Nevada district court applies Fraternal Order of Police v. Newark (3d Cir.), holds no-beard poli

[Alan Leigh Armstrong]

. The person who wrote the rule about not wearing a hat indoors may  
have been in the Navy. The Navy has a rule about not  being "covered"  
inside.
The bar in the club at NWS Seal Beach has a sign that says: "Anyone  
who enters here covered, shall buy a round for the house."

Doesn't the uniform hat count as the equivalent of a yarmulke?

Alan Armstrong

On Aug 13, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Nelson Tebbe wrote:

>
>
> You’re right—it’s supremely odd.  That’s always struck me as a  
> problem with Eisgruber & Sager’s theory of equal liberty.  Why  
> should someone’s religious freedom rights turn on the happenstance  
> of whether the government has created an exemption for some other  
> secular activity?
>
> Got slammed this week, but I’m looking forward to reading  your  
> paper and returning to our dialogue.
>
> Nelson
>
>
>
> On 8/13/08 11:33 AM, "Christopher Lund" <Lund at mc.edu> wrote:
>
> So he can wear a beard, but not a yarmulke - because secular  
> exceptions have been made to the no-beard policy (for medical  
> reasons), but there have been no such exceptions to the no-headgear  
> policy.
>
> I find this troubling.  The no-beard policy falls because people  
> sometimes need beards for medical reasons (pseudo folliculitis  
> barbae [PFB] being a medical condition common in African-American  
> officers, and requiring accommodation under the ADA).  The no- 
> headgear policy is okay because people rarely need hats for medical  
> reasons (the only case I've seen is an ADA case where a plaintiff  
> wanted - and got - a right to wear a hat to disguise a cranial  
> disfigurement).
>
> So we end up giving an accomodation to a religious person seeking  
> to wear a beard, but not one wanting to wear a headcovering --  
> because the relative incidence of cranial disfigurement is higher  
> than that of PFB?
>
> And the irony is that the department seems to have much better  
> reasons for the no-beard policy.  The Court says that beards can be  
> used against officers in fights; they may impede putting on gas  
> masks, etc, etc.  But there are no similar justifications against  
> hats.  The department even lets officers wear hats outside and in  
> vehicles, just not indoors.  (Why, I do not know.)
>
> Best, Chris
>
> Quoting "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>:
>
> >     Riback v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dep't, 2008 WL  
> 3211279 (D.
> > Nev. 2008).  The court concludes, though, that the headgear  
> regulation
> > (which required the removal of all hats when entering any  
> building, when
> > not in uniform) isn't subject to strict scrutiny because "the  
> regulation
> > does not provide individualized exemptions for any reason,  
> secular or
> > religious."
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be  
> viewed as
> > private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that  
> are
> > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> > (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Douglas Laycock
> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
> University of Michigan Law School
> 625 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
>   734-647-9713
>
>
> _______
>
> Christopher C. Lund
> Assistant Professor of Law
> Mississippi College School of Law
> 151 E. Griffith St.
> Jackson, MS  39201
> (601) 925-7141 (office)
> (601) 925-7113 (fax)
>
>
> ______________________________
> Nelson Tebbe
> Associate Professor of Law
> Brooklyn Law School
> 250 Joralemon Street
> Brooklyn, NY  11201
> 718.780.7960
> nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
> Papers available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/ 
> AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=343134
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages  
> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members  
> can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.