policy. Now, this policy only applies to
Speaker 4: male students, and it mandates that male students cannot wear
Speaker 4: their hair at any time below their eyebrows, or below
Speaker 4: their earlobes, or below the top of their T shirt
Speaker 4: collared or it has to be gathered or worn up
Speaker 4: in a style so that it stays above the eyebrows,
Speaker 4: the T shirt collar, or the ear lobes. And so
Speaker 4: obviously when you're wearing locks, they're growing and growing long,
Speaker 4: which is usually the intention. And so Darryl was wearing
Speaker 4: his hair or his locks and they became long. So
Speaker 4: he was suspended not once, but twice just this school
Speaker 4: year alone. He was suspended in August for wearing the
Speaker 4: twisted locks. Then when he returned to school, he was
Speaker 4: suspended immediately again September eighteenth, and now as recently as
Speaker 4: October twelfth, the school placed him in a disciplinary alternative
Speaker 4: education program and he's apparently going to be in this
Speaker 4: program through at least the end of November. And so
Speaker 4: the school district, they're contending that these disciplinary actions are
Speaker 4: fine essentially, and they argue that Darryl has violated many
Speaker 4: campus and classroom rules. For example, they alleged that he's
Speaker 4: disrupted the iss classroom in school suspension classroom. They contend
Speaker 4: that he's failed to comply with directives from their staff.
Speaker 4: He's been tardy, and he's violated the dress and ruling policy.
Speaker 4: And so now we're faced with the situation where the
Speaker 4: school district is administering the same hair and ruling policy
Speaker 4: against the same hairstyle for an issue that they faced,
Speaker 4: I guess just three years ago at this point, with
Speaker 4: other black students wearing dreadlocks as well or locks as well.
Speaker 1: And I believe in twenty twenty, a federal judge rule
Speaker 1: that the district's hair policy was discriminatory as far as
Speaker 1: the school's rules, does George's hair comply with those rules,
Speaker 1: you know above the collar, et cetera.
Speaker 4: So, no, his hair is quite long, and he wears
Speaker 4: it tied back, but his hair does extend past, of
Speaker 4: course his t shirt collars. He has very long dread locks,
Speaker 4: and his family contends that this is an expression of
Speaker 4: his culture, of his racial heritage. Many of the male
Speaker 4: family members also have worn their hair in locks, and
Speaker 4: so the family now has recently brought a lawsuit contending
Speaker 4: that this hair and growing policy is violated not only
Speaker 4: the Crown Act, but the plessora of other state and federal.
Speaker 3: Laws as well.
Speaker 1: So I take it the school district is going to
Speaker 1: come back or has come back and said that this
Speaker 1: applies to all male students.
Speaker 4: That's right. So the school district, they're contending that this
Speaker 4: policy is defensible because it applies to all male students
Speaker 4: and has nothing to do with their race or your
Speaker 4: hair style, but simply length. And this is the same
Speaker 4: argument that they advanced back in twenty twenty when they
Speaker 4: were food by two other black male students who were
Speaker 4: wearing their hair and loss as well. And in that
Speaker 4: case it's still ongoing, but the court did issue a
Speaker 4: preliminary injunction against Barber still is sc which allowed those
Speaker 4: students at least one student because the other graduated, but
Speaker 4: one student to return to the classroom and to participate
Speaker 4: in extracurricular activities. And that case is still ongoing. But
Speaker 4: I think it would have been instructive at least in
Speaker 4: this circumstance for barbers Hill ISD in terms of maybe
Speaker 4: taking a step back and reevaluating its policy. But as
Speaker 4: of now, it's advancing the same argument that it's not
Speaker 4: about the race, it's not about the hairstyle, it's about
Speaker 4: the lane. And you know this argument, I guess others
Speaker 4: have contended that it kind of exploits the loophole within
Speaker 4: the Crown Act.
Speaker 1: Do you think this win? Then if it's using a
Speaker 1: loophole in the Act itself, you.
