Army Grants Accommodation For Sikh Combat Soldier To Wear Beard

According to a New York Times report yesterday, the U.S. military for the first time has granted a Sikh combat soldier a religious accommodation to allow him to grow a beard and serve with uncut hair under his turban.  Captain  Simratpal Singh, a West Point graduate and Bronze Star winner who led a platoon of combat engineers in clearing roadside bombs in Afghanistan, previously reluctantly shed his beard and long hair.  But recently while on leave he stopped shaving.  Now the Army has granted him (with certain conditions) a one-month temporary exemption (full text of Army memo) while it considers whether to make the accommodation permanent.  Since 2009, three other Sikhs, two Muslims and a Jewish rabbi have been granted religious accommodations to wear beards, but none of them were in combat units.  They were either chaplains or specialized medical personnel.  Some believe that Capt. Singh's case could serve as precedent for other Sikhs, Muslims and others who wish to adhere to their religious traditions while in the Army.

Facebook Is Immune From Suit For Removing Sikh Group's Page In India

In Sikhs For Justice ("SFJ"), Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., (ND CA, Nov. 13, 2015), a California federal district court dismissed a lawsuit by a Sikh human rights group that objected to Facebook's blocking of access in India to the group's Facebook page.  The suit alleges that Facebook discriminated in violation of the public accommodation provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it collaborated with the government of India in retaliating against SFJ for its online campaign complaining about the treatment of Sikhs and promoting an independent Sikh state. (See prior posting.) The court held that Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Facebook from liability.  That section immunizes interactive computer services from liability as a publisher of content posted by third parties.  The court agreed with Facebook that the lawsuit "is entirely based on Defendant’s blocking of the SFJ Page in India, which is publisher conduct immunized by the CDA." Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

As Indian Prime Minister Visits Britain, Religious Minorities' Rights Are Raised

India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, head of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People's Party) began an important 3-day formal visit to Britain yesterday. However his visit has been dogged by concerns on at least two fronts regarding the rights of religious minorities in India. According to The Guardian:

In the last few months, mobs of fanatics, some linked to his party, the BJP, have lynched Muslims for eating, carrying or possessing beef, or on mere suspicion of having done so.... Most of all, however, critics say it was Modi himself who spawned the narrative of beef as a critical issue during elections last year by warning of a “pink revolution” (a widespread slaughter of cows) if his party didn’t win.

Meanwhile, Sikhs have a different concern, and have enlisted Britain's Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in their cause. According to an NSO Press Release"

The office for the leader of the Labour Party has said Jeremy Corbyn will be taking up the issue of the 1984 Sikh genocide with the Indian premier during his visit to Britain this week.... [P]rior to Mr Modi’s landslide victory, he and his party had placed the blame for the killings of Sikhs on the then Congress government. Furthermore, following appointment to office Mr Modi’s Home Minister described the killings as “genocide”.... [However, according to a Sikh leader in the UK] ... "Mr Modi has done nothing to bring identified Congress leaders who urged gangs of hooligans, to kill, murder and burn Sikh men, women and children, to justice. They now freely roam the streets gloating of their achievements to the bewilderment of relatives of those murdered, as well as the wider Sikh community."

Charges Against Sikh Teen For Wearing Kirpan Dropped

Last week, a New York state trial court judge in Queens dropped criminal charges against a 17-year old Sikh high school student who had been arrested for wearing his kirpan (ceremonial dagger).  According to Sikh24, Virender Singh was arrested and charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the 4th degree while he was walking to a Gurdwara to offer evening prayers. However at his hearing, prosecutors conceded that charges should be dropped.

Britain Exempts Sikhs From Safety Helmet Requirements

Britain's Department for Work and Pensions issued a press release yesterday announcing that Sikhs who wear turbans for religious reasons are now exempt in almost all workplaces from safety helmet rules.  Previously, an exemption was available only for Sikhs working in the construction industry.  Parliament in enacting the Deregulation Act 2015 extended the exemption to all industries.  Under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, however, safety helmets may still be required for Sikh first responders and those in the military. Law & Religion UK blog reports on the changes.

Factional Disputes In Houses of Worship Are Increasingly Ending Up In Court

An article posted Monday by Reveal reports that increasingly factional disputes over control of mosques in the United States are ending up in civil courts.  The lengthy article discusses several such cases, saying in part:

Historically, the Muslim American community has kept its disputes private, sometimes turning to faith-based mediation. But as the number of mosques increases and Muslims integrate with mainstream America, conflicts involving clerics, congregations and mosques are seeping into secular courts from California to Texas and Florida.

