3rd Circuit: Fireman's Free Exercise and Title VII Challenge to Grooming Rules Should Move Forward

In Smith v. City of Atlantic City, (3d Cir., May 30, 2025), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a New Jersey federal district court's grant of summary judgment for Atlantic City in a suit by a fireman claiming violation of his free exercise rights and his right to reasonable religious accommodation under Title VII. However, the court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff's equal protection and retaliation claims. In the case, plaintiff who is a Christian challenged the city's requirements that prohibit him from growing a beard of any length, contending that the requirement violates his religious beliefs. Finding free exercise and Title VII reasonable accommodation violations, the court said in part:

Firefighters engaged in fire suppression face danger from smoke and fume inhalation. The City protects its firefighters by requiring them to don air masks in “hazardous” and  “confined” spaces.... These “self-contained breathing apparatuses,” or “SCBAs,” form a seal on the firefighter’s face to keep out hazardous air and pump in clean air....

... [T]wo exceptions—one practical exception and one discretionary regime—render the City’s policy not generally applicable. First, the City has long permitted administrative staff, all of whom are firefighters subject to the SCBA rule, to forgo fit testing...

Second, the City’s grooming regime has built-in discretion. Captains may “deviate” from the SCBA policy and permit any sort of conduct as long as they “bear[] full responsibility for the results of any deviation.” ...

Strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard in all free-exercise cases failing either Smith’s neutrality requirement or its general-applicability requirement....

But the City fails narrow tailoring. “[N]arrow tailoring requires the government to show that measures less restrictive of the First Amendment activity could not address its interest.”... The City could remove Smith from fire suppression duty as it did before 2020 or reclassify him as a civilian who is not subject to the SCBA and grooming policies. It could, as a simple fix, at least try and fit test Smith with facial hair to see if his facial hair, at any length, would interfere with the SCBA to a point that creates the risk of air leakage that the City fears. 

Judge Chung dissented in part, saying she would affirm the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's free exercise claim, because "the Grooming Standards are facially neutral and were applied equally to both religiously-motivated and secularly-motivated requests for accommodation...."

Judge Porter dissented in part, saying he would have upheld plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim.

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the decision.

DC Circuit Revives Contempt Proceedings in RFRA Suit Against Fire Department

In Calvert v. Potter, (DC Cir., Jan. 28, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded to the district court a suit by a group of D.C. firefighters who claim that the D.C. Fire Department violated an injunction issued in 2007 vindicating their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The injunction required the Department to allow firefighters who wore beards for religious reasons to work in field operations. However, 13 years later the situation became more complex, as the D.C. Circuit explained:

As COVID-19 spread in March 2020, the Department implemented a new facial hair policy and mandated the use of masks during patient contact. The Department transferred the four bearded firefighters it still employed to administrative roles “due to concerns about their ability to properly wear N95 respirators with facial hair.”...

The district court denied the motion for civil contempt.... The court declined to hold the Department in contempt because it “acted in a reasonably cautious way, under unprecedented and extraordinary circumstances, to keep plaintiffs and the public it served as safe as it could.”...

The Court of Appeals rejected the district court's conclusion: 

Good-faith compliance may be relevant to mitigation at the remedies stage, but the court lacks discretion to excuse civil contempt based on the contemnor’s good faith. ... 

The firefighters had a private right to enforcement of the original injunction, which protected their religious freedom and permanently forbade the Department from enforcing the 2005 facial hair policy against them. The district court had no general discretion to excuse civil contempt.... 

Instead, the court was required to determine whether the Department violated the firefighters’ rights under the 2007 injunction.... Even if the Department’s behavior was reasonable in light of the pandemic, good faith and lack of willfulness is not a defense to civil contempt....

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

DOJ Sues California Prisons for Failing to Accommodate Officers' Religious Beard Requirements

The Department of Justice this week filed suit in a California federal district court seeking to enjoin the California correctional system from requiring its peace officers to be clean shaven in contravention of their sincerely held religious beliefs.  The problem arose for Muslim and Sikh correctional employees when they were required to meet the conditions for wearing tight-fitting respirators.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (ED CA, filed 3/25/2024), contends that the Department of Corrections has not attempted to accommodate the peace officers' concerns by offering them positions in the Department that do not require wearing of respirators or by offering alternative respirators that could be worn with beards.  The complaint alleges in part:

The Charging Parties allege that CDCR has discriminated against them on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)(2), by: a. Failing to provide a religious accommodation;  b. failing to adequately engage in the interactive process with the Charging Parties, including by failing to make good faith efforts to consider whether alternative accommodations will eliminate the conflict between the Charging Parties’ religious beliefs and CDCR’s clean  shaven policy; and c. failing to demonstrate that implementing the alternative accommodations proposed by the Charging Parties would pose an undue hardship.

