Search
Close this search box.

HURRAY FOR HIJABS: NYC Agrees To Pay Women $17.5 Million For Forcing Them To Remove Hijabs For Mug Shots

Women in niqab exit the audience seats after the Danish Parliament banned the wearing of face veils in public, at Christiansborg Palace in Copenhagen, Denmark, May 31, 2018. Ritzau Scanpix/Mads Claus Rasmussen/via REUTERS

New York City has reached a $17.5 million settlement with two Muslim women who claimed their rights were violated when they were forced to remove their hijabs for mug shots. The class-action lawsuit, filed in 2018 by Jamila Clark and Arwa Aziz, alleged that the NYPD’s policy of removing religious head coverings for photographs was discriminatory.

The NYPD changed its policy in 2020 to allow religion-based head coverings to be worn in photographs if they do not obstruct faces. The settlement, pending approval by Judge Analisa Torres, will provide compensation to at least 3,600 individuals who were forced to remove their religious head coverings between 2014 and 2021.

The women expressed relief and pride in having brought about a positive change in the NYPD’s policy. “I’m so proud today to have played a part in getting justice for thousands of New Yorkers,” Clark said. Aziz added, “Forcing someone to remove their religious clothing is like a strip search.”

The city’s Law Department said the settlement is a “positive reform” for the police department.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)



3 Responses

  1. So from there we can allow all criminals their right to leave on their masks as well… So let’s all side with the Palestinians which also wear these masks to cover up from people seeing their identity… what a demented country we live in.

  2. The veiled women shown in the picture accompanying this article are not in fact wearing a hijab, but rather niqab. Hijab, which also refers to the general Muslim idea of modest dress, is commonly used to refer to a headscarf which allows the entire face to be seen but covers the neck and hair.

    How many YWN readers would be unhappy with the police forcing a frum woman to remove her head covering? I think it would be a large majority.

  3. This is more like patronage than law. It was an agreement with the city government and a group of lawyers (who end up with much of the money, and presumably then kickback to the politicians). If the case was litigated in the courts, the city would probably have won, and the lawyers, and their politician buddies, would have gotten nothing.

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts