The Ohio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed an employment-discrimination complaint this morning over the Columbus Police Division’s refusal to allow women officers to wear head scarves.
The complaint was filed with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.
The city’s ban discriminates against religious Muslim women who want to join the Columbus police force, said Romin Iqbal, CAIR-Ohio’s staff attorney. It also violates the Ohio law that requires employers to “provide reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs of employees and prospective employees,” he said.
Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman said last week that he supports Police Chief Kim Jacobs’ decision to not allow officers to wear head scarves or hijabs.
Police officials said in June that they would keep the prohibition because they want the division to be viewed as a nonpolitical, nonreligious organization and the uniform should reflect that neutrality. Officials also shared concerns that the scarves could pose safety problems and be used to try to choke an officer.
“When officers go out into the community, they should be identified as Columbus police officers, not Muslim police officers, not Christian police officers, not Jewish police officers, not Hindus, Baptists or anything else,” Coleman told The Dispatch.
Coleman had asked safety officials to re-examine the city’s policy after The Dispatch wrote a story in April about Ismahan Isse, a Somali-American woman who left the police academy in March because of the head-scarf ban.
Isse has said she would like to return to the academy but her head covering is an important part of her religion and identity.
Columbus officials point to a 2007 federal ruling in Philadelphia that said the city’s police department did not violate the civil rights of a Muslim officer when it forbade her to wear a head scarf.
The judge said that “prohibiting religious symbols and attire helps to prevent any divisiveness on the basis of religion both within the force itself and when it encounters the diverse population of Philadelphia.”
But Iqbal and other legal experts say the religious clause of the Ohio Constitution provides more protection than the equivalent U.S. amendment. They point to a 2000 case involving an American Indian prison guard who worked at the Hocking Correctional Facility in Nelsonville.
In that case, Wendell Humphrey, a Shoshone-Bannock Indian, wanted to keep his hair long in accordance with his religious beliefs. But state prison officials told him he had cut it to regulation, collar length or shorter, or be fired.
Humphrey sued, and in May 2000, the Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in his favor.
The court agreed that the state has a compelling interest in establishing a grooming policy for its guards because of the dangerous nature of the job. But it said the state didn’t prove that forcing Humphrey to cut his hair was the least-restrictive way of furthering that interest.
The religious-freedom issue has been a hot topic in law-enforcement agencies worldwide, with several cities across the globe making accommodations.
For example, the Edmonton, Alberta, police department in Canada has designed a uniform that includes a hijab that snaps off if grabbed. In Harris County, Texas, home to Houston, the sheriff said in February that a Sikh officer would be allowed to wear his faith’s traditional turban and beard.