Muslim Woman Sues Over Violation of Her Religious Rights in Jail

The New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations yesterday announced the filing of a federal lawsuit by a Muslim woman who alleges violation of her free exercise rights by Orange County, New York sheriff officers and jail officials.  The complaint (full text) in Green v. Orange County, (SD NY, filed 4/24/2025), alleges in part:

On February 2, 2024, a group of predominantly male officers at the Orange County Sheriff’s Office forced Ms. Green to remove her hijab twice: first, for post-arrest processing photographs and second, for her jail identification card. 

6. They also prohibited Ms. Green from wearing her hijab for more than 12 hours as she awaited arraignment....

9.  While incarcerated in the Orange County Jail, officials required Ms. Green to carry and present her identification card with a photo of her uncovered without her hijab for several months—which, for Ms. Green, was akin to being naked. 

10. Orange County Jail officers also confiscated Ms. Green’s hijab and purposefully broke her misbahah, or prayer beads, during a targeted cell sweep in late August 2024....Without her hijab, Ms. Green was unable to pray for herself or her family, including her six daughters, her mother (who passed away in November 2024), and her sister (who had been recently diagnosed with a brain tumor)...

13. In addition ... Defendants have failed to accommodate Ms. Green’s dietary requirements as a Muslim, often leaving her no choice but to go without food for extended periods of time.....

Suit Challenges NYPD's Forcible Removal of Hijabs as Crowd Control Tactic

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court challenging the practice of the New York Police Department of forcibly and publicly removing Muslim women's hijabs as a method of crowd control at demonstrations. The complaint (full text) in Council on American-Islamic Relations New York v. City of New York, (SD NY, filed 3/9/2025) contends that the practice violates the free exercise and free speech protections of the U.S. and New York Constitutions, as well as the 4th Amendment and other provisions of New York law. CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Tennesse County Sued by Woman Who Was Required to Remove Hijab for Booking Photo

Suit was filed this week in a Tennessee federal district court by a Muslim woman who was required by Knox County, Tennessee Sheriff's Office employees to remove her hijab for a booking photo. Plaintiff was arrested along with others who were participating in a pro-Palestinian demonstration on the University of Tennessee campus. The photo was subsequently posted on the Sheriff Office's public website in violation of Sheriff's Office policy. The complaint (full text) in Solliz v. Knox County, Tennessee, (ED TN, filed 10/7/2024), alleges in part:

The Defendants’ mistreatment of Mrs. Soliz and their disrespect for her religious rights has scarred her.  The Defendants’ misbehavior was also illegal.  The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ... and... Tennessee’s Preservation of Religious Freedom Act—flatly prohibited the Defendants from burdening Mrs. Soliz’s free exercise of her religion in the manner they did.

Longview News-Journal reports on the lawsuit.

Muslim Woman Can Move Ahead on Some Challenges to Sheriff's Booking Photo Policy

In Hague v. Kent County, (WD MI, Sept. 9, 2024), plaintiff, a Muslim woman, challenged the Kent County, Michigan, Sheriff Office's policy on booking photos for detainees wearing a religious head covering. Two photos were taken, one with the head covering and one without.  Only the one with the head covering is released to the public. The other was uploaded to the Michigan State Police data base. Multiple officers could be present when the photos were taken. The court held that the photo policy imposed a substantial burden on plaintiff's religious exercise in violation of RLUPA. but that money damages are not available for RLUIPA violations. Declaratory or injunctive relief is available. It also allowed plaintiff to move forward with her 1st Amendment free exercise claim, including for damages, against the county and the sheriff's office. The sheriff, though, has qualified immunity as to damage claims under the 1st Amendment.

Class Action By Muslim Women Against NYPD Settled for $17.5M

 AP reports that New York City has agreed to settle the class action damage claim in Clark v. City of New York for $17.5 million. The suit brought in a New York federal district court under RLUIPA challenged the NYPD's former policy of requiring Muslim women to remove their hijabs when sitting for arrest photos. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement, which still must obtain judicial approval, the $17.5 million will be shared equally by all class members who file a claim, with each getting a minimum of $7,824.  Previously, settling the claims for an injunction and declaratory judgment, the police department agreed to change its arrest photo policy. (See prior posting).

