Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to WearReligiousScarf

[Volokh, Eugene]

            Maybe I'm missing something, but I assume the Directive's
allowance of scarves implicitly refers to scarves worn around the neck.
A headscarf is a different item of clothing, headwear rather than
neckwear.  Just as a "ring" in common parlance doesn't include an
"earring" (I realize that the policy allows both, to a certain degree;
I'm just offering a general analogy here), so a "scarf" in common
parlance doesn't include a "headscarf."

 

            As to what rule she violated, I take it that the rule was
Directive 78's exclusive list of what might be worn - the same rule as
would have been violated if a police officer wore a pin containing some
ideological message.

 

            Eugene

 

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 6:12 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to
WearReligiousScarf

 

This case appears to have just become outrageous. She can wear a scarf
but not "this" scarf?  Or not for "this" reason?  Or not if she's a
Muslim?  What rule, or what interpretation, did she violate?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090408/2678885b/attachment.htm>