Clark v. City of New York

Background

Jamilla Clark, Arwa Aziz, and Turning Point for Women and Families sued the City of New York over an NYPD policy requiring arrested individuals to remove religious head coverings for official booking photographs. The complaint asserted claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and New York law. The plaintiffs initially sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The opinion states that the injunctive and declaratory claims had been settled.

The policy provided that an arrestee who wanted to keep a religious head covering on could be taken to One Police Plaza for a private photograph, with a same-gender officer available to take the photograph. The policy also warned that the arrest-processing time could be delayed. The resulting photographs without religious head coverings were maintained by the NYPD and could be viewed by others.

Clark alleged that, after her 2017 arrest, officers ordered her to remove her hijab, threatened criminal prosecution if she refused, and made hostile comments about Muslims. She removed the hijab in a private room to be photographed and later alleged that officers showed the photograph to approximately five male officers. Aziz alleged that officers required her to remove her hijab after she had been taken to Brooklyn Central Booking, despite her religious objection, and that she eventually complied after being told that moving to a private location could restart or delay the booking process.

Class-Certification Standards

The plaintiffs moved for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Rule 23 requires a proposed class to satisfy four prerequisites: numerosity, meaning that the class is large enough that joining every person separately is impractical; commonality, meaning that the members share legal or factual questions; typicality, meaning that the representatives’ claims arise from the same general events and legal theory; and adequacy, meaning that the representatives and their lawyers will fairly protect the class’s interests. Rule 23(b)(3) also requires common questions to predominate over individual issues and a class action to be the superior method for resolving the dispute.

The court also applied an implied requirement that the class be ascertainable, meaning that its members can be identified using objective criteria, and considered whether the proposed class was overly broad.

Analysis

The proposed class consisted of all people who were required to remove a religious head covering for a post-arrest photograph while in NYPD custody. The court found the class ascertainable because City records identified more than 4,400 individuals during a four-year period, and the City had the ability to identify other potential members outside that period. The court also found the class was not overly broad. It reasoned that certification did not require the court to decide whether each person’s religious interpretation was correct or whether each person’s religion genuinely required the head covering. The relevant common question was whether the policy’s compelled removal of the head covering violated the person’s religious beliefs and applicable law.

The court found numerosity satisfied. Although the City questioned whether a subset of women who wore hijabs was large enough, City records included more than 2,000 instances involving presumptively religious head coverings such as hijabs, turbans, and yarmulkes or kippahs.

The court found commonality because every proposed class member challenged the same NYPD policy and alleged that the policy required conduct that conflicted with a sincerely held religious belief. The court rejected the City’s argument that differences among the class members’ religions required separate liability determinations. It also found typicality because the named plaintiffs and class members alleged injuries arising from the same general course of conduct.

The court found adequacy satisfied. The City did not dispute the adequacy of representation, and the court identified no basis to question the qualifications or experience of the plaintiffs’ lawyers or any conflict between the named plaintiffs and other class members.

For Rule 23(b)(3), the court concluded that common questions predominated. The class members shared a common legal theory and common facts concerning the NYPD policy, and differences in their religious beliefs did not outweigh those common issues. The court also concluded that a class action was superior because the claims arose from the same policy and the City did not dispute that class treatment was the most efficient method of resolving them.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Electronic Court Filing No. 130. The order addressed class certification; it did not decide whether the NYPD policy violated the asserted laws or award damages.