## Facts

- Wendall Humphrey was a corrections officer at the Hocking Correctional Facility employed by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC).
- Humphrey practiced Native American Spirituality and held a religious belief that he must keep his hair long, cutting it only on limited occasions (e.g., mourning).
- ODRC adopted a grooming policy for uniformed personnel requiring male officers to keep hair no longer than collar length, citing professionalism, public confidence, respect from those supervised, and security.
- Humphrey’s hair length violated the policy.
- Humphrey sought an accommodation allowing him to keep his hair long while pinning it up or concealing it under his uniform cap while on duty.
- The warden informed Humphrey he would be terminated if he refused to cut his hair; Humphrey refused for religious reasons.
- Humphrey sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the policy as applied violated Section 7, Article I of the Ohio Constitution (religious liberty/rights of conscience).
- The trial court granted relief to Humphrey, finding the proposed accommodation would satisfy institutional concerns; the court of appeals reversed.

## Issues

1. Under Section 7, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, what standard applies to a neutral, generally applicable regulation alleged to burden free exercise of religion?
2. Under that standard, did ODRC’s grooming policy, as applied to Humphrey, unlawfully burden his religious exercise where a concealment/pinning-up accommodation was proposed?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s declaratory and injunctive relief for Humphrey.
- The court held that Ohio’s Constitution requires strict scrutiny for a neutral, generally applicable regulation burdening free exercise: the regulation must further a compelling state interest and be the least restrictive means.
- The court found Humphrey established a prima facie free-exercise claim: a sincerely held religious belief substantially burdened by conditioning employment on cutting his hair.
- The court accepted that ODRC’s security, discipline, and professional-image interests in the prison setting were compelling.
- The court concluded the policy failed the least-restrictive-means prong as applied because the state did not show that allowing Humphrey to pin up or conceal his hair under his cap would be inadequate to protect those interests.

## Legal Principles

- Section 7, Article I of the Ohio Constitution is an independent source of religious-liberty protection and may provide greater protection than federal free-exercise doctrine.
- For neutral, generally applicable regulations that substantially burden religious exercise, Ohio applies strict scrutiny: compelling state interest plus least restrictive means.
- A claimant must make a prima facie showing of (1) a sincerely held religious belief and (2) a substantial burden on that belief; the burden then shifts to the state to prove compelling interest and least restrictive means.
- Administrative convenience or uniform enforcement, without evidence addressing feasible accommodations, does not satisfy the least-restrictive-means requirement.
- In the corrections context, security and discipline may qualify as compelling interests, but the state must still justify rejecting less restrictive accommodations that would adequately protect those interests.

## Conclusion

Ohio’s Supreme Court held that a religion-neutral prison-employee grooming policy burdening sincere religious practice must satisfy strict scrutiny under the Ohio Constitution, and the state failed to prove that forcing a corrections officer to cut his hair was the least restrictive means when concealing or pinning it up could meet the prison’s compelling security and professionalism interests.


Humphrey v. Lane, 728 N.E.2d 1039 (Ohio 2000)