MICHAEL J. GARCIA United States Attorney for the

t'l

Southern District of New York

By: BENJAMIN H. TORRANCE (BT-1118)

Assistant United States Attorney

86 Chambers Street

New York, New York 10007

Telephone: 212.637.2703

Fax: 212.637.2702

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------ x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

cv

... ::, ,L. i~
~UL

/QU7j

U:S.D.L. ~, . ;.). N.) ,
1.--C-A-S-H-I.E. -RS ~

COMPLAINT ECF Case

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------ x

Plaintiff United States of America alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. The United States brings this civil action to enforce the provisions of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended ("Title VII"). As set forth

more fully below, the United States alleges in this action that defendant New York State

Department of Correctional Services, the agency responsible for operating the prisons of New

York State, has engaged in an unlawful pattern or practice of employment discrimination on the

basis of religion by failing or refusing to accommodate the religious observances, practices,

and/or beliefs of those uniformed security personnel who are unable to comply with DOCS's

uniform or grooming requirements because of their religious observances, practices, and/or

beliefs. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 US.c. § 2000e-6(b) and 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1345.
3. Venue lies in this judicial district pursuant to 42 US.c. § 2000e-5(f)(3). THE PARTIES
4. Plaintiff is the United States of America. 5. Defendant New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") is an agency of the State of New York. DOCS is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and an "employer" within the meaning of 42 U.S.c. § 2000e(b).
PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION 6. DOCS is the agency of New York State responsible for the confinement of persons under sentence of imprisonment by the State of New York, and the operation of facilities where such persons are confined. N.Y. Correct. Law §§ 5, 70 et seq. The Acting Commissioner of DOCS is Brian Fischer. 7. DOCS employs over 31,000 persons. Approximately 21,000 of those employees are uniformed security personnel, including superintendents, deputy superintendents, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and correction officers. 8. DOCS is responsible for establishing the terms, conditions, policies, and practices that bear upon the employment of its employees. 9. DOCS has promulgated Directive Number 3083, entitled "UniformlEquipment Issue and Appearance," which establishes uniform and grooming requirements for its uniformed
2

security personnel. Directive 3083 was last issued September 3,2003, and last revised November 15, 2005. Directive 3083 sets forth the composition of each class of uniform and permissible accessories to be worn by correction officers. Id. ~~ III-VIII. The Directive also sets forth personal grooming standards. Id. ~ IX.
10. Directive 3083 does not recognize or permit any exceptions to its requirements to provide accommodation for any employee's religious observance, practice, and/or belief. Nor does Directive 3083 establish any procedure for its uniformed security personnel to request such religious accommodations.
11. DOCS maintains and enforces a policy or practice of refusing to grant any accommodation to uniformed security personnel that would alter DOCS's uniform or grooming requirements for reasons of religious observance, practice, and/or belief.
12. DOCS has pursued and continues to pursue policies and practices that discriminate against employees on the basis of religion, in violation of section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a)(1), among other ways by failing or refusing to reasonably accommodate employees who are unable to comply with DOCS's uniform or grooming requirements because of their religious observances, practices, and/or beliefs; and by failing or refusing to take appropriate action to eliminate the discriminatory policies and practices and to remedy the effects of those policies and practices.
13. Upon information and belief, DOCS discriminated against Abdus Samad N. Haqq, who is employed by DOCS as a correction officer, on the basis of his religion in violation of section 703(a) of Title Vll, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), by failing or refusing to reasonably accommodate Mr. Haqq's religious observance, practice, and/or belief as a Muslim of wearing a
3

kufi, i.e., a skullcap. Upon infonnation and belief, DOCS directed Mr. Haqq in May 2005 to stop wearing his kufi while working as a correction officer, even though Mr. Haqq had previously worn his kufi while working as a correction officer for years without incident and even though allowing him to wear a kufi would not cause undue hardship to DOCS.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF 14. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 13 as if fully set forth in this paragraph. 15. DOCS's policies and practices described above constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by employees of equal employment opportunities without discrimination on the basis ofreligion in violation of section 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. The pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII. Unless restrained by an order of this Court, DOCS will continue to pursue policies and practices that are the same as or similar to those alleged in this Complaint. WHEREFORE, plaintiff United States prays that this Court enter judgment enjoining DOCS, its officers, agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from discriminating on the basis of religion, and specifically: A. enjoining DOCS from failing or refusing to accommodate the religious observances, practices, and/or beliefs of DOCS's unifonned security personnel who are unable to comply with DOCS's unifonn or grooming requirements because of their religious observances, practices, and/or beliefs; B. ordering DOCS to adopt a unifonn and grooming policy that reasonably accommodates the religious observances, practices, and/or beliefs of DOCS 's unifonned security
4

