Hmmm, I think this will be an interesting case. By way of comparison, I wonder if the Philadelphia Police would ever be forced to allow a police officer to wear a large cross on a chain that hung down to the officer's waist. Would anybody even give that question more than a moment's thought?

I'm pretty sure I know how the vote will come out in the comment section.

One assumes she intends to wear the item pulled back from her face, so as not to impede her peripheral vision. I would also hope that it would be made of a material that would easily tear should someone attempt to grab or strangle her in an altercation. And, lastly, that she wear most of it under her uniform top, so that others can clearly identify her as a peace officer.

P.S. The link to the decision is broken.

Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503

Petitioner, an Orthodox Jew and ordained rabbi, was ordered not to wear a yarmulke while on duty and in uniform as a commissioned officer in the Air Force. Held: The First Amendment does not prohibit the challenged regulation from being applied to petitioner, even though its effect is to restrict the wearing of the headgear required by his religious beliefs. That Amendment does not require the military to accommodate such practices as wearing a yarmulke in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by dress regulations.

I don't think this has been overruled. And, I don't see a significantly lesser interest in clothing uniformity for police than for the military.

Whether it is wise from a policy standpoint is a different question. My own thought is that if it makes people feel more included, why not allow pretty wide tolerance for ethnic/religious expressions? If she's just doing this to prove a point, she'll soon get tired of it and quit. Its easier and cheaper (and better community relations) to let this kind of thing go, rather than getting into a fight over it.

There is, after all, a reason why it's called a "uniform."

It rather would seem to cut against the meaning of the word 'uniform'.

Sikh cops in NYC, for example, can wear a turban, and if this lady would just put her p.o. jacket OVER the khimar - problem solved.

I can't believe that an orthodox Jew wouldn't be permitted to wear a yarmulke; that seems pretty minimal, and as I recall can be set up to stay on fairly well during activity.

During my yeshiva days, the head Rabbi would often remark that if your yarmulka would fall off while playing ball it meant that your yarmulka was too small or your hair was too long.

But seriously, IIRC corectly, my ConLaw professor said that the 1st Amendment would not prevent the police or military from banning religious headgear.

A Google image search for the garment in question shows that it's a combined headscarf and shawl.

It would be dangerous for a police officer to wear it on the street because it could be grabbed and pulled--police officers wear special breakaway neckties to protect against grabbers, but there's no way to make a breakaway khimar.

Furthermore, the garment is large enough that from many angles you couldn't say for sure if the officer was wearing a uniform or not.

I think religious garb is completely inapropriate in public facing policemen or women. They should be being seen to deal with the public purely as a member of the police - not as a Jew, Muslim or Christian.

James Fulford.

Those aren't special breakaway ties. Those are ties sold to young men whose fathers haven't taught them how to tie a necktie properly and who need something for First Communion. That they are useful in law enforcement is a happy coincidence.

I believe one or another story in the Old Testament has a war leader insisting his men shave their beards so they (the beards) can't be used as an extra handhold in hand to hand combat.

In judo, hauling on the opponent's gi--which is extremely heavy compared to that used in karate--is part of game, and built into some of the throws.

On COPS, once, there was an incident of drunk and disorderly in a bar. The two responding cops were women. Fortunately, some of the other guys in the bar helped them get the drunk into cuffs. Then the guy's wife started in on the cops. Instead of shoving her away--they tried but it didn't work--they ended up having to sap her. Unfortunately for the PC types, the laws of physics rule against women in muscle combat. Easy enough for a woman to shoot a guy. That's why they call a gun an equalizer. But when you're trying to restrain somebody without doing serious damage, you need muscle. And that means you can very well do without giving him extra advantages, such as clothing which can be used against you.

Can you identify a Christian sect for whom wearing such a cross is a requirement of faith? No? Then, the analogy isn't a very good one, is it?

Actually, it is a good analogy. There's no sect of Islam that requires this garment for women. There are plenty of female muslims on the Phila police force who don't wear khimars (FWIW, the Phila Police Commissioner, Sylvester Johnson, is a muslim too). This woman interpreted Islam's teaching about modesty as a requirement to wear a khimar. Islam is pretty decentralized with many scholars interpreting the Koran in inapposite ways. A Christian could just as easily interpret their church's teachings as requiring them to wear a large, ungainly garment or cross.

Re. Goldman v. Weinberger: After the decision, Congress passed a law permitting military personnel to wear "an item of religious apparel" in addition to the uniform. This obviously does not overturn the Supreme Court ruling but may indicate what is going on in the broader debate on this issue.