Intergenerational friction offers significant fodder for legal actions. U.S. mosques are evolving from traditional institutions run by the eldest community members to democratized nonprofits with bylaws and elections, even women in positions of power. Oral traditions have become written.

However it is not just Muslims that are turning to civil courts.  Last Sunday in San Jose, California, over 5,000  members of a Sikh gurdwara cast ballots in a court-ordered election of officers.  The San Jose Mercury News reports that all 21 incumbents were re-elected, ending extensive litigation between a reformist faction and existing leaders who raised millions of dollars in the 1980's to build the gurdwara. Insurgents say that merely having an election was a victory.

2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action By Sikh Victims of 1984 Riots In India

In Sikhs for Justice, Inc. v. Gandhi, (2d Cir., Aug. 25, 2015), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of a putative class action on behalf of victims of 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India brought against Sonia Gandhi, president of India's ruling political party.  Claims under the Alien Tort Statute were dismissed because all relevant conduct took place outside the United States. Torture Victim Protection Act claims were dismissed on standing grounds.  The court added:

Moreover, plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that defendant is liable for the anti-Sikh riots. At best, the amended complaint alleges that certain attacks were carried out on defendant’s “orders,” and that defendant was present at one of several meetings at which the riots were planned.

In India, Sikh Group Plans Suit Against Educational Board Over Dress Code For Test

In India, a Sikh organization (the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee) is planning to file suit against the Central Board of Secondary Education challenging the strict dress code it imposed on those taking the All India Pre-Medical Entrance Test.  As reported yesterday by Sikh24, the dress code was drawn up after India's Supreme Court ordered the test re-administered because some students allegedly used electronic devices to cheat on the original exam. In some test centers, Sikh students were required to remove certain of the five sacred symbols ( Panj Kakaars ) that Sikhs are required to wear. Apparently authorities were concerned that items such as the krirpan  or the kara could conceal electronic devices.

Court Orders Religious Accommodation For Sikh Student Seeking To Enter ROTC Program

In Singh v. McHugh, (D DC, June 12, 2015), the D.C. federal district court ordered the Army to grant a religious accommodation to dress and grooming requirements to allow a Sikh college student to enroll in the ROTC program at Hofstra University.  The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision this term in Holt v. Hobbs in refusing to completely defer to military judgment, saying in part:

The Court finds that defendants have failed to show that the application of the Army’s regulations to this plaintiff and the denial of the particular religious accommodation he seeks further a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means. Therefore ... judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiff. The Court accords substantial deference to the Army’s judgments concerning the essential role that uniformity plays in military training and effectiveness. But given the tens of thousands of exceptions the Army has already made to its grooming and uniform policies, its successful accommodation of observant Sikhs in the past, and the fact that, at this time, plaintiff is seeking only to enroll in the ROTC program, the Army’s refusal to permit him to do so while adhering to his faith cannot survive the strict scrutiny that RFRA demands. This decision is limited to the narrow issue presently before the Court – plaintiff’s ability to enroll in ROTC with his turban, unshorn hair, and beard – and it does not address plaintiff’s eventual receipt of a contract or an Army commission.

U.S.-Based Sikh Group Sues Facebook Over Takedown of Its Page In India

The U.S. based advocacy group Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) this week filed a federal lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. complaining that Facebook has blocked access throughout the country of India to SFJ's Facebook page.  The complaint (full text) in Sikhs For Justice"SFJ", Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., (ND CA, filed 6/2/2015), contends that Facebook is subject to the public accommodation provisions of the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.  It alleges that Facebook collaborated with the government of India in retaliating against SFJ for its online campaign against  forced conversion of Christians, Muslims and Sikhs to Hinduism; support for a referendum in Punjab for an independent Sikh country; and amendment of the Indian constitution's provision that labels Sikhs as Hindus. The complaint alleges further:

Defendant willfully, intentionally, purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, and/or negligently deprived Plaintiff and its members in the entire India of the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of Defendant’s internet-based social networking service as a place of public accommodation, as defined in 42 USC Section 2000a.

... Defendant did so deprive Plaintiff and its members with discrimination and segregation on the ground of race, religion, ancestry, and national origin.

Times of India reports on the lawsuit.