persOlmel who are unable to comply with DOCS's uniforn1 or grooming requirements because of
their religious observances, practices, or beliefs;
C. ordering DOCS to take such other steps as may be necessary to prevent and
remedy employment discrimination and the patterns or practices of discrimination in
employment identified above;
D. granting such further relief as the Court may deem just, together with the United
States' costs and disbursements in this action.
Respectfully submitted,
AALtBEtRo,tO~Rt.iGO:Nv~hiItJe; d States
By: WAN J. KIM / Assistant Atto ey General Civil Rights Division

Dated: New York, New York
f"'1A.(l.Ctf 12 , 2007

MICHAEL J. GARCIA

United States Attorney for the

Southern District of New York

Attorney for Plaintiff United States

By:

~~ :2'2,;::? ___ . /c;;.x.NJAMIN H. TORRANCE (BT-1118)

Assistant United States Attorney

86 Chambers Street

New York, New York 10007

Telephone: 212.637.2703

Fax: 212.637.2702

5

 
 UNITED STATES D1STRlCT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------.-------------.-------.----.---.-------- x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

:

(
USDCSDNY

DOCUMENT

ELECfRONK":ALLY FILED

,

ODAOlC~ ,F: n_..B_D_:

_ ~~---
VI Y/t. o &

Plaintiff.

01 Civ. 2243 (OC)

v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT
ECFCase

Defendant.
-------------------------••••- -•••--. X

WHEREAS, the United States ofAmerica (the "United States") commenced this action

(the "Action") against the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") to

enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.s.C. § 2000e el seq., as amended

("Title Vll");

WHEREAS, in its Complaint, the United States alleged that DOCS, the New York State

department responsible for operating the State's correctlonal facilities, has engaged in an

unlawful pattern or practice ofemployment discrimination on the basis ofreligion by faiting or

refusing to accommodate the religious observances, pllletices. andlor heliefs of DOCS's

uniformed personnel who are unable to comply with DOCS's uniform or grooming requirements

because of their religious observances, practices, andlor beliefs;

WHEREAS, the United States' Complaint alleged that DOCS maintains and enforces a

policy or practice of refusing to grant any accommodation to its uniformed personnel that would

alter DOCS's unifonn or grooming requirements for reasons ofreligious observances, practices,

andlor beliefs;

WHEREAS, the United States' Complaint funher alleged that DOCS discriminated

against Abdus Samad N. Haqq. who is employed by DOCS 8S a correction offieer. on the basis of his religion in violation otTitle VII by failing or refusing to reasonably accommodate Mr. Haqq's religious observance, practice, andlor belief as a Muslim of wearing a kufi (i,e., a skullcap);
WHEREAS. on or about October S, 2006, Mr. Hac(q filed a lawsuit against DOCS in the Unite<! States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York, styled Haqq v. New York Stale Deparrmelll o/Correctional Services, 06 eiv. 8156 (HB) (the "Private Action"), alleging, among other things, that DOCS violated Title VII by failing or relU3ing to reasonably accommodate Mr. Haqq's religious observance. practice, andlor beliefof wearing a kufi;
WHEREAS, on or about January 9, 2007, the United States advised DOCS by letter that the United States intended to commence a civil action agairu;t DOCS alleging that DOCS had violated Title VII by engaging in a pattern or practice ofemployment discrimination on the basis ofreligion by failing to reasonably accommodate religious observances or practices;
WHEREAS, on or about MIlICh 16, 2007, DOCS adopte<! and published a "Revision Notice" adding a new Section X to DOCS's Directive No. 3083, which Directive is entitled "UnifonnlEquipment Issues and Appearance" and which outlines the polides and procedures established for issuance, wearing. maintenance, and disposition of all uniform items and accessories by uniformed employees. The "Revision Notice" provides a procedure by which DOCS '5 uniformed employees may request reasonable accommodations from the requirements contained in Directive No. 3083 based on their sincerely held religious beliefs;
WHEREAS. on or about March 8. 2007, DOCS penniUed Mr. Haqq to begin wearing a solid-colored, dark blue or black. close.fitting kufi while on duty as a conection officer for DOCS under cenain terms and conditions. and thereafter. Mr. Haqq and DOCS entered into a
2