County Revises Policy on Religious Head Coverings in Booking Photos in Settlement of Suit by Muslim Woman

In a Settlement Agreement (full text) in Johnston v. Rutherford County, Tennessee, (MD TN, 1/18/2024), the county has agreed to pay $100,000 in damages to a Muslim woman who authorities required to remove her hijab for a booking photo. Sophia Johnston was stopped by police for having a taillight out and was arrested when it turned out she had a 6-year-old outstanding warrant for failing to appear on charges of driving with a suspended license. (Background.) In the Settlement Agreement, the county also agreed to delete from its records photos and video of Johnston without her hijab. Johnston will have a booking photo wearing her hijab retaken. Under the Agreement, the county has also adopted a new policy on Religious Accommodations for Head Coverings During Booking Process (full text) and has updated its Detention Center Protocols (full text) to allow booking photos to be taken with religious head coverings so long as the head covering is first removed for a search.  WZTV News reports on the settlement.

EEOC Sues Chipotle For Manager's Harassment of Muslim Teen

 The EEOC announced that last week it filed a Title VII suit against the restaurant chain Chipotle contending that a manager at a Kansas restaurant location harassed a teenage employee for wearing a hijab. According to the EEOC:

During the summer of 2021, an assistant manager began repeatedly asking [the employee] to remove her hijab, or headscarf, pressuring her to show him her hair. Despite the teen’s rejections and complaints to management, Chipotle failed to act to stop the manager’s harassment. Chipotle’s inaction resulted in the manager escalating his abuse, ultimately grabbing and forcibly removing part of the teen’s hijab.

After the teen reported the incident, Chipotle again failed to take prompt corrective action, and she was forced to submit her two weeks’ notice. The EEOC further alleges that Chipotle retaliated against the teen by refusing to schedule her to work additional shifts unless she agreed to transfer locations, while allowing her harasser to continue working at the same location.

European Court OK's Company Rule Neutrally Banning Wearing of All Signs of Religious Belief

 In L.F. v. S.C.R.L., EU EDJ, Oct. 13, 2022), the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in a request from Belgium for a preliminary ruling, held that a private company may prohibit employees from wearing all visible signs of political, philosophical or religious belief in the workplace.  This would not constitute direct discrimination on the ground of religion or belief in violation of Council Directive 2000/78 so long as the company's policy covers any manifestation of religious, philosophical or spiritual beliefs without distinction and treats all employees alike by requiring them in a general and undifferentiated way to dress neutrally. Such a rule might constitute indirect discrimination if it had a disparate impact on persons of one religion, but would not if it were objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim were appropriate and necessary. The question arose in the context of a company's refusal to employ a Muslim woman as an intern because she insisted on wearing a hijab. The Court issued a press release announcing the decision. Law & Religion UK also has coverage.

Qualified Immunity Denied In Muslim Woman's Challenge To Jail's Booking Photo Policy

In Chaaban v. City of Detroit, Michigan Department of Corrections, (ED MI, Sept. 2, 2022), a Michigan federal district court denied a motion in a RLUIPA case for reconsideration of the denial of qualified immunity to corrections officials who forced a Muslim woman to remove her hijab for a booking photograph. The court concluded that it was premature to grant immunity on a motion to dismiss, saying in part:

[D]iscovery is needed to determine “whether the state of the law . . . gave [the defendants] fair warning that [the plaintiff’s] alleged treatment was unconstitutional.”... Plaintiff plausibly alleged in her complaint that prison officers threatened to make Plaintiff “sleep on the concrete floor of the booking cell without a bed, blanket, mattress or pillow” if she did not remove her hijab.... Taking this and other allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint as true ... the Court properly determined that qualified immunity is not appropriate at this time.

5th Circuit Upholds Qualified Immunity Defense Of Prison Officials Who Confiscated Hijab

In Taylor v. Nelson, (5th Cir., Aug. 2, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Texas prison authorities who confiscated a female inmate's hijab that exceeded the size permitted by prison policies can claim qualified immunity in a suit for damages against them. The court held that plaintiff failed to identify a clearly established right that officials violated and reasonable officials would not have understood that enforcing the policy on size of hijabs was unconstitutional.