Daryl Herbert:

"...it's about advertising how Muslims get special privileges compared to the rest of us. We don't need people like that policing us. That's not how a free society functions."

It's sometimes hard to imagine, but "equal" doesn't mean "special". Whenever I see someone claim "special rights" it sends off warning bells. Sort of like "but some of my best friends are [black/jewish/whatever]."

If an officer can wear a yarmulka under his hat or a catholic can go to work with an ash smudge on their forehead on ash wednesday, then she should be able to wear a head scarf under her hat and tucked into her collar. That seems pretty minor. I don't think it's unreasonable for people of any religion to make reasonable requests.

I wonder, in a predominently Muslim country where her right to wear the Khimar would be unquestionned, if not mandatory, whether she would be allowed to be a police officer at all.

The word "khimar" might not necessarily refer to the long shawl along with the scarf that comes down to the waist (even though that may be one defintiion). I know that that word can also be used to describe a certain headscarf. If that is the case, it could be tucked into her uniform and would not interfere with her job.

I was a little surprised that Pakistan has female police. The picture of them is without this scarf, their head covered by a ball cap. One, however, does have the Khimar and it covers her head and chest, somewhat obscuring the shirt. The rest of the uniform is a long sleeve shirt and pants. What's not so surprising is the rest of the drill, where they are less able to operate and can't work after dark and must be escorted home etc.. It's really a mixed bag, these accomodations, because they are more cultural and social than doctrine. .

Seems like she'll lose under Title VII. It would be a closer call (and a more interesting case) if she didn't lose the RFPA claim for lack of written notice. Is this the least restrictive means of furthering the gov't's interest? It seems not, the comments have already set forth other alternatives.

But aren't there Arabs living in Africa? North Africa?

Wow. These issues sure bring the bigots out from hiding.


I haven't noticed any on this thread. I should not that my previous comment stems from having travelled in Syria, Jordan and Egypt, where I did not see any female police. I am intrigued by the fact that Pakistan does have them. I have also been in Turkey and Lebanon, and I can't recall whether there were any female police, though I don't think I saw any. Of course, in Israel, I did see them. If they were orthodox (which I doubt), they could have just worn a wig like the hasids in Brooklyn do.

Confounded machine. Here's the links:

Fifth Circuit

Supreme Court

Wallace got it right. There is no requirement, direct or indirect, for women to wear a khimar in Islam. The word Khimar does not appear in the Koran and as to modesty- it is possible even in a strip club.

However, although women are allowed to fight in wars in Islam (some fought to save the prophet's ass when he was in a tight spot in battle), they have not been soldiers- only volunteers. Early Islam had a system for paying soldiers for war service and no women were on the role for their direct role as soldiers. Their modesty allowed them to mostly nurse whacked-out or wounded warriors, preferably relatives only.

Thus, to observe religious traditions, she should not be an officer/soldier at all- just like in Saudi Arabia. Picking and choosing which traditions to break and which to accept is giving birth to a new religion. Then, the question is should the rules interfere with the establishment of new religions or aid in the establishment of new religions?

I think the burden of preexisting rules should be anticipated (and borne) by later-born religions if the rules are otherwise neutral. For instance, a tradition in Islam discourages contact between women and men. In Pakistan preferably women officers deal with women (and men with men). However, such a restriction makes little sense elsewhere because the police is reasonably expected to tend to both men and women.

Also, accommodating such new practices invites chaos because any rule can violate a suitably established new religion (established in the future) including in response to the rule's existence.

Therefore, she is out of luck unless she can redesign the Khimar to counter any artiulatable interference with her role as a police officer-including the need to be easily recognized as a police officer. If the Khimar does not interfere with her role as a police officer, then I see no problem-just as in a police officer wearing a turban in New York city as many Allied soldiers did during the first and second world wars in Europe.

Title VII's protections for religious practices do not extend only to practices which the religion arguably requires. For example, Christian and Jewish faiths (as I understand them) do not require adherents to wear crosses or Stars of David. But courts have held in some cases that Title VII forbids employers from forbidding employees from wearing such items. Religiously motivated is enough.

But that's only the first step. The next question is, does this religious practice put an undue burden on the employer? As EV said, the only burden an employer must endure is a de minimus one. What particular practice by a particular employee of a particular employer is and isn't more than a de minimus burden is a fact-sensitive question (cases come out both ways on the same practice, depending on the employee and employer). So the good questions in this thread involve what exactly the type of clothing is, and how it might or might not interfere with police work. Again, the employer doesn't have to show much to win the case.