settlement agreement resolving the Private Action, approved by the court on May 2, 2007, in which DOCS admitted no liability or wrongdoing;
WHEREAS, DOCS denies the allegations contained in the United States' Complaint and has agreed to settle tbis Action without admitting fault or liability or any wrongdoing on the pan of DOCS;
WHEREAS, the United Stales and DOCS agree that settlement of this Action without further litigation is in the public interest and that entry ofthis Stipulation and Order is the most appropriate means of resolving this Action;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, AGREED, AND ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
I. This CoW1 has jurisdiction overthis Action pursuant to 42 U.s.C. § 2000e-6(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1345.
2. Venue lies in this judicial district purSWlllt to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(1)(3). GENERAL RELIEF
3. DOCS shall not engage in any act or practice that unlawfully discriminates against any current or prospective employee because of that person's religion, as that lenn is defined by Title YU. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j), with respect to that employee's unifonn or personal appearance.
4. DOCS shall not fail or refuse to reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious observances, pnlCtices, andlor beliefs of OOCS 's cumnt or prospective unifonned personnel who noti!), DOCS thai they are unable to comply with DOCS's unifonn or grooming requirements because of thelr religious observances, practice., andlor beliefs, unless making such a reasonable accommodation would impose l1li \llldue hardship on DOCS.
3

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION POLICY 5. DOCS shall adhere to a policy (the "Religious Accommodation Policy" or "Policy") that reasonably accommodates the sincerely held religious observances, practices, andlor beliefs of DOCS's Wlifonned personnel who notify DOCS tbat they are unable to comply with DOCS's Wlifonn or grooming requirements because of their religious observances, practices, andlor beliefs, unless making such a reasonable accommodation would impose an undue hardship on DOCS. 6. The Policy shall be in writing and include all of the following elemenlS:
a. The Policy shall provide a procedure by which unifonned personnel may request accommodations from Wlifonn or grooming requirements because of their sincerely held religious observances, practices, andlor beliefs;
b. The Policy shall provide for an individualized assessment of each such request for an accommodation;
c. The Policy shall provide that DOCS shall grant a reasonable accommodation in response to a request for an accommodation, made pursuant to the procedure provided in paragraph 6.a herein and based on a sincerely held religious observance, practice, andior belief, Wlless based on a thorough evaluation of all facts and circumstances relevant to the individual case (which may include, among other things, the employee's job assignment or the facility in which the employee works), it is demonstrated that granting such an accommodation would work an undue hardship on DOCS;
d. The Policy shall require that any decision to grant or deny, in whole or in part, a request for a religious accommodation made pursuant to the procedure provided in paragraph 6.a shall be memorialized in writing with a copy of the decision provided to the
4

requesting employee, 7, Tbe panies agree that the Revision Notice adopted by DOCS dated March 16,
2007, adding Section X to DOCS Directive 31>83, attacbed hereto as Exhibit A, shall be con5idered a POlicy in compliance with paragraph 6 (includinS subparagrapb5) of this Stipulation and Order.
8. DOCS's decisions regarding requests for religious IICcommodation under the Policy sball be governed by the following prov;sioll!l, unless adherinS to sucb provisions would, impose an Wldue hardsbip OIl DOCS as specified in par1I8l'l1pb 6.c:
a. A request for an accommodation may not be denied solely on the ground that it allows persons, including inmates, to identify the religion of the employee.
b, Permission to wear a solid-colored. dark blue or black, close-fitting kuft or yarmulke. or long hair worn in a clean and neatly groomed manner and arranged in a style SO thet the hair does not fall over the ears or eyebrows or extend more than one-balf inch below the top of the uniform collar, shall be considered a reasonable accommodation that DOCS will provide to a uniformed employee who requests religious accommodation pursuant to the procedure provided in paragraph 6.a, The accommodations deseribed in this sub-paragraph do not constitute an exclusive list of reasonable accommodations.
c. If DOCS denies a request for a religious accommodation made pursuant to the procedure provided in paragraph 6.a, it shall. in the written response required by the Policy, state specific reasons for doing so.
9. In the event DOCS motiifies the language of Section X of Directive 3083 during the tent! of this Stipulation and Order, it shall provide prior written notice of the change to the United States, through undersigned counsel, Ifthe United States objects to the change as
5

