Bah v. City of New York

Background

Adama Bah alleged that she is a Muslim woman who wears a hijab. She claimed that, after New York City police officers arrested her, officers at several police facilities required or pressured her to expose or remove the hijab during searches and booking photographs. Bah alleged that Sergeant Marilyn Aguirre threatened to remove it by force, and that Lieutenant Charmaine Pilgrim told her she would have to remain overnight unless she agreed to be photographed without it. Bah eventually removed the hijab because she feared missing her daughter’s kindergarten graduation.

Bah asserted claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the New York Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim, to dismiss the claims against Police Officer Neva Becerril, Sergeant Marilyn Aguirre, and Lieutenant Charmaine Pilgrim. Bah stated that she withdrew her claims against Becerril, so the court addressed only the claims against Aguirre and Pilgrim.

RLUIPA claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss Bah’s claims against the individual defendants under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Bah did not claim to be suing the individual defendants in their personal capacities. The court held that her official-capacity claims were duplicative because she also sued the City of New York; an official-capacity claim is generally treated as another way of suing the governmental entity that employs the official.

U.S. Free Exercise claims

The court also granted the motion to dismiss Bah’s U.S. Free Exercise claims against Aguirre and Pilgrim. The defendants invoked qualified immunity, a protection that can shield government officials from damages liability unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

The court concluded that, when the events occurred, existing precedent did not clearly establish that forcing an arrestee to remove a religious head covering for an arrest-processing photograph violated the U.S. Free Exercise Clause. Earlier cases involving religious practices, forced hair cutting, or booking photographs taken outside the presence of male officers did not establish the specific right alleged here. The court therefore held that the federal constitutional claims could be dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

New York Free Exercise claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss Bah’s claims under the New York Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. Under New York law, officials are protected by qualified immunity unless their actions were taken in bad faith or without a reasonable basis. The court held that the defendants had not shown from the face of the complaint that they acted without bad faith. It declined to presume that Aguirre’s decision to allow Bah to move her hijab over her ears was an effort to accommodate her, because the court had to accept Bah’s allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in her favor at this stage.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the defendants’ motion was granted as to Bah’s claims against the individual defendants under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the U.S. Free Exercise Clause, and denied as to her claims under the New York Free Exercise Clause. The order did not resolve Bah’s claims against the City of New York.