German Judge Says Litigant May Not Wear Hijab In Court

Daily Sabah reported yesterday that in the German state of Brandenburg, a family court judge has informed a Muslim woman who is suing her husband for divorce that she cannot appear in court wearing a headscarf.  The judge sent a judicial letter to the woman's attorney explaining: "Religiously motivated statements such as headscarves are not allowed in the courtroom and during a hearing."  The Muslim woman bringing the divorce action was originally a refugee from Syria. An appeal has been filed, delaying the divorce hearing originally scheduled for July 27.

Air Force JAG Commissions First Hijabi Lawyer

The U.S. Air Force JAG Corps has for the first time selected a Muslim woman who wears a hijab for a commission in the Judge Advocate General Corps. According to yesterday's UT News and an earlier report in The Arab American, recent University of Toledo law graduate Maysaa Ouza believes that she is the first hijabi to apply to the Air Force JAG Corps.  The Air Force issued its latest version of Policy Directive 52-2 on accommodation of religious practices in Feb. 2016.

Female Teenage Boxer Gets Religious Dress Accommodation

According to yesterday's Rochester MN Post-Bulletin, USA Boxing, the organization that oversees amateur boxing in the United States, has granted a religious accommodation to a Muslim teenager.  Amaiya Zafar will be permitted to wear a hijab and cover her arms and legs in her first sanctioned competition.

European Court of Justice Upholds Neutral Employment Rules Barring Religious Dress

The Court of Justice of the European Union today decided two cases raising the question of whether private employers may prohibit Muslim employees from wearing a headscarf at work.  In a case from Belgium, Achbita v. G4S Secure Solutions NV, (CJEU, March 14, 2017), the Court's Grand Chamber ruled:

Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on wearing an Islamic headscarf, which arises from an internal rule of a private undertaking prohibiting the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign in the workplace, does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion or belief within the meaning of that directive.

By contrast, such an internal rule of a private undertaking may constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 if it is established that the apparently neutral obligation it imposes results, in fact, in persons adhering to a particular religion or belief being put at a particular disadvantage, unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, such as the pursuit by the employer, in its relations with its customers, of a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

In a case from France, Bougnaoui v. Micropole SA,  (CJEU, March 14, 2017), however, the Court's Grand Chamber held that where an employer does not have a general rule on dress:

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the willingness of an employer to take account of the wishes of a customer no longer to have the services of that employer provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf cannot be considered a genuine and determining occupational requirement within the meaning of that provision.

The Court issued a press release summarizing the decisions. The Guardian reports on the decision.

French Presidential Candidate Le Pen Refuses To Wear Headscarf To Meet With Lebanese Grand Mufti

In French presidential elections, far-right National Front party leader Marine Le Pen leads in the polls for the April 23 first round, as national security has become the leading concern of voters. As of now, polls show Le Pen losing in the May runoff.  (AlJazeera, Bloomberg)  Le Pen has just completed a three-day trip to Lebanon where she attracted news attention when she refused to wear a headscarf for a meeting with the country's highest Sunni cleric.  According to an AP report:

The headscarf incident occurred ahead of a scheduled meeting with Lebanon's grand mufti, Sheikh Abdel-Latif Derian.

Shortly after Le Pen arrived at his office, one of his aides handed her a white headscarf to put on. Following a discussion with his aides that lasted a few minutes, she refused and returned to her car.

Le Pen told reporters:  "I consider the headscarf a symbol of a woman's submission. I will not put on the veil."

Court Upholds Refusal To Accommodate Correctional Officer's Khimar

In Tisby v. Camden County Correctional Facility, (NJ App., Jan. 18, 2017), a New Jersey state appeals court upheld the refusal by the warden of a state correctional facility to grant a religious accommodation to a female Muslim corrections officer who sought to wear a khimar (a tight fitting head covering without a veil) at work.  The appeals court agreed that the requested accommodation would impose an undue hardship in light of the safety risks involved and the ability to hide contraband in head coverings. NJ.com reporting on the decision says that plaintiff will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

City Changes Policy On Arrestees Wearing of Religious Head Coverings

As previously reported, in May a Muslim woman filed suit in federal court against the city of Long Beach, California and its police complaining that her hijab (headscarf) was forcefully removed while she was being booked by police and held overnight in jail.  The Long Beach Press-Telegram reported yesterday that the police have now changed their policy regarding religious headgear.  Last month police chief Robert Luna issued an order providing:

If an arrestee is wearing a religious head covering, employees shall make all reasonable efforts to allow this practice, except where safety and security concerns dictate otherwise.