inconsistent with the terms and objectives of this Stipulation and Order, it shall notify DOCS of such objection in writing within fourteen days of receipt of DOCS '5 notice. The United States will not unreasonably object to any proposed change to Section X of Directive 3083 proposed by DOCS. In the event the United States objects to a proposed cbange in accordance with this paragraph, then the parties shall attempt to resolve the dispute as set fonh in paragraph 17 ofthis Stipulation and Order; provided, however, that ifthe parties do not resolve the dispute regarding the proposed change within thirty days after DOCS's receipt of the United States' objection to the change, DOCS may petition the Court for a determination of whether the proposed change is consistent with the terms and objectives of the Stipulation and Order. No change to Section X of Directive 3083 shall become effective until either (a) the United States fails to object in writing to the proposal within the time set fonh in this paragraph; (b) the United States' Objection is resolved by agreement in writing between the parties; or (c) if DOCS petitions the Court as provided in this paragraph, the Court determines that the change is consistent with the terms and objectives of this Stipulation and Order.
RECORD-KEEPING AND REPORTING 10. For the duration of this Stipulation and Order, DOCS shall keep and preselVe records of all requests for acconunodations made pursuant to the Policy and all written responses to such requests. Once each year, fourteen calendar days prior to the anniversary date of the entry of this Stipulation and Order, and fourteen calendar days prior to the end of the term of this Stipulation and Order, DOCS shall produce to the United States copies of all such requests and responses received in the time since DOCS previously produced such requests and responses. I!. For the duration of this Stipulation and Order, DOCS shall cooperate with all reasonable written requests by the United States for information and documents relevant to assess
6

DOCS's compliance with this Stipulation and Order. 12. DOCS shall notify the United States of any complaint received by DOCS's Office
of Diversity Management during the term ofthis Stipulation and Order alleging discrimination by DOCS against a DOCS employee on the basis ofreligion, including but not limited to complaints before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the New York State Division of HUman Rights. as well as informal complaints regarding the denial of a requested accommodation. Such notice shall be made in writing and provided to counsel for the United States within thirty days after receipt of such a complaint by DOCS and shall include a copy of the complaint alleging discrimination.
MODIFICATION 13. There shall be no modifICation oftIDs Stipulation and Order withoot the wrillen consent ofthe United States and DOCS, through their respective counsel. and the approval ofthe Court.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT; NO ADMISSION 14. This Stipulation and Order represents the entire agreement between the United States and DOCS concerning the subject mailer described herein. No prior agreements, oml representations, or slatements shall be considered part of this Stipulation and Order. IS. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shan be construed as an admission or acknowledgment of liability, wrongdoing, or violation oflaw by DOCS regarding any of th. allegations contained in the Complaint ill this Action.
TERM; RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 16. The term of this Stipulation and Order shall begin on the date it is entered by the Court and continue through July 1,2010, and this Court shall retain jurisdiction of Ibis Action for
7

such period to enforce or modilY the provisions ofthis Stipulation and Order, to resolve any dispute that ari!lel under this Stipulation and Order, and to entertain any application and issue any orders as may be ne«lSsary or appropriate for the effectuation of its terms II!1d objectives.
17. The parties sball attempt to informally resolve any disputes, concerns, or perceived Violations that may arise under this Stipulation and Order. To that end, the United States will notilY DOCS in writing of any perceived instances ofnon-compliance with this Stipulation and Order's terms, and DOCS may respond in writing within thirty days. The parties agree to meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve such matters prior to seeking the intervention ofthe Court. In no event shaH the United States make any motion to enforce tbis StipUlation and Order less than fony-five days aller providing DOCS with written notice of the perceived violation as required by this paragraph. If, aller receiving written notification of any perceived non-compliance with this Stipulation and Order's tenus, DOCS cures tbe alleged non· compliance to the satisfaction of the United States, the United States agrees nOl !O seek relief from the Court relating to the non-compliance, including, but not limited to, an order of contempt.
EXEC1JTION OF STIP1JLAnON AND ORDER 18. This Stipulation and Order may be executed in counterpartS, eacb of wbich shall be an original and shall constitute one and the same instrument
COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES 19. Each party shall bear its OWn costs and attorney's fees in this Action.
8

