ocally“ waives” its immunity from federal claims. Therefore, despite what the Court described as the state’ s“ inexplicable delay” in asserting the doctrine, it nonetheless barred Royster’ s successful ADA claim and jury verdict. However, because Royster filed similar claims under the ADA’ s state law counterpart( the Law Against Discrimination), the Court reinstated part of the judgment in favor of Royster.
While the result in this case is harsh, its impact falls mainly upon law enforcement officers who are state employees. The decision will have limited, if any, impact on law enforcement officers employed by counties or municipalities. Based on the Court’ s decision in the Royster case, state employees who are considering filing lawsuits against the state or state agencies should consult with their attorneys about including state law claims if there are any concerns about whether claims against the state will be dismissed because of the sovereign immunity doctrine.
Jail uniform requirements trump religious practices
In Tisby v. Camden County Correctional Facility, the Appellate Division addressed the extent to which a jail can regulate religious garb worn by an officer. In that case, a female corrections officer who had converted to Islam began to wear a khimar with her uniform. A khimar is a tight-fitting head covering without a veil. The officer contended that wearing the khimar was a sincerely held religious belief that she was required to follow. The Camden County Jail concluded that this violated its uniform regulations, which prohibited any form of head covering. The county argued that it did not need to accommodate this officer’ s religious beliefs because it would interfere with the orderly operations of the institution. The officer filed suit, claiming that the jail’ s actions violated her First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion.
The jail moved to dismiss the case, contending that its policy was based on a reasonable belief that any form of head covering constituted a security risk. This included possible secretion of contraband in the headband and other safety-related arguments. Although no New Jersey case had addressed this issue, federal courts had previously done so and concluded that jail security trumped a requested exemption from a clothing or grooming requirement mandated by a religious belief, no matter how sincerely held. The Court noted that the jail’ s choice of uniform for its personnel was entitled to a presumption of validity. It further found that the jail’ s concern for the safety, security and neutrality at the jail were legitimate non-discriminatory reasons why allowing the plaintiff an accommodation would cause an undue hardship. The officer’ s termination was accordingly upheld in light of her refusal to remove the veil while working.
While governmental agencies are required to make accommodations based upon religious beliefs, courts generally are reluctant to make uniform or grooming exceptions in a prison or law enforcement setting, regardless of the sincerity of the religious practice. Cases usually arise in connection with hair length, beards and uniform issues. While the courts have allowed certain accommodations, an individual seeking such an accommodation must overcome the presumption of validity that the courts generally extend in security and / or law enforcement settings. Law enforcement officers should consult with attorneys if they are seeking an accommodation for religious practices before taking any actions that may result in loss of employment. d www. njcopsmagazine. com ■ FEBRUARY 2017 13