On September 30, 2004, the United States Department of Justice (D.O.J.) filed a lawsuit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Title VII) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the New York City Transit Authority. The D.O.J. asked the court for injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants had violated Title VII by discriminating against Muslim and Sikh employees because of their religion. Muslim and Sikh individuals are required by their religion to wear head coverings.

The defendants demanded that Muslim and Sikh employees remove their head coverings or cover them with an employer issued hat. The uniform policy provided that employer-issued hats were optional or that non-employer issued hats were prohibited. When the Muslim and Sikh employees refused to cover or remove their head coverings, they were transferred to assignments with no passenger contact.

The complaint alleges that the defendants discriminated because of religion by (1) selectively enforcing uniform policies regarding employer issued hats to target Muslim and Sikh employees who are required by their religion to wear head coverings; (2) taking adverse employment action against Muslim and Sikh employees because of their religious obligation to wear head coverings; (3) failing or refusing to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs; and (4) failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the discriminatory effects of the policies and practices.

This case has been consolidated with five other lawsuits filed by individual employees of the defendants alleging discrimination because of religion. Those cases are: (1) Small v. New York City Transit Authority (1:03-cv-02139), (2) Muhammad v. New York City Transit Authority (1:04-cv-02294), (3) Lewis v. New York City Transit Authority (1:04-cv-02331), (4) Harrington v. Reuter (1:05-cv-03341), and (5) Singh v. New York City Transit Authority (1:05-cv-05477). The individual employees in each of these cases are Sikh or Muslim and allege discrimination because of their refusal to cover their religious head coverings with an employer issued hat, remove their religious head coverings, or emblazon their religious head coverings with the employer logo. The plaintiffs in Small, Muhammad, and Lewis are Muslim women further allege discrimination because of gender. (The defendants permitted Muslim men to wear their religious head coverings uncovered and un-emblazoned.)

The parties engaged in protracted discovery disputes, but on May 30, 2012 entered into a settlement agreement. Under it, the MTA will permit any religious headgear, so long as it is blue, and that it will pay $184,500 to eight current or former employees who had been denied religious accommodations under the old policy.

- 06/02/2012


compress summary