THE PARTlES HEREBY CONSENT 10 entry of the foregoing Stipulatinn and Order:

Dated; New York, New York
January J L 2008

Dated: New York, New YotIc
J.L. JIlllWUY 2008

MICHAEL J, GARCIA

ANDREW M, CUOMO

Unite<! Stales Attorney for the Southern

Attorney Genen11 of the Stale of

District of New York

New York

~~ Attorn,~~
By:

Attorne for Dcfi=_.
By;

lAMIN O. TORRANCE

OHN M, SCOWARTZ

86 Chambers Street

120 Broadway

New York., New York 10007

New York, New York 10271

Telephone: 212.637.2103

Telephone; 212AI6,8SS9

SO ORDERED,

Daled: New York. New York

Jan

8

IN. U,S,"U__
f(lffo? (!
'J

9

Exhibit A

- - MAR-21-2007 12:32

P.1il2

"'0\11 CIlIiIW 't"OIb( OU~TOF CO""lCTlOr4A4, ~Oh
REVISION NOTIOE

Tm.<
Uniform/Equipment 188ue an~ Appearance

OIF/lt 3083 Old. 02I02I07

A

.C.
lOU
"TI
MAR 16 2001

[J Add new $tCDOO X. as SUIted below, and renumber ellbtiri& sectiollS X. Xl. XlI. to XI, XII. and xm.

X. ltELIGlQUS t\.CCOMMODAIlON: Uniform~ cmployees mtry r.quest a reaton.bl. ac~onunod&tion. band all Iheir sincerdy held "Iiglolll belieC.s. from the requirements oulliniod in this Directi"., ancllbe Depanmelll will prov!,", $U1:hlTIIUoll&ble ~cQOmmodation WlleU doing so would result in an undue hardship' on the Department.

FI A r"<!llest Cor a reasonable acc:onui1odation based silleerely held relis!ollS belie($ will be
individually uUlled by the Depll"Clll.Cnt. .Ill detlrnninm, whelher a re'l.l.lUtId ..commodation is

reasonable or whether .be requested ac:commodllion will ere¥- an 1lIIdue hardship on the Department, the

Depanmllllt will e".illite the hcu and cin;umstanm relqvanl to 1M individual .mployee ,ituation.

Th... f&.C1s &Rc! circumstances may inelude, bu' may 1I0t b~ limited to: the employ..'s job duties and

assignments; the facUity at which the employ~c works; Ibc ~\( location within the facility; the cuslodial

obliJIalion the Departtn~nt has to inmates; the impact tne c!-quested I\C'commodation bas' on employ....

similarly simated; whetber the re'l.Ull$led accolllllloda!ion ""qui,u more than ordinary adminislnlive

costs, diminishes effieiency in other jobs, Or Ul.fringe. on otbj,r ""ploye..• riehu or benefits; workpllCe

,.rely; other laws or reCIIIBliona; andlor whether the req~'d accommodation n.gatively impacts Of

jeopardizes th~ safety and .ecllrity of the requlOSling empl4yee, other employees, illllWes, andior Ibe

pllblie.

.

j

. I

A request far religious aceommodation may b. ada.p..ad !h<ougb. 'l'ariollS _ , inc!ucUng but
not limited 10 vo\untilly substilllliclll or swaps, job ro:asailMlenll, or modifioation of wort;plae.· poUci•••
! prlCtices, or proudures,
. ,
To request a r."""uble accommodatiolllUoder this s~.tion, all employ•• should submit a writtell
~ulSt stating the basis for the request .nd the aceommodaliin requested and should send Ihll: requcst to the Directot, Oftie. of Div....ity Manapm.n~ NYS Dtpmm.nl of Correctionu Services. 1220 Wa.hlngloP A"enue, Albany, N.,... York 12221>, A copy ;of the roqueSl should also be sen! to the

Director, Offic:.e of Personnel, NYS Oepartmelll of Correelianal Sel'lic.., 1220 Wub.ington A"enue,

Albany, N"", York 12226.