The jail administrator says this means that the person arrested will be allowed to keep his or her head covering unless there is concern that the person is potentially suicidal and could use the item to harm himself or herself.

France's Le Pen Would Extend Ban On Religious Symbols In Public

In France, right-wing National Front Party leader Marine Le Pen told a TV station this week that if she is elected President next year, she will extend to all public places the ban on "conspicuous religious symbols" like Muslim headscarves that now applies to public schools. As reported today by New Europe, Le Pen says the ban will include the kippah (skullcap) worn by many observant Jews.  She explained:

It is clear that kippahs are not the issue within our country. But for the sake of equality, they should be prohibited. If I requested to ban solely Muslim attire, people would slam me for hating Muslims.

I know it’s a sacrifice, but I think the situation is too serious these days… I think every French person, including our Jewish compatriots, can understand that if we ask them for a sacrifice in order to help fight against the advance of this Islamic extremism… they will make the effort, they will understand, I am absolutely convinced because it will be in the best interests of the nation.

The French Jewish community has condemned Le Pen's proposal. Washington Times surveys Le Pen's chances in the election.

Canadian Mounties Approve Hijab As Optional Uniform Choice

Global News reported this week that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has approved the hijab as a uniform option to encourage Muslim women to consider the RCMP as a career option.  Three types of hijabs were tested before approving one which maximizes officer safety and can be removed quickly if needed. The RCMP since 1990 has allowed Sikh officers to wear a turban. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

European Court Favors Muslim Employee's Right To Wear Hijab At Work

The Court of Justice of the European Union last week released an Advocate General's opinion on whether under European Union Directive 2000/78 a private employer may bar a Muslim employee from wearing a hijab at work when a customer objects to the head covering. The Advocate General's opinion in Bougnaoui v. Micropole SA, (CJ EU, July 13, 2016), is the first step in the Court's rendering an advisory opinion to France's Court of Cassation on the meaning of the EU employment discrimination directive.  The Advocate General's opinion provides a recommendation to a panel of the Court's judges who will then render a decision. The Advocate General concluded that barring wearing of the hijab under these circumstances amounts to both illegal direct and indirect discrimination. The Advocate General said in part:

73. When the employer concludes a contract of employment with an employee, he does not buy that person’s soul. He does, however, buy his time. For that reason, I draw a sharp distinction between the freedom to manifest one’s religion – whose scope and possible limitation in the employment context are at the heart of the proceedings before the national court – and proselytising on behalf of one’s religion. Reconciling the former freedom with the employer’s right to conduct his business will, as I shall demonstrate, require a delicate balancing act between two competing rights. The latter practice has, in my view, simply no place in the work context. It is therefore legitimate for the employer to impose and enforce rules that prohibit proselytising, both to ensure that the work time he has paid for is used for the purposes of his business and to create harmonious working conditions for his workforce....

133. ... It seems to me that in the vast majority of cases it will be possible, on the basis of a sensible discussion between the employer and the employee, to reach an accommodation that reconciles adequately the competing rights of the employee to manifest his or her religion and the employer to conduct his business. Occasionally, however, that may not be possible. In the last resort, the business interest in generating maximum profit should then in my view give way to the right of the individual employee to manifest his religious convictions. Here, I draw attention to the insidiousness of the argument, ‘but we need to do X because otherwise our customers won’t like it’. Where the customer’s attitude may itself be indicative of prejudice based on one of the ‘prohibited factors’, such as religion, it seems to me particularly dangerous to excuse the employer from compliance with an equal treatment requirement in order to pander to that prejudice. Directive 2000/78 is intended to confer protection in employment against adverse treatment (that is, discrimination) on the basis of one of the prohibited factors. It is not about losing one’s job in order to help the employer’s profit line.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

German Court Says Legal Intern Can Wear Hijab

In Germany last week, a high-ranking law graduate who encountered a ban on wearing her hijab after she had begun her internship with the Bavarian judicial system won a court victory, at least for now.  According to The Local:

The battle started after [Aqilah] Sandhu successfully completed her state exams and started a traineeship with the Bavarian judicial system.

