Muslim Woman Ordered To Remove Headscarf Hijab By Michigan Police, Decides to Sue

A Muslim woman has filed a case against the City of Dearborn Heights in Michigan and its police department, alleging that her religious rights were violated after she was ordered to remove her headscarf, or hijab, when she was booked following her arrest for traffic violation.

Malak Kazan, 27, of Wayne County, filed the case through her lawyer Amir Makled last Jan. 20. The suit also included Dearborn Heights police officers and police chief Lee Gavin as defendants in the case, which seeks a jury trial.

According to the lawsuit, the incident happened on July 9 last year when Kazan was stopped by a Dearborn Heights police officer for a traffic violation.

The officer noticed that Kazan's license had been suspended and she was arrested for driving while her license was suspended.

When she was taken to the police department, she was asked to remove her headscarf for booking photo.

Kazan told a police officer "that she could not remove her headscarf because it would be a violation of her faith." The police told her that it was a policy, but Kazan said it was discriminatory.

She then talked to the supervisor, who told her that the headscarf needed to be removed for the photo. She requested that a female police officer be the one to take her photo, but "this request was denied."

Kazan claimed that a police officer told her that if she would not remove her headscarf, "she would be detained for longer."

In accordance with her religious beliefs, the lawsuit said, Kazan wears a headscarf covering her hair, ears, neck and part of her chest in public and when she is in the presence of men who are not members of her immediate family.

"The prohibition on Ms. Kazan's use of a religious headcovering pursuant to the above-described custom, practice, or policy violated her right to the free exercise of her religion, violated her rights under federal law, and caused her extreme mental and emotional distress," the lawsuit stated.

The lawsuit claims that the policy violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 42 which states that "No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution."

It also said it violated the First Amendment on the free exercise of religion.