Al-Kadi v. Ramsey County

Background

Aida Shyef Al-Kadi sued Ramsey County, the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office, and Officers Jessica Walker, Rita Baskfield, Allison Schaber, and Dan Frerichs, along with Sergeant Lugene Werner, in their official and individual capacities. She alleged religious discrimination during a brief August 2013 detention at the Ramsey County Adult Detention Center. Her claims arose under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Article I of the Minnesota Constitution, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Al-Kadi testified that her Muslim faith requires her to wear a hijab and abaya in the presence of non-related men, in public, and during prayer. During intake, she was told to remove those garments for a patdown. She was taken to a holding cell after disputing the instructions and removed her hijab while Officer Frerichs was present for part of the time. She was later required to remove her hijab for a booking photograph and was given a bedsheet as a substitute. She also alleged that officers treated her more harshly than other detainees, including by separating her, escorting her through booking, requiring her to change clothes in front of female officers, and placing her in a 23-hour lock-in.

Summary-judgment ruling

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Al-Kadi and did not decide disputed facts or witness credibility.

RLUIPA claim. The court treated the RLUIPA claim as a claim against Ramsey County, because official-capacity claims against the individual defendants and claims against county departments were treated as claims against the county. The court held that the evidence that Ramsey County and the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office received federal funding was sufficient to satisfy RLUIPA’s threshold funding requirement at the summary-judgment stage. The court also found a factual dispute about whether detention-center policies or practices caused the alleged burdens.

The court denied summary judgment on the RLUIPA claim to the extent it concerned requiring Al-Kadi to remove her hijab in front of Frerichs, requiring her to take a booking photo without her hijab, and the cumulative effects of the challenged policies and conduct. A reasonable jury could find that these actions substantially burdened her religious exercise and that the defendants had not shown that the actions were the least restrictive means of serving compelling government interests.

The court granted summary judgment on the RLUIPA claim based on giving Al-Kadi a bedsheet instead of her hijab. It concluded that the record did not show why the sheet was an inadequate alternative for covering her head, neck, and arms, and cited decisions holding that a person need not receive a preferred religious item when an alternative serves the same purpose. The court granted Al-Kadi limited leave to amend solely concerning RLUIPA’s threshold requirements.

Constitutional claims. The court granted summary judgment on Al-Kadi’s First Amendment Free Exercise claim against all defendants. As to the individual defendants, the court applied qualified immunity, which generally protects government officials from damages unless the facts show a constitutional violation and the right was clearly established at the time. The court held that, even assuming a constitutional violation, reasonable officers would not have known that their conduct violated a clearly established right under the existing decisions concerning detention-facility restrictions on religious headwear. Because the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, the court also granted summary judgment to the county defendants on the Free Exercise claim.

The court denied summary judgment on the Equal Protection claim against the individual defendants. It found factual disputes about whether Al-Kadi was treated differently from similarly situated detainees because of her religion or her requests for religious accommodation, and whether the officers’ stated justification—that she was noncompliant—was genuine. The court also concluded that the right to be free from discriminatory treatment based on religion was clearly established.

The court granted summary judgment on the Equal Protection claim against the county defendants. It held that Al-Kadi had not presented evidence that the individual officers’ alleged differential treatment resulted from a Ramsey County policy or practice. A local government is not automatically liable for its employees’ actions under Section 1983; municipal liability requires a policy, custom, or practice attributable to the government itself.

State-law claims and relief. Because the court denied summary judgment on the RLUIPA and Equal Protection claims, it exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It concluded that Al-Kadi could pursue her claim under Article I, Section 16 of the Minnesota Constitution to the extent it concerned removal of her hijab in front of Frerichs, the booking photo, and the cumulative effect of the defendants’ conduct. It also denied summary judgment on the Minnesota Human Rights Act claim because the evidence could support a finding of discriminatory motive.

The court held that requests for an injunction involving conduct limited to Al-Kadi’s detention were moot. It denied summary judgment on injunctive relief to the extent Al-Kadi sought to prevent future release of her booking photo without redacting her hair, neck, and shoulders, because the photo was a public record subject to release and the court found more than a mere possibility of future release. The court denied summary judgment on emotional-injury damages and punitive damages, finding factual disputes concerning the defendants’ intent or indifference. The opinion does not state a dollar amount for damages.

Expert testimony

Al-Kadi moved to exclude the testimony of the defense expert, Odeh Muhawesh. The court granted the motion in full. It found that the expert’s opinions about whether Al-Kadi sincerely held her religious beliefs were irrelevant because the expert’s disagreement with her practices did not determine sincerity. It also found that opinions about whether the defendants violated Islamic law were irrelevant and risked confusing the jury because the legal issues concerned United States and Minnesota law. Finally, the court excluded an opinion that certain officer statements were irrelevant because that opinion improperly offered a legal conclusion and supplied no useful information beyond the expert’s view of what the verdict should be.

Order

The court ordered that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part as described in the opinion. It ordered that Al-Kadi’s motion to exclude expert testimony was granted. It also granted limited leave to amend the complaint only to address RLUIPA’s threshold requirements. Judge John R. Tunheim signed the order.