The Department of Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP reports on the lawsuit.

Muslim Employee Recovers $70,000 From Employer Who Refused Grooming Rule Accommodation

The EEOC announced on Wednesday that it has entered a consent decree in its lawsuit against Blackwell Security Services, Inc.  The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the company violated Title VII by failing to give an exemption from its no-beard policy to a Muslim employee who worked as a concierge in Chicago, even though granting the accommodation would have imposed no cost and not created an operating burden on Blackwell.  According to the EEOC:

To avoid losing his job, the employee complied and shaved his beard, causing him significant distress....

Under the consent decree resolving the lawsuit, Blackwell will pay $70,000 in compensation to the now-former employee. Blackwell will also provide training to relevant management employees on federal laws prohibiting religious discrimination and will report any additional complaints of religious discrimination to the EEOC for the decree’s duration.

EEOC Announces Settlements In 2 Religious Discrimination Lawsuits

In the last several days, the EEOC has announced settlements in two unrelated Title VII religious discrimination suits filed by the agency.  Last week the EEOC announced that Children's Healthcare of Atlanta will pay $45,000 in damages to a former maintenance employee who was denied a religious exemption from the healthcare system's flu vaccine requirement. The employee, who worked primarily outside and had limited contact with the public or other staff, had been granted an exemption in 2017 and 2018, but was denied one and fired in 2019. Under the consent decree settling the suit, Children's Healthcare will also modify its religious exemption policy to presume eligibility for employees who work away from patients and other staff.

Yesterday the EEOC announced that Triple Canopy, Inc., a company that provides protective services to federal agencies, will pay $110,759 in damages to an employee who was denied a religious accommodation of his Christian belief that men must wear beards. The company denied the accommodation because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a documented religious leader. The company will also institute a new religious accommodation policy.

11th Circuit: PLRA Exhaustion Requirement Does Not Include Filing of Rule Change Petition

In Sims v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections,(11th Cir., July 31, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirement that prisoners exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit only requires exhaustion of the prison system's grievance process.  A prisoner does not also have to file a petition with the Department of Corrections seeking a change in its rules.  At issue was the Florida prison system's denial of a request by a Muslim inmate for an exemption from grooming rules that require beards be no longer than one-half inch.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal to Accommodate Christian Employee's Belief Without Back-Up from Religious Leader

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII suit against Triple Canopy, Inc., a Reston, Virginia-based company that provides protective services to federal agencies. The EEOC, alleging failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs, said in part:

[D]espite the employee’s repeated explanations that he did not belong to a formal religious denomination but nonetheless held a Christian belief that men must wear beards, Triple Canopy denied his request for a religious accommodation because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a certified or documented religious leader. Additionally, Triple Canopy subjected him to intolerable work conditions that resulted in his discharge.

Muslim Corrections Officer Applicant Can Move Ahead With 1st Amendment and Title VII Claims

In Talukder v. State of New York, (SD NY, March 31, 2023), a New York federal district court allowed a Sunni Muslim applicant to the New York Department of Corrections Training Academy to move ahead with his 1st Amendment free exercise claim as well as his Title VII failure to accommodate and disparate treatment claims.  Plaintiff sought to wear a 3-inch beard for religious reasons, while the Academy was unwilling to permit any beard longer than one-eighth of an inch. Finding a free exercise violation was adequately alleged, the court said in part:

DOCCS allows numerous uniformed staff to grow beards for secular reasons, while simultaneously denying trainees the same accommodation on religious grounds....

The justification that Defendants proffer for the ban—that “all trainees must pass a respirator fit test and applicable respirator training to become certified correctional officers,” ...—raises a fact-intensive inquiry that fails to justify dismissal at this stage. The Complaint raises a plausible inference that a policy requiring all trainees to be clean-shaven or wear facial hair no longer than 1/8 of an inch in order to pass a respiratory fit-test is not narrowly tailored to advance the goal of preparing trainees to become corrections officers—particularly given that many of those officers will never have to wear a respirator at all....