This can get one to the "is it really religious expression to

I didn't know Sikh cops in N.Y. wore turbans. I've never seen that on my visits to the city, but then you never see a Sikh cop when you need one.

However, knowing that, and upon further reflection, it seems to me that -- with respect to headgear only and not other parts of a military or military-style uniform -- a variety of headgear does not, in itself, detract from "uniformity."

In fact, distinctiveness in headgear is a military tradition, indulged by both high officers (Grant's slouch hat) and low (Vietnam-era grunts with their boondockers). Also, elite groups within units signal their status with special hats (Green Berets). During World War II, naval aviators wore brown shoes, line officers wore black shoes.

I am old enough to remember the legal fights over razor bumps back in the '60s-early '70s. Funny, you never hear about razor bumps any more.

I would say this is a very close case. She clearly has no claim under the First Amendment because of Smith, and she clearly has no claim under RFRA because she is employed by the City, not the Feds. But Title VII does require accomodation, so Goldman v. Weinberger (a First Amendment case) is not really the issue.

Is the accomodation sought an "undue hardship"? Under current case law, probably. But a sympathetic court would not be crazy to conclude otherwise.

tvk, she does potentially have a claim under the Free Exercise Clause, depending on what the relevant dress code says.

The Newark police department does not allow its police officers to wear beards unless the officer meets one of two exceptions -- the cop is under cover or there is a medical issue. Two Muslim officers sued, alleging that their Free Exercise rights were violated because they believed they were under a religious obligation not to shave. The Third Circuit, in Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Newark, agreed, concluding that if the city could make the judgment that its dress policy could give way because of certain secular concerns, it could not make the judgment that certain religious concerns also didn’t outweigh the need for the policy. I think this result makes sense.

Given that we don’t know much about the policy at issue, we can’t evaluate any free exercise claim.

I don’t really know what the garb at issue looks like. But if it is something that covers a lot of the officers body and any part of her face, it wouldn’t bother me if she wasn’t allowed to wear the garb.

I do find it somewhat amusing that people are so up in arms about an officer having something different on her uniform though. I mean honestly, if all she wanted to do was wearing something around her arm, would you honestly protest that it ruins the “sanctity” of the uniform?

PDXLawyer, the case you cite has much more to do with the special line of cases involving the military. Courts traditionally give a lot of deference to the military. That is simply not so with the policy and courts obviously have little problem highly regulating their behavior. (See, e.g., Fourth Amendment cases.)

Elliot123, so your position is we should only protect religious demands that we consider "mainstream" or religious belief followed by "most" of the religious adherents?

Geez, somebody should start a country founded on religious freedom where even those people who have non-mainstream beliefs can find their freedom protected under the law. You know, like the puritans did way back when.

Unfortunately it seems that the courts cannot rule using simple wisdom. In this case it would mean applying these questions. 1) do we as a public want our police uniformed and easily recognizable, except in situations where blending in with the crowd is a greater public good than being visible, 2) if we agree to the uniform premise then how much dilution of the visible recognition of the uniform is permissible; a simple officer lineup and randomly selected citizens (perhaps from bored jurors called to serve but just sitting around) to determine what modifications to the uniform decrease credibility and rapid recognition of the officer as a legitimate officer, and finally 3) to what extent does non-uniformity lead to loss of group cohesion impacting the effectiveness of a police department.
Why is it that the courts seem to never embark on experimental acquisition of data to help determine a case? Solomon is a classic example of experimental/interventional jurisprudence.

As several posters have noted, there are a couple of issues here:

1. Uniformity of uniforms, etc. It all depends on what the standard existing policy is.

2. safety. Departments are on solid ground in requiring things like clip on ties for officers on the street. The same would be the case here. a garment that can be used to strangle or restrain an officer puts lives in danger. A yarmulke or Turban does not.

Bobbie: Elliot123, so your position is we should only protect religious demands that we consider "mainstream" or religious belief followed by "most" of the religious adherents?

No. My position is that our lack of collective experience with some religions allows folks to BS us about requirements. We do not fall for the BS regarding religions with which we have a great deal of experience. This is why we have such an easier time dealing with Christian practices than Muslim or Hindu practices.

"I don't think this has been overruled. And, I don't see a significantly lesser interest in clothing uniformity for police than for the military."

Really? Foreign affairs and national security and all that?

Also, as pointed out, as a First Amendment case, Goldman is not on point.

What about a more fundamental question: can a Muslim police officer even be entrusted at all to enforce the laws of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in conflict with sharia?