Speaker 4: Know, it's hard to say. The Crown Act at least
Speaker 4: in Texas and amended the Texas Labor Code in Texas
Speaker 4: Education Code and the Education Code was amended and when
Speaker 4: it was amended, it lists specific hair styles, but it
Speaker 4: is silent on length and when you look at even
Speaker 4: the legislative history of the Act in Texas, there's no
Speaker 4: discussion about length as well. I don't think that the
Speaker 4: school will actually succeed, maybe as it relates to the
Speaker 4: pleasor of other claims that it could face, because, again
Speaker 4: referring back to that twenty twenty case, same school district,
Speaker 4: same hairstyle, the preliminary injunction was issued against them in
Speaker 4: part because the court looked at that record and found
Speaker 4: that there was a Native American student who wore his
Speaker 4: hair long, and the school was able to make an
Speaker 4: exception for him and allowed him to wear his hair
Speaker 4: passed the policy's mandated length. And so now when faced
Speaker 4: with that same question about lanes here, I don't think
Speaker 4: the school will succeed again on the record that was
Speaker 4: established before.
Speaker 1: Explain why it's so important for him to have his
Speaker 1: hair long if he can have the locks but shorter
Speaker 1: or tied up.
Speaker 4: Well, this is a great question because it speaks to
Speaker 4: the point of black culture and heritage. Right when you're
Speaker 4: wearing dreadlock or wearing locks, it's not just about the
Speaker 4: actual locking of the hair, but the locks are intended
Speaker 4: generally to grow long and you don't necessarily cut your
Speaker 4: locks to make them short, because then you would unravel
Speaker 4: and essentially undo sometimes the years long process of cultivating
Speaker 4: the locking process. And you know, when you're wearing your
Speaker 4: hair and locks, it's long been regarded as an expression
Speaker 4: of black heritage, of African American heritage, of West Indian
Speaker 4: identity as well. And so when it's an expression of
Speaker 4: your racial identity and it's been routinely associated with, you know,
Speaker 4: black and brown people, it's important to note that it's
Speaker 4: not just about the locks itself, but length should be
Speaker 4: included in that assessment because the length of the locks
Speaker 4: demonstrates how long you've been invested in wearing that hair.
Speaker 1: Are they now enforcing this for all male students. I
Speaker 1: know you mentioned before they had made an exception for
Speaker 1: a Native American student.
Speaker 4: So the argument has been that they have not enforced
Speaker 4: it equally across the board. There's been selective enforcement. In fact,
Speaker 4: the policy has been amended numerous times my understanding and
Speaker 4: barbershel isd to make it more narrowly drawn so that
Speaker 4: it clearly is targeting those students who are wearing their
Speaker 4: hair in a protective hairstyle like locks. So, for example,
Speaker 4: it used to be just you know, it couldn't be
Speaker 4: a certain length, and now they're saying, well, you can't
Speaker 4: circumvent the policy by simply tying your hair back. We're
Speaker 4: saying you can't have it at length at all. But
Speaker 4: then you look around and you're saying, Okay, this policy
Speaker 4: is not being enforced against those of white male students,
Speaker 4: for example, who are wearing their hair longer than their
Speaker 4: T shirt collar. And yet you had students such as
Speaker 4: dear old mister George the other plaintiffs in the twenty
Speaker 4: twenty case, they were being heavily disciplined for wearing their
Speaker 4: hair longer than what the policy permitted.
Speaker 1: Unequal enforcement seems like a good argument. Do you give
Speaker 1: us some context? Is this school in a conservative area
Speaker 1: of Texas?
Speaker 4: Yes, so this school district is in Mount Belvioe, Texas,
Speaker 4: the southern part of Texas, and of course you know
Speaker 4: Texas in general has a very conservative culture. And so
Speaker 4: it's interesting that you raise that as a question because
Speaker 4: I understanding the superintendent has argued that this is the
Speaker 4: same policy that we've had for the last thirty years.
Speaker 4: Nothing was wrong with it then, nothing's wrong with it now.
Speaker 4: But I think that's the issue that they're going to
Speaker 4: face is the policy hasn't been changed in thirty years,
Speaker 4: and it's only enforced against male students, and it narrowly
Speaker 4: targets those hairstyles that disproportionately impact your black and brown students.
Speaker 4: Maybe it is time for it to be revised.
Speaker 1: Well, certainly this case is getting a lot of attention,
Speaker 1: so there may be changes ahead, either voluntary or perhaps
Speaker 1: court ordered. Thanks so much for being on the show.
Speaker 1: That's Melanie Jordan, a labor and employment attorney at Dorsey
Speaker 1: and Whitney. And that's it for this edition of The
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast, slash Law, and remember to tune
Speaker 1: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm
Speaker 1: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to
Speaker 1: Bloomberg