Court Orders Sikh Temple Meeting With Quorum Requirement Dropped

According to the Marysville, California Appeal-Democrat, a Sutter County, California state trial court judge last Friday issued an interim order in a dispute over control of a Sikh Temple in Yuba City.  Members who have wanted to hold a meeting to challenge action of the Temple's board of directors have been unable to do so because of the by-laws' unrealistic quorum requirement.  The bylaws require a quorum of over 50% of the formal members of the Temple.  A membership list compiled in 2008 lists over 4400 members, many of whom have died or moved away.  Only 500 people are signed up to receive the Temple's monthly newsletter.  An attempt to obtain a quorum in May 2013 led to 2000 people showing up, but a number still short of a quorum.  The court Friday ordered a special meeting of members to be held, and ordered the Temple to drop the quorum requirement for the meeting. The Temple's attorney argues that the interim order is unconstitutional because it infringes on the Temple's internal governance.

DOJ Requires Georgia County To Provide Extensive Training To Prevent Religious Bullying of Sikhs and Others

Last week (Nov. 18), the Justice Department announced an extensive agreement between federal authorities and the DeKalb County, Georgia school district requiring the district to implement polices and procedures to prevent and respond to religious and national origin harassment of students by fellow-students. The Resolution Agreement (full text) supplements a May 2013 agreement (full text) that settled a lawsuit brought by a Sikh student who had been repeatedly harassed and bullied. (2013 Sikh Coalition release.) That agreement required implementation of a safety plan for that student and anti-harassment training.  Last week's settlement (Sikh Coalition release) grew out of the Justice Department's continuing examination of the school district's harassment policies. Among other things, it requires the school district:

to develop and implement annual age and position-appropriate trainings on religious and national origin harassment for all students, staff who interact with students (including administrators, teachers, counselors, and bus drivers), and District-level administrators who interact with students or who are involved in addressing harassment or bullying in the District. The District will implement separate student- and staff-specific trainings....

All trainings must include:

A facilitated discussion of the root causes of religious and national origin harassment and the harms resulting from such conduct, including but not limited to issues related to post-9/11 backlash and the perpetuation of negative stereotypes impacting the Sikh, Muslim, South Asian, and Arab-American communities....

Sikh Student Sues For Accommodation To Enlist In ROTC

The ACLU yesterday announced the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of a Sikh college student who was refused a religious accommodation to permit him to enlist in the ROTC program at Hofstra University.  The complaint (full text) in Singh v. McHugh, (D DC, Nov. 12, 2014), contends that plaintiff's rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act were violated:

As a practicing Sikh, Mr. Singh’s religious beliefs require him to maintain long hair and wear a turban and beard. Defendants have refused to allow Mr. Singh to enlist in ROTC unless he agrees to abandon these practices upon enrolling as a Cadet. Specifically, Defendants will not allow Mr. Singh to enlist in ROTC unless he agrees to follow all Army grooming and uniform regulations, which would require him to cut his hair, remove his turban, and shave off his beard.

Singh, who is fluent in Punjabi, Hindi, and Urdu, wants to become a military intelligence officer. The military says it will not consider Singh's request for an accommodation until he formally enlists and complies with the grooming and uniform regulations.

Settlement Reached In Case of Sikh IRS Employee's Wearing of Kirpan

A settlement has been reached in the case of a Sikh employee of the Internal Revenue Service who lost her job after she insisted on wearing her kirpan into her federal office building. As reported this week by the Houston Chronicle and in a Becket Fund press release, the settlement was reached shortly after the trial of RFRA claims began in the case that was on remand from the 5th Circuit. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement, plaintiff Kawaljeet Tagore's firing is expunged from her record. She may not seek re-employment with the IRS, but may apply to other federal agencies.  She is allowed to enter federal buildings with her kirpan for a period of three years. Finally she is awarded $400,000 for lawyers' fees and expenses.

Poland's Supreme Court Upholds Airport Security Requirement To Remove Sikh Turban

According to Sikh Sangat News, Poland's Supreme Court yesterday ruled against Shaminder Singh Puri, an environmental expert who does a great deal of international travel, who sued the the Chief of Poland's Border Guard for violation of his religious rights.  Puri, a practicing Sikh, was asked on five occasions between 2009 and 2011 to remove his turban at Warsaw Airport. Puri, seeking damages and an apology, argued that security officials acted disproportionately by immediately requiring him to remove  his turban instead of first using other screening methods.  The Supreme Court held however that security guards were respectful of Puri's religion and, when ordering him to remove his turban, allowed him to do so in a separate room away from other passengers.