Can anyone of any faith be entrusted to enforce the laws if they are in conflict with their personal religious beliefs?

I note Mormon underwear is not permitted in US military boot camp.

One of my roommates in Army AIT was Mormon and he wore it. This was a few years ago

The Drill SGT

2. safety. Departments are on solid ground in requiring things like clip on ties for officers on the street. The same would be the case here. a garment that can be used to strangle or restrain an officer puts lives in danger. A yarmulke or Turban does not.

This is not exactly true. I work with a Sikh. The Turban is a very long "scarf" wound around the head. If you snatch it off the head of a Sikh officer, you'd likely have more to work with than the scarf required for a female muslim's modesty.

Scooby, in USAF Basic Training, underwear was provided. You could not wear your own. In USAF technical school your underwear was your own business. We were assigned "tighty whities" in Basic Training and the Mormon's boxers would have been prohibited. I'm only partnered to a Mormon so I'm uncertain as to all the rules, but my take on it is they aren't required to wear that underwear all the time and I believe marriage eliminates the requirement.

And finally... :-)

As a gay man, I've seen police and emergency medical personnel responding to emergencies at gay establishments outright refuse contact with gay men. I cannot tie that directly to religious belief, having not asked them why, but the idea that religious belief might lead an officer to the same behavior is believable. Medical personnel, especially pharmacists, are currently suing (and being sued) over refusing certain types of treatments based on religious belief. Racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry are a human thing and police officers are human. Having muslim police in a community with muslim residents is a good thing.

can such an officer be trusted-well, ask yourself if, knowing what you know about islamic preaching in america and how mosques are funded, would you live next door to one. if the answer is no, I can't think of any reason I would have greater faith in the officer.

Looking at the Wikipedia article on Mormon underwear, since 1979 they've had a two-piece version that's distinguishable from Air Force regulation T-shirt and shorts (as I remember them) only by a few small religious markings that would be covered by normal outer clothing. They're white (as the AF dress uniforms require) instead of the unbleached cloth of the original union suit style, and OD green is also allowed (to fit with fatigue and combat uniforms). So once out of training, a Mormon shouldn't have any problems.

However, in boot camp, you're issued virtually everything you should wear or possess, and the DI's do look in your underwear drawers, where you'd better have the same GI stuff as everyone else, and fold it and orient it just the same. Anything that looks different, even if it's to regulation, will still draw extra attention - and you really, really don't want to give them any reason to look more closely at your gear, because they will find something wrong if the look long enough. Robert E. Lee is supposed to have gone through four years at West Point without a single demerit. Obviously they were going easier in those days, because in 1978 it wasn't humanly possible to make it through 6 weeks of basic training without a demerit.

Then there's Tech School (which some services call AIT = Advanced Individual Training), where regulation and supervision over living quarters, etc., is generally looser than boot camp and tighter than once you've finished training - I'm not sure how it would go with other services, or even with the AF, since I've heard they tightened up considerably since my time. Too many kids started by celebrating their release from boot camp and kept on partying until they washed out...

You will recall that during the government-sponsored AIDS panic--we were all going to get it--there was a great deal of reluctance to associate with gays for fear of catching the disease. Now that the panic is no longer useful, anybody who is concerned about getting the disease other than by having sex or using dirty needles is a fool and a bigot.

Robert Aubrey, would you elaborate on the above. Does "now that the panic is no longer useful" mean you think the public was misled for some purpose other than the common good about the risks of contracting AIDS by its government? Why was it "useful" to cause "panic" up until some point in time, then no longer so? When did "the government-sponsored AIDS panic" begin and end?

Did it start/end during the 8 years of Reagan, the 4 of Bush I, the 8 of Clinton, or sometime in the course of Bush II's 6 years to date? Is it possible to identify those who made and implemented that decision to cause panic, then call it off? Margaret Heckler, the HHS Secretary who told us an effective vaccine was only 6 or so months off? C. Everett Koop, who surprised many as Surgeon General? Tony Fauci of NIH, who has been a notable government point person on AIDS for all these years? Republicans or Democrats?

Sex and drug abuse have been the way most people have contracted the disease, but I trust you are aware that it is also can be transmitted mother to child at time of delivery and with breast feeding (very important in Africa); by transfusion (Arthur Ashe) and blood products (Ryan White); accidental exposure to blood in the course of drawing blood, surgery, etc. (an unfortunate Hopkins resident).

Is our government purposely misleading us at present about any serious health matters? If so, which ones?

(Did I misunderstand your "now that the panic is no longer useful" comment, seeing in it implications you never intended? If so, forgive me.)