Rastafarian Police Officer's Free Exercise Claim May Move Ahead

In Taylor v. City of New Haven, (D CT, March 10, 2023), a Rastafarian police officer sued claiming religious and disability discrimination after being denied an exemption from the police department's grooming policy. While dismissing a half dozen of plaintiff's claims largely on procedural and jurisdictional grounds, the court permitted him to move ahead with his First Amendment free exercise claim for damages, saying in part:

The plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to show that the general order at issue burdened his religious conduct..., and that the order lacked general applicability, both because it invited individualized exemptions... and because the City of New Haven permitted secular conduct contrary to the general order.... Thus, the plaintiff has alleged facts which, if true, demonstrate that the general order is subject to strict scrutiny and that the government can achieve its interests in a manner that does not burden religion. Consequently, for purposes of this stage of the case, the plaintiff has shown that he had a right protected by the First Amendment.

DC Circuit: Marines Must Accommodate Sikh Recruits in Boot Camp

In Singh v. Berger, (DC Cir., Dec. 23, 2022), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to two Sikh Marine Corps recruits who seek an accommodation to wear unshorn hair, beards and certain articles of faith during boot camp training. The court, relying on RFRA, said in part:

So the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success comes down to whether the Marine Corps has demonstrated a compelling interest accomplished by the least restrictive means in refusing to accommodate their faith for the thirteen weeks of boot camp. The Marine Corps has failed to meet its burden on both fronts....

[T]he Marine Corps argues that excepting the Plaintiffs from the repeated ritual of shaving their faces and heads alongside fellow recruits, and permitting them to wear a head covering, will impede its compelling interest in forging unit cohesion and a uniform mindset during boot camp....

... Colonel Jeppe’s claimed compelling need for inflexible grooming uniformity does not stand up against the “system of exceptions” to boot camp grooming rules that the Corps has already created and that seriously “undermine[]” the Corps’ contention that it “can brook no departures” for Plaintiffs....

To sum up, Plaintiffs have demonstrated not just a likely, but an overwhelming, prospect of success on the merits of their RFRA claim. At a general level, the Government has certainly articulated a compelling national security interest in training Marine Corps recruits to strip away their individuality and adopt a team-oriented mindset committed to the military mission and defense of the Nation. But RFRA requires more than pointing to interests at such a broad level.... The Marine Corps has to show that its substantial burdening of these Plaintiffs’ religion furthers that compelling interest by the least restrictive means. That is where the Marine Corps has come up very short.... 

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal to Accommodate First Responders' Need to Wear Beards

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII and ADA suit against Global Medical Response, Inc. and American Medical Response, Inc. which operate one of the largest medical transport companies in the country. The suit alleges that the companies have refused to accommodate employees in EMT and paramedic positions who wish to wear facial hair for religious reasons or because of medical conditions. The companies contend that facial hair prevents respirators from fitting properly, but the EEOC says that the companies should have accommodated the religious and medical needs of employees by allowing them to wear the type of respirators that would have allowed them to maintain beards.

DC Circuit Hears Oral Arguments From Sikh Marine Enlistees

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Singh v. Berger. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, the D.C. federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to three Sikh Marine recruits who wanted to prevent enforcement of the Marine's uniform and grooming policies during recruit training while their case continues to be litigated. Sikh religious beliefs require plaintiffs to maintain an unshorn beard and hair, wear a turban and wear other religious items. (See prior posting.) PTI reports on the oral arguments.

Sikh Marine Recruits Lose Bid For Turbans and Unshorn Hair During Recruit Training

In Toor v. Berger, (D DC, Aug. 24, 2022), the D.C. federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to three Sikh Marine recruits who wanted to prevent enforcement of the Marine's uniform and grooming policies during recruit training while their case continues to be litigated. Sikh religious beliefs require plaintiffs to maintain an unshorn beard and hair, wear a turban and wear other religious items. Plaintiffs contend that denying accommodation of their religious practices violates RFRA, the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The court held that even if plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, the balance of equities and the overall public interest favor the military at this preliminary stage of proceedings. The court said in part:

The Marines have thus "credibly alleged" that "training in [the] manner" that would be required by the requested injunction will "pose a serious threat to national security" by disrupting defendant's well established method of transforming recruits through the discipline of uniformity.

