Woman lawyer sues over “no pants” rule

To wear pants or not to wear pants…that is the question on the desk of Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh tonight. A female attorney has filed a motion in the Supreme Court to seek constitutional redress regarding the C.J.’s definition of proper courtroom attire. According to Magali Marin Young, the insistence by the Chief Justice that female attorneys refrain from using slacks in his court is an unconstitutional act of prejudice against women.

Magali Marin Young, Attorney at Law

“Discriminatory is defined in the constitution as imposing restrictions on one class of persons and not imposing the same restrictions on another class. I strongly believe that I am being restricted from wearing trousers because I am a female. And I do believe that I have a case to answer before the court.”

“I do believe that the court room in a very serious place and one has to dress business like and serious, but I don’t think that any restrictions should be placed on females that they are only to wear skirts. In today’s day and age, women wear both skirts and trousers, and it should be what they feel most comfortable wearing.”

While Chief Justice Conteh could not comment on the case at hand, he did reiterate that all attorneys should dress as they were taught in law school, that is conservative suits and shirts for the men, dresses, skirts and blouses for the women. News 5 understands that as this case deals with a constitutional matter, it will be treated as urgent and should be heard in the Supreme Court within three months.