India's Former Prime Minister Immune In U.S. Courts As To Some Charges Of Participation In Killing of Sikhs

In Sikhs For Justice v. Singh,(D DC, Aug. 19, 2014), the D.C. federal district court dismissed on immunity grounds most, but not all of the claims against India's former Prime Minister for his role in the torture and killing of Indian Sikhs. The court summaried its decision:

Defendant Manmohan Singh was, until very recently, the Prime Minister of India. Plaintiffs ... have brought this suit alleging that the former Prime Minister tortured and killed Indian Sikhs during his time at the helm of that country’s government and, before then, as Finance Minister. The United States, a non-party in this litigation, has filed a Suggestion of Immunity claiming that Singh, as the sitting Prime Minister, is entitled to head-of-state immunity. Although at the time of that filing, Singh was indeed Prime Minister, he left office three weeks later. Plaintiffs, consequently, counter that Singh is no longer entitled to such immunity. They are only partly correct. Although he is no longer a head of state, Singh is entitled to residual immunity for acts taken in his official capacity as Prime Minister. Because such residual immunity does not cover actions Singh pursued before taking office, however, the allegations stemming from his time as Finance Minister survive.

Reuters reports on the decision and has more on the substantive allegations in the case.

California Court Refuses To Allow Sikh Juror To Wear Kirpan

In Yuba City, California, members of the Sikh community protested yesterday when officials refused to allow Gursant Singh to enter the Sutter County Courthouse to report for jury duty. Singh has been unable to convince authorities to allow him to wear his kirpan (a religious dagger with a 5 inch blade) in the courthouse.  CBS13 reports that court officials insist on enforcing their no-weapons policy to ban the traditional religious symbol. It is unclear whether Singh will be penalized for not appearing for jury duty.

Pentagon Chaplain Hosts First Ever Sikh Program

Huffington Post reports that the first ever program at the Pentagon to recognize the Sikh faith was held last Friday. Hosted by the Pentagon Chaplain, the program  celebrated Vaisakhi, described by Valarie Kaur who spoke at the program as a celebration of "the founding of the Sikh community as the Khalsa, a spiritual sister and brotherhood."

British Trial Court Rejects Claim That Wealthy Family's Property Was Held Under Hindu/ Sikh Law

Singh v. Singh, (EWHC, April 8, 2014) is a property dispute between members of an extremely wealthy Sikh family living in Britain. In the case, the eldest son in the family, Jasminder Singh, claims ownership of Tetworth Hall, described as "a spacious house standing in its own grounds on the edge of Ascot race course." He also claims ownership of 5.28% of the shares of Edwardian Group, Ltd., a very profitable company that operates hotels in central London and elsewhere. Both the house and the company shares are registered in Jasminder's name.

According to the court, Jasminder's father, however, claims that:

these and other items of property are joint family assets which are held in accordance with the principles of what is known as the Mitakshara. This is the legal code ... by which a Hindu family living and eating together as a composite household may hold its property. The code which is of very ancient origin applies as much to Sikhs as to Hindus. This is relevant because, as their name implies, the Singh family are Sikhs. The beneficial interest in property of a joint Hindu (or Sikh) family, if held subject to the Mitakshara, belongs jointly to the male members of that family down to the third generation from a common male ancestor.

Jasminder responds that: "until this dispute first arose he had never even heard of the Mitakshara, let alone had any understanding of how it operates."

The court prefaced a lengthy review of the family's history with this observation:

If nothing else this litigation has highlighted the extraordinary enterprise that has enabled the Singh family, in the space of just two generations, to rise from obscurity and very modest circumstances in what was then rural British India, overcome all manner of difficulties, come eventually to this country and make a fortune for itself. I dare say it is not untypical of many such families but there can be few whose rise has been quite so meteoric. The family's story as it unfolded in the course of this trial has a heroic quality to it. It has made it all the more painful to have to listen to the tragic differences that now divide its members.

In a 248 paragraph opinion, th High Court judge concluded:

At the end of the day the question is whether Father has demonstrated that as between himself and Jasminder there existed an understanding that any property which they or either of them acquired would be held as joint family property.... I am unable to find that there was such an understanding.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.] 

Sikh Woman Sues After Go Kart Facility Cuts Her Hair To Free Her In Accident

Courthouse News reported Tuesday on a suit filed recently in Chicago's Cook County (IL) Circuit Court by a Sikh woman who is distressed that the operators of a Go Kart track insisted on cutting her hair to free her after her hair was sucked into the engine of the Go Kart she was driving. Friends with Holly Hanjra at the time insisted that the staff of  Melrose Grand Prix call 911 rather than cut Hanjra's hair, because of its religious significance. The suit seeks damages for assault and battery; emotional distress; willful, wanton and negligent misconduct; and negligent hiring, retention and supervision.