11th Circuit: Punitive Damages For Non-Physical Injuries Are Available To Inmate Under RLUIPA

In Mays v. Joseph, (11th Cir., Jan. 3, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a prisoner may recover punitive damages for violation of his religious exercise rights under RLUIPA in a suit against a prison warden in the warden's individual capacity.  In the case, plaintiff claimed that the Georgia Department of Corrections' grooming policy that barred him from growing his hair or a goatee longer than three inches violated his rights to express his religion. The court held that while an incarcerated plaintiff may not recover compensatory damages for mental or emotional injuries absent physical injury, he can recover punitive damages and nominal damages. Here plaintiff had waived his nominal damage claim.

4th Circuit Remands Muslim Inmate's RLUIPA and Equal Protection Claims

In Gentry v. Robinson, (4th Cir., Dec. 7, 2020), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part a Virginia district court's dismissal of a suit by a Muslim inmate who, for religious reasons, seeks to maintain a full beard. The court remanded plaintiff's RLUIPA claim instructing the district court to consider, in light of the prison system's change in policy to now allow beards, whether the claim is moot. The court also remanded for further consideration plaintiff's equal protection claim. The court however agreed that plaintiff's claim for damages for violating his 1st Amendment free exercise rights should be dismissed, saying in part:

Because no law or precedent at the time of the challenged conduct “clearly established” that VDOC’s grooming policy violated the constitutional rights of religious objectors like Gentry, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

RLUIPA Allows Inmate To Grow Fist-Length Beard

In Sims v. Inch, (ND FL, Aug. 23, 2019), a Florida federal district court, in a 19-page opinion, extended the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 holding in Holt v. Hobbs which allowed a Muslim inmate to grow a half-inch beard for religious reasons.  In the case decided last week, the district court held that RLUIPA similarly entitles a Muslim prisoner to grow a fist-length beard (and trim his mustache) when his religious requires it. The court concluded that "a fist-length beard can be accommodated as easily as a half-inch beard-- or nearly so." [Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

Georgia's Prisoner Grooming Policy Struck Down

In Smith v. Dozier, (MD GA, Aug. 7, 2019), (on remand from the 11th Circuit) a Georgia federal district court in an 18-page opinion held that the Georgia Department of Corrections grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The state's policy allows inmates only to grow a beard up to one-half inch in length. No religious exemption from the requirement is provided.  The court went on to hold that for inmates who qualify for a religious exemption, the state must allow beards up to three inches in length. In its opinion, the court examined and rejected several justifications offered by the state for its challenged policy. Law.com reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues McDonald's Franchisee For Failure To Compromise On Grooming Policy

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a lawsuit in a Florida federal district court charging the owner of several McDonald's restaurant franchises in central Florida with religious discrimination.  McDonald's grooming policy requires all employees to be clean shaven.  The restaurant refused to grant an accommodation to a Hasidic Jew who was applying for a part-time maintenance position. The job applicant offered to wear a beard net, but said his religious beliefs preclude shaving.

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the complaint in EEOC v. Chalfont & Associates Group, Inc., (MD FL, filed 7/16/2019). [Thanks to Tom Rutledge.]

City Settles Firefighter's Religious Discrimination Suit

The city of Utica, New York has settled a religious accommodation lawsuit that was filed against it by a firefighter who refuses to cut his hair after taking a Nazirite vow.  Under the settlement announced Friday, firefighter John Brooks has been granted a religious accommodation from the fire department's grooming policy. A press release from First Liberty announced the settlement. First Liberty's website has more on the case.

Muslim NYPD Officer Wins Temporary Relief Over Beard Length

Once again (see prior posting) the New York City Police Department's grooming rules are being challenged in court.  According to yesterday's New York Daily News, the NYPD on Tuesday imposed a 30-day suspension without pay on a Muslim officer who works as a law clerk for the Department. The officer, Masood Sayed, refused to shave his one-inch long beard. The NYPD had previously allowed him to wear a beard one millimeter in length, but said a longer beard would create problems with proper sealing of department-issued gas masks.  A federal district court yesterday, finding a likelihood of success by Sayed, barred the NYPD from taking further disciplinary action against him until a July 8 hearing.