In July 2014, the highest court in the state sent her a letter informing her that she was forbidden from interrogating witnesses or fulfilling other legal duties as long as she continued to wear a headscarf....

She immediately asked for an explanation of the ban, to which she was told “[religious] clothing and symbols can impair the trust in the religious neutrality of the administration of justice.”...

Judge Bernhard Röthinger decided that the young lawyer was in the right, agreeing that there was no legal basis for the state's attack on her religious freedom.

Sandhu is now seeking damages.  However  the state says it will appeal.

In Nigeria, Christian Students React To Ruling On Hijabs In Schools

Christian students in middle schools and high schools in the Osun State in Nigeria are upset about a June 3 Osun State High Court ruling holding that Muslim women students at the schools have a right to wear the hijab.  According to Tuesday's Premium Times, this is seen by Christian students as a breach of the understanding arrived at in 1975 when the state government took over schools originally founded by Christian missionaries. They see the court's decision as suggesting that wearing a hijab is a means of propagating Islam.  So at the urging of the Christian Association of Nigeria, on Tuesday Christian students showed up at school wearing Christian robes and vestments. Meanwhile, the High Court ruling has been appealed and teachers are attempting to ignore the controversy and continue teaching their classes as usual.

EU Court Adviser Says Hijab Ban By Private Business Is Permissible

The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union has recommended to the Court that it interpret the EU's employment equality directive (Directive 2000/78/EC) as permitting businesses to ban Muslim employees from wearing a headscarf as part of an employer's broader policy seeking to achieve religious and ideological neutrality.  The case arose from a request from the Belgian Court of Cassation for clarification of the Directive's provisions. The EU Advocate's full opinion in Achbita v. G4S Secure Solutions NV (May 31, 2016) observes:

Ultimately, the legal issues surrounding the Islamic headscarf are symbolic of the more fundamental question of how much difference and diversity an open and pluralistic European society must tolerate within its borders and, conversely, how much assimilation it is permitted to require from certain minorities.

The opinion concludes in part:

The fact that a female employee of Muslim faith is prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf at work does not constitute direct discrimination based on religion ... if that ban is founded on a general company rule prohibiting visible political, philosophical and religious symbols in the workplace and not on stereotypes or prejudice against one or more particular religions or against religious beliefs in general. That ban may, however, constitute indirect discrimination based on religion....

Such discrimination may be justified in order to enforce a policy of religious and ideological neutrality pursued by the employer in the company concerned, in so far as the principle of proportionality is observed in that regard. In that connection, the following factors in particular must be taken into account: – the size and conspicuousness of the religious symbol, – the nature of the employee’s activity, – the context in which she has to perform that activity, and – the national identity of the Member State concerned.

The Court of Justice issued a press release on the Advocate's opinion, and Reuters reports further on it.

Man Pleads Guilty To Forcibly Removing Airline Passenger's Hijab

According to a Justice Department press release, on Friday a 37-year old North Carolina man pleaded guilty to one count of using force or the threat of force to intentionally obstruct a Muslim woman's free exercise of religion. In the plea agreement (full text) filed in New Mexico federal district court, defendant Gil Parker Payne admits that last December while on a Southwest Airlines flight from Chicago to Albuquerque he forcibly pulled the hijab off the head of a Muslim woman on the flight, telling her "Take it off! This is America!"  In the plea agreement, the government recommends a sentence of probation, with two months home detention, plus any fine or restitution set by the court.

Head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Vanita Gupta, mentioned this case among others in reviewing the government's recent hate crime prosecutions.  Her remarks came in a speech (full text) at the Muslim Advocates annual gala at which she accepted the Justice Thurgood Marshall Award.