.,

A written r_rponu to the requa. will be fo/Warded Jlhe employ••,
I
I ,

TOTAL P. i:!£

 
 U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-02243-DC

United States of America v. New York Department of Correctional Services Assigned to: Judge Denny Chin Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 03/15/2007 Date Terminated: 01/18/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff United States of America

represented by Benjamin H. Torrance U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY (Chambers Street) 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 212-637-2703 Fax: 212-637-2702 Email: benjamin.torrance@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
New York Department of Correctional Services

represented by John Michael Schwartz State of New York Office of the Attorney General 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 (212) 416-8559 Fax: (212) 416-6075 Email: john.schwartz@oag.state.ny.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 03/26/2007 03/27/2007
03/27/2007 03/27/2007 03/30/2007 03/30/2007 03/30/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against New York Department of Correctional Services. Document filed by United States of America.(jpo) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to New York Department of Correctional Services. (jpo) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
Case Designated ECF. (jpo) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
CASE REFERRED TO Judge Harold Baer, Jr. as possibly related to 06cv8156. (jpo) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
2 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by John Michael Schwartz on behalf of New York Department of Correctional Services (Schwartz, John) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
3 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Harold Baer, Jr. from Benjamin H. Torrence dated 3/23/07 re: I was going to accept this case but I need not do so under Rule 17 of our rules. I'm certainly not going to try 2 almost identical cases - you decide and I'll abide by your wishes. If the ACLU settles as they apparently believe they will before their June trial - I'll keep yours, if they don't yours will have to be on the same now extended - for discovery track or I will send it back to the wheel under Rule 17. Tell me by 3/28/07 what you want to do. (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 3/26/07) (db) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED. New York Department of Correctional Services waiver sent on 3/15/2007, answer due 5/14/2007. Document filed by United States of America. (Torrance, Benjamin) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
5 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE sent to NYS Dep't of Corr. Servs.. Document filed by United States of America.Request for Waiver Mailed on 3/15/2007. (Torrance, Benjamin) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
CASE DECLINED AS NOT RELATED. Case referred as related to 1:06-cv-8156 and declined by Judge Harold Baer and returned to wheel for assignment. (laq) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
6 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Judge Harold Baer. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (laq) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton is so designated. (laq) (Entered: 04/03/2007)

04/03/2007 04/12/2007 05/14/2007 01/18/2008

Mailed notice to the attorney(s) of record. (laq) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
7 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Denny Chin. Judge Harold Baer is no longer assigned to the case. (jeh) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
8 ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by New York Department of Correctional Services.(Schwartz, John) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
9 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT, DOCS shall not engage in any act or practice that unlawfully discriminates against any current or prospective employee because of that person's religion, as further set forth in this document. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees in this Action. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 1/18/08) (cd) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

01/25/2008 11:20:26

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: ddalton

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:07-cv-02243-DC

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

0.16

 
 #08-042: 01-18-08 Justice Department Settles Muslim Corrections Officer Religious Liberty Case Page 1 of 1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 2008 WWW.USDOJ.GOV

CRT (202) 514-2007 TDD (202) 514-1888

Justice Department Settles Muslim Corrections Officer Religious Liberty Case

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today that a federal court in Manhattan approved a consent decree between the Justice Department and the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). The consent decree settles the Justice Department’s lawsuit alleging that DOCS failed to accommodate the religious practices of correctional officers as required by federal law.

The suit, filed on March 15, 2007, arose out of a case in which a Muslim correctional worker at a halfway house had for years been permitted to wear a prayer cap, or kuffi, but in 2005 was told he must remove the skull cap while at work. The suit alleged that there was no policy in place for DOCS to review requests for reasonable accommodation of religious practices as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the settlement approved today, DOCS must keep in place a process under which employees seeking religious accommodations to workplace policies, whether uniform issues, Sabbath and religious holiday observances, or other issues, are given an individualized review and determination. Denial of a requested reasonable accommodation may only be made after a detailed consideration of the impact of the accommodation on performance of job duties. The Muslim corrections officer whose case prompted the suit has been permitted to wear a dark blue or black kuffi with his uniform while working at the halfway house since shortly after the Justice Department notified DOCS that it would file suit.

“Today’s settlement underscores the Justice Department’s commitment to protecting the religious liberties guaranteed by federal law for all Americans,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Grace Chung Becker.

“Federal law prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of religion, and requires reasonable accommodation of employees’ religious practices,” said U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Michael J. Garcia. “We are pleased that DOCS has agreed to give fair consideration to its uniformed officers’ requests for such accommodations.”

###

08-042

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/January/08_crt_042.html

1/25/2008