Talukder v. State of New York

Background

M.D. A. Talukder, a Sunni Muslim man who wears a three-inch beard consistent with his religious beliefs, sought to become a New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) officer. When he arrived at the DOCCS Training Academy on August 1, 2021, he was told that he could not receive an identification card or enter the academy unless he trimmed his beard to one-eighth of an inch. Talukder requested a religious accommodation, but the acting academy director, Kim Ghatt, denied the request. Talukder did not return to the academy.

Talukder’s lawsuit asserts claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendants are the State of New York, DOCCS, Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci, and Kim Ghatt.

Requests for Relief

Talukder asked the court to extend a consent order entered in a prior related proceeding involving DOCCS officers. That order required DOCCS and Annucci, in his official capacity, not to retaliate against corrections officers who requested permission to wear beards for religious reasons, and provided certain temporary beard-related protections to covered officers. Talukder also asked, alternatively, for a preliminary injunction requiring DOCCS to allow him to attend the Training Academy as a corrections-officer trainee while maintaining his three-inch beard.

Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended denying both requests. Talukder objected, arguing that he was a DOCCS employee and therefore covered by the consent order, and that denying him the opportunity to train with his beard caused irreparable harm.

Court’s Analysis

The court adopted Judge Aaron’s report in full. It concluded that Talukder was not currently a DOCCS employee for purposes of the requested relief. Although DOCCS had offered him a probationary appointment as a corrections-officer trainee, Talukder had been excluded from the academy since August 2021, had received no pay or benefits, and did not allege an ongoing employment relationship with DOCCS. The court also noted that the consent order expressly applied to “corrections officers,” not trainees, and declined to alter the parties’ agreement without their consent.

The court separately held that Talukder had not shown irreparable harm, an injury that cannot adequately be remedied with money damages. Because he was not currently employed by DOCCS, the court characterized his principal injury as economic harm from lost employment and income. It concluded that this harm could be addressed through money damages or possible reinstatement and therefore did not justify a preliminary injunction.

Because Talukder failed to establish irreparable harm, the court did not decide whether he had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. It also stated that it was not deciding the merits of his claims for permanent injunctive relief.

Disposition

The court overruled Talukder’s objections, adopted Judge Aaron’s report in full, denied Talukder’s request to extend the consent order, and denied his alternative motion for a preliminary injunction. The case was not resolved on the merits of Talukder’s constitutional and Title VII claims; the court directed the parties to propose next steps and required the defendants to answer the complaint.