The Citadel Refuses Religious Accommodation In Uniform Requirement

Washington Post reported yesterday on a controversial decision by The Citadel to refuse a religious accommodation to its strict student uniform requirement.  The South Carolina public military college will not allow a Muslim student who has been admitted to wear her hijab. According to the paper:

[T]he fact that [the school] was considering an exception ... set off shock waves among alumni. The idea pleased some in the close-knit corps, who felt it could be an important symbol of religious freedom and inclusiveness. But it upset others who felt it would clash with the mission and ideals of the Citadel, where loyalty, teamwork and uniformity are paramount.

At the Citadel, students are expected to leave behind their individuality ... and form opinions based on character rather than appearance. Allowing one student to wear something completely different struck many as antithetical to that mission. And some objected, as well, because exceptions have apparently not ever been made for other religions. Christian cadets have been told not to display crosses, for example.

That the exception was being considered at a time when the role of Islam in U.S. culture is so polarizing ...  made the issue particularly incendiary far beyond the Charleston, S.C., campus.

Muslim Woman Sues Long Beach Police Over Forced Removal of Hijab

A suit was filed last week in federal district court in California against the city of Long Beach and its police by a Muslim woman who says that her hijab (headscarf) was forcefully removed while she was being booked by police and held overnight in jail on outstanding warrant charges.  The complaint (full text) in Powell v. City of Long Beach, (ED CA, filed 4/29/2016), alleges that police policy violates RLUIPA, the 1st Amendment and the California constitution.  It seeks damages and an injunction requiring a change in policy so that the police department accommodates religious head wear of those being booked into police custody.  The suit also seeks to enjoin the public release of plaintiff's booking photo which shows her with her head uncovered. LA List reports on the lawsuit.

Indian Court Says Muslim Women Taking Pre-Med Test May Wear Hijabs

In the Indian state of Kerala yesterday, a High Court judge issued an order allowing Muslim women to wear a hijab while taking the All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT-2016). However they must present themselves a half hour early for frisking.  NDTV reports that the order came during a hearing on a challenge to the dress code for the test prescribed by the Central Board of Secondary Education.  The court said that the prescribed dress code amounts to a restriction on religious liberty.

Suit On Wearing Hijab During Traffic Offense Booking Settled

MLive reported yesterday on the settlement of a lawsuit brought by a Muslim woman against Oceana County, Michigan sheriff's officials for allegedly requiring her to remove her hijab (religious head covering) while being processed at the county jail for a minor traffic violation. (See prior posting.) Sheriff's officials say a number of the woman's allegations were exaggerated or inaccurate.  Under the settlement, no money was paid, but the sheriff's office did agree to create a policy for treatment of inmates wearing religious headwear. The suit was dismissed on April 18.

New Study Surveys Restrictions On Women Wearing Religious Attire

The Pew Research Center yesterday released a report (full text) titled Restrictions on Women's Religious Attire.  It concludes:

50 of the 198 countries and territories included in the study had at least one law or policy regulating women’s religious attire in 2012 and 2013..... About three-quarters of those countries (39 of the 50, or 78%) had a law or policy limiting women’s ability to wear religious attire, while about a quarter (12 of the 50, or 24%) had at least one law or policy requiring women to wear particular attire. Some of these laws or policies applied nationwide, while others were imposed at the provincial, state or local level.   One country – Russia – had [both in different areas].

The study also found that in 2013, some 50 countries had at least one incident where women were harassed by private individuals either for wearing religious dress, or for not conforming to local customs concerning religious dress.

Suit Against Dearborn Police On Forced Hijab Removal Is Withdrawn

Last July, a Muslim woman filed a federal lawsuit against the Dearborn, Michigan police department charging that she was required to remove her headscarf (hijab) while being booked on traffic charges. (See prior posting.) Now, according to yesterday's Dearborn Press & Guide, plaintiff Maha Aldahami has dropped the lawsuit.  It says that her attorney withdrew the suit when the city produced video that contradicted plaintiff's claims. The city says it follows a stringent policy on head coverings, and that an internal investigation showed no wrongdoing. According to MLive, Aldhalimi's lawyer says the suit was dropped because Dearborn satisfactorily amended its policy on religious head coverings after the lawsuit was filed.