Michigan City Revises Policy On Hijab In Booking Photos

CAIR-Michigan announced yesterday that a settlement has been reached with the city of Ferndale in a suit charging the Ferndale police department with forcibly removing a Muslim woman's hijab for a booking photo after her arrest:

... Ferndale and Bowe have reached a full and satisfactory settlement of this matter that involved the city instituting new policies allowing Muslim women to maintain their hijab when a booking photo is taken and prohibiting cross-gender searches in the absence of an emergency as well as a monetary settlement. 

European Court Says Belgium Can Protect Religion and Religious Beliefs Of Employees

In LF v. SCRL, (CJEU, April 28, 2022), the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a recommended answer to a question referred to it by the Brussels (Belgium) Labor Court.  At issue was whether a provision in Belgian law giving special protection to "religious or philosophical belief" of employees is consistent with European Council Directive 2000/78 on equal treatment in  employment. The Directive allows countries to enact laws that are more protective than those set out in the Directive. The Advocate General concluded that Belgium could give special protection to "religion and religious beliefs" but not just to "religious or philosophical beliefs" since those are not separately protected categories. The question arose in a case in which a Muslim woman was not offered an internship for which she interviewed because she insisted on wearing a hijab or other head covering in violation of the employer's rule that employees not wear clothing that expresses their religious, philosophical or political beliefs. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

New Ohio Law Allows Religious Apparel For Student Athletes

On Feb. 28, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed into law Senate Bill 181 (full text) which allows students to wear religious apparel while competing in inter-scholastic athletic competitions or extracurricular activities.  A limited exception allows regulation where the apparel would create a legitimate danger. In such cases, reasonable accommodation is required. Don Byrd has additional background on the law.

Indian Court Upholds Hijab Ban In Schools and Colleges

As reported by CBS News:

The top court in the southern Indian state of Karnataka on Tuesday upheld a ban on hijabs, or Muslim headscarves, in schools and colleges in a ruling that could deepen the religious divide in the country.

In Resham v. State of Karnataka, (High Ct. Karnataka, March 15, 2022), a 3-judge panel of the High Court of the Indian state of Karnataka in a 129-page opinion upheld the ban, saying in part:

wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith.

French High Court Upholds Ban On Lawyers Wearing Religious Garb In Court

France's Court of Cassation, one of the country's four courts of last resort, this week upheld a rule of the Lille bar association that provides: "the lawyer may not wear with the robe either decoration or sign ostensibly manifesting a religious, philosophical, community or political affiliation or opinion."  One of the litigants was a law student who wears a hijab.  In Appeal No. 20-20.185, (Ct. Cassation, March 2, 2022), the court said in part:

[T]he Court of Appeal held that the will of a bar association to impose on its members, when they appear before a court ... to wear a uniform suit contributes to ensuring the equality of lawyers and, through this, the equality of litigants..., that in order to protect their rights and freedoms, each lawyer, in the exercise of his functions of defense and representation, must erase what is personal to him and that the wearing of the costume of his profession without any sign distinctive is necessary to testify to its availability to any litigant.

24. The Court of Appeal ... rightly deduced that the prohibition ... was necessary in order to achieve the legitimate aim pursued, namely to protect the independence of the lawyer and ensure the right to a fair trial, but was also, without any discrimination, adequate and proportionate to the objective sought.

Jurist reports on the decision.

Muslim Woman Sues Gun Range For Religious Discrimination

A religious discrimination suit was filed yesterday in a Missouri federal district court against a "faith, family and freedom" based indoor gun range that refuses admission to Muslim women wearing hijabs. The complaint (full text) in Barakat v. Brown, (WD MO, filed 12/28/2021) alleges that this policy of the Frontier Justice gun range, owned by a Christian family, violates the public accommodation anti-discrimination provisions in Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Woman Required To Remove Hijab Loses Suit Against Security Guard and County

In Niblett v. Universal Protection Service, LP, (CD CA, Oct. 5, 2021), a California federal district court dismissed a damage action by a Muslim woman who was required by a security guard to remove her hijab in order to enter Los Angeles County's Department of Public Social Services building. The court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds the suit against the security guard and his employer that were hired to provide security for the county building, saying in part:

Assuming that Rodriguez and UPS were acting under color of state law when they exercised their authority to control access to a County building, which the Court does not decide, Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of any clearly established First Amendment right. Plaintiff ... cites no authority whatsoever holding that requiring someone to remove a hijab to pass through a metal detector violates the First Amendment.

