A recent decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a trial court’s dismissal of a religious discrimination claim brought by a female prison employee who was forced to remove a hijab.
The Plaintiff was a corrections officer who was a practicing Muslim, and who requested to wear a hijab at work. This was in accordance with Plaintiff’s religious obligation to wear a hijab in the presence of men outside of her family.
The State granted Plaintiff’s request to wear a hijab, subject to certain conditions, including: that her hijab tear off easily if grabbed and that it be checked for compliance by the Deputy Superintendent of Security (who was at all relevant times, a man).
When Plaintiff appeared for work in her hijab, she was ordered into the office of a male supervisor, who presented her with the following ultimatum:
In order for you to wear your hijab into prison, you have three options. Option number one, you can take your hijab off, and go to your post and continue to work. Option number two, you can keep your hijab on and go home. That is your choice and your right. You have to deal with the consequences. Option number three, you have to demonstrate that your hijab could be pulled off quickly without you being choked. After all we would not want an inmate to choke you.
The Plaintiff responded that she was willing to comply with the inspection if it was conducted by a female inspector, given her religion’s prohibition on her removing her hijab in the presence of a man outside her family. The male supervisor, after unsuccessfully looking for a female supervisor, ordered the Plaintiff to remove her hijab in front of him. Plaintiff complied, and suffered an anxiety attack as a result of her interaction. She was then sent home and told to fill out worker’s compensation paperwork.
For several months after this incident, Plaintiff was not permitted to return to work. When she did eventually return, she alleges she was subject to harassment and bullying.
Plaintiff brought suit, alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII and the First and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On appeal, the Second Circuit held that the State’s refusal to accommodate Plaintiff’s request to remove her hijab in front of a female supervisor constituted a material adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment that was more than a mere inconvenience or alteration of job responsibilities.
The Second Circuit additionally held that Plaintiff “was not required to allege an additional adverse employment action, beyond the denial of her request for religious accommodation, to plead a claim for religious discrimination.”
Finally, the Second Circuit held that Plaintiff timely refused the condition that she remove her hijab in front of a male, explained the conflict with her religious practice, and requested a female supervisor. These combined actions could be construed as either a request to modify the original accommodation, or a separate accommodation request.