Raneen Albaghdady, left seated, and the Council of American-Islamic Relations-Michigan have filed a federal lawsuit against Wayne County Third. PHOTO: Nick Meyer/TAAN

A Muslim woman from Dearborn Heights who originally went to court for a simple name change filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against Wayne County Circuit Judge Bill Callahan after she was told to remove her hijab in court.
The suit alleges that Raneen Albaghdady’s First Amendment civil rights and the Michigan Constitution were violated because the hijab didn’t impede the functionality of the court.

“This is a seasoned judge who has been there for over 12 years in Wayne County, the largest community of Arabs (per capita) in the country,” said Albaghdady’s attorney Nabih Ayad

“He asked her to remove her hijab and she was forced to testify without her cover which was demeaning to her.”

A statment from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, cites the Michigan Constitution, which states that “the civil rights and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his (or her) religious belief.”

CAIR Michigan staff attorney Melanie ElTurk, talked about Albaghdady’s reasons for filing the lawsuit.

“Her main concern is that any individual who wears a scarf or even a turban or yarmulke will be reluctant to petition,” she said, also adding that it’s important to point out that Callahan shares the bench with Judge Charlene Elder, who wears hijab.

Both juges serve in Third Circuit Court’s family division.

“There is and should be no double standard between an officer of the court and a plaintiff or petitioner within the court,” read the CAIR release.

Judge Callahan and the Third Circuit Court hadn’t yet seen the complaint, but General Counsel Elizabeth R. Kocab released a statement on behalf of Callahan in response to the lawsuit on Wednesday.

“One thing needs to be made clear: at no time during the hearing did Ms. Albaghdady object to removing her head covering, nor did she ever inform the judge that she wore the head covering for religious reasons,” Kocab said in the release.

A YouTube video posted of the incident was said to have left out key footage according to the statement.

In response to Judge Callahan’s direction, “No hats allowed in the courtroom,” Ms. Albaghdady allegedly responded, “Okay, it doesn’t matter,” and immediately removed her head covering, without protest or explanation, according to the statement.

The lawsuit states that Albaghdady’s husband told the judge her hijab wasn’t a hat, but Callahan insisted she remove it.

Well-known Dearborn attorney Majed Moughni on Thursday faxed a letter to The Arab American News in support of Callahan, sayng that he has “always shown the utmost respect to Muslims.”

Albaghdady is a 32-year-old immigrant from Iraq who has been in the U.S. for about a year, traveling back and forth from her home country.

Ayad said Albaghdady complied with the judge because she didn’t want to disobey an authority figure.

“Should she have argued? When the judge tells you to do something, you do it,” he said. “The judge is the highest person she could have appeared in front of and that adds a bit of extra intimidation.”

Rulings involving hijab and other Islamic coverings have become hotly debated and contested in many courtrooms across the world.

On Tuesday, the Michigan Supreme Court adopted a rule that gives judges “reasonable control over parties’ and witnesses’ appearance.” The decision was based on a case involving a Hamtramck woman’s niqab, a veil that covers the entire face except for the eyes.

But Ayad said that the rule is in place so the judge can see all of the person’s facial expressions while speaking and does not apply to the hijab, which he said Albaghdady had no reason to remove.

CAIR has been fighting the rule regarding the niqab in other areas on grounds that it is unconstitutional.

In addition to the niqab rule, another new law recently passed in Oregon will go into effect on Jan.1, 2010, effectively eliminating the right to wear religious attire in schools.

Dubbed the “Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act,” the bill requires employers to accommodate workers’ observances of religious holidays and their right to wear religious garments as long as they don’t pose a significant difficulty or expense to the business. On the surface, the bill appears to be a step toward diversity. However, a clause in the bill specifically singles out public schools as workplaces where religious freedoms do not apply.

When the law goes into effect on January 1, 2010, Oregon will join Pennsylvania as the only states in the country that forbid teachers from wearing religious attire on school grounds.

CAIR joined with the Sikh community in Portland and argued against the act but was unable to stop it from being passed.

Ayad said that the issues will continue to be problematic unless more clear laws are adopted.

“The issue is going to continue to come up unless a federal court makes a mandate that you can’t discriminate against people based on religious attire for all religions,” he said.