Plaintiff's suit against the County was dismissed for failure to show a policy or practice of constitutional violations, saying in part:

Plaintiff does not allege that before her encounter with Rodriguez any County employee or agent had ever forced a Muslim woman to remove her hijab in any context, much less that County employees and agents had a widespread practice of requiring Muslim women to remove their hijabs in order to pass through security screenings at County buildings. Similarly, she does not allege facts suggesting that the County knew of such a practice and endorsed it or had reason to know further training was required about allowing hijabs to be worn through metal detectors.

Muslim Women Can Move Ahead With Suit Challenging NYPD Arrest Photo Policy

In Clark v. City of New York, (SD NY, Sept. 17, 2021), a New York federal district court allowed two Muslim women to move ahead with their lawsuit under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA challenging the New York City police department's requirement that they remove their hijab when sitting for an arrest photo. The court said in part:

Allowing an arrestee to maintain her ordinary appearance in a Booking Photograph does not undermine the legitimate interest of keeping a photographic record of arrestees... In fact, photographing the arrestee in her ordinary appearance likely furthers law enforcement’s interest in identification—rather than impeding such interest—because arrestees who have a sincere religious belief that requires them to wear a head covering are likely to be wearing that same covering when the need to identify them arises.

The court also refused to dismiss one of the plaintiff's assertion of a private right of action under the New York constitution. 

Muslim Woman Can Move Ahead With Suit Over Required Removal Of Hijab For Booking Photo

 In Chaaban v. City of Detroit, (EDMI, Sept. 7, 2021), a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her hijab for a booking photograph after her arrest sued the city of Detroit, the corrections department and corrections officials. The court held that corrections officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from the claim for damages stemming from a violation of 1st Amendment rights, saying in part:

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to show the MDOC Defendants were “on notice” that their policy violates a Muslim woman’s right to freely exercise her religion. Plaintiff alleges she “made her dissent and protest to the forceful removal of her hijab extremely clear”.... Moreover, it defies logic that officers operating in a facility in Detroit, near one of the nation’s largest Muslim communities, would not be aware of the religious significance of the hijab.

The court went on to hold that plaintiff adequately states a claim for injunctive and declaratory relief under RLUIPA as well as a claim for broader relief under 42 USC §1983 for violation of the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause. In refusing to dismiss plaintiff's claim against the city of Detroit, the court said in part:

The issue here is whether the City of Detroit can be held liable for a policy which did not originate with the City, but which has been alleged to be enforced by the City and its officers under the authority of the interagency agreement between the City of Detroit and MDOC....  [T]he City of Detroit was aware of the Photograph Policy and promulgated that policy or, at a minimum, adopted “a custom of tolerance or acquiescence of federal rights violations.”

The court held, however, that "there is no independent damages remedy against a municipality for violations of the Michigan Constitution."

EU Court of Justice Says Neutral Ban On Employees Wearing Any Religious Or Political Symbols Is Permitted

In IX v. WABE eV, (CJ EU, July 15, 2021), the Court of Justice of the European Union gave preliminary rulings in two cases from German Labor Courts on the extent to which employers can ban employees from wearing visible political, religious or philosophical signs in the workplace.  At issue was whether applying such a ban to Islamic headscarves constitutes either direct discrimination or indirect discrimination. EU Directive 2000/78 allows apparently neutral rules that particularly impact persons of a specific religion or belief only if they are "objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary."

In one case, at issue was whether a day care center could apply such a ban to a special needs teacher. The court held the ban does not constitute direct religious discrimination "provided that that rule is applied in a general and undifferentiated way." It held that the ban would not constitute prohibited indirect discrimination if the policy meets a genuine need on the part of that employer; the difference of treatment is appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the employer’s policy of neutrality is properly applied, and the ban is limited to what is strictly necessary.

The second case involves a sales assistant/ cashier at a drug store. The employer's policy only banned "conspicuous, large-sized political, philosophical or religious signs." The Court concluded that a ban limited to the wearing of conspicuous, large-sized signs cannot be a neutral policy since the wearing of any sign, even a small-sized one, undermines the ability ... to achieve the aim allegedly pursued and therefore calls into question the consistency of that policy of neutrality."

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]