Category: ctgfjacks

EAT refuses to interfere with tribunals injury award

first_imgRelated posts:No related photos. EAT refuses to interfere with tribunals injury awardOn 1 Feb 2002 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article A £10,000 award for sexual harassment has been upheld on appeal even thoughthe appeals tribunal described the level of compensation as ‘generous’£10,000 award for injury to feelings not excessive Bennett t/a Foxbar Hotel v Reid IDS Brief 699, EAT Ms Reid brought a successful claim for sex discrimination after experiencing12 months of sexual harassment which culminated in her dismissal. The tribunalawarded her £10,000 for injury to feelings after finding the treatment shesuffered was distasteful and unpleasant, especially as Mr Bennett had attemptedto take advantage of his economic power over Reid. The tribunal was satisfiedthat Reid was seriously distressed, angered and hurt by Bennett’s conduct, thather distress and misery lasted for a long period and intensified after herdismissal. On appeal, Bennett argued that the award was punitive and grosslydisproportionate taking into account the evidence given by Reid. Moreover, theaward was excessive when compared to a personal injury award for a comparablepsychiatric injury. Although the EAT was of the view the award of £10,000 was”generous”, it considered the nature of the conduct proved againstBennett and its effect on Reid and held the award was not out of proportion towhat might reasonably have been awarded. The appeal was dismissed. Key points – The latest available figure for the average injury to feelings awards insexual harassment cases is £6,423. – Tribunals award sums for injury to feelings on a subjective basis.However, in the case of ICTS (UK) Ltd v Tchoula [2000] IRLR 643, the EATestablished that there are two categories of possible awards, a higher and alower one depending on whether there was a persistent and sustained campaign ofdiscrimination. In that case the tribunal reduced the injury to feelings awardfrom £22,000 to £7,500 on the grounds the initial award was excessive. – The appeal courts will only interfere with the tribunal’s award if itfinds the lower court has erred in principle or reached a figure “totallydisproportionate” to what it believes the appropriate level would be. – Employers should take complaints of harassment seriously and deal withthem as soon as possible to avoid the likelihood of a higher injury to feelingssum being awarded against them. Confidential references to be disclosed University of Glasgow v Jindal Digest No 49, autumn 2001, EAT, EOR Jindal failed to obtain the position of chairman at the university becauseof adverse references provided in confidence by third parties. Jindal claimedrace discrimination, and successfully sought disclosure of the references. Thetribunal held that as the references included details of the circumstances uponwhich the university had reached its decision, fairness dictated that Jindalshould have sight of them and be aware of who wrote them. The universityunsuccessfully appealed to the EAT. While the disclosure of confidentialinformation, particularly in relation to third-party references, is highlysensitive, the EAT ruled the tribunal had applied the correct test inconsidering both the relevance of the documents and the necessity of disclosurein order to deal fairly with the proceedings. Other than removing the names itwas not possible to make the documents anonymous and, in any event, the EATheld Jindal should know not only who the authors were but also theirprofessional and racial background. Key points – The subject’s right to know the content of a reference is a grey area.Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 prohibits access to a confidentialreference which has been given by an employer for the purposes of education,training or employment. – Case law and the Human Rights Act (which enshrines the right to a fairhearing) suggests that individuals may have a right to know if a reference isderogatory. Where respondents rely on particular documents to arrive at aparticular decision, it will sometimes be necessary for a full and fair hearingthat the applicant should know not only the content of references but who wrotethem. – HR should encourage managers to think about the possible effect of suchdocuments before writing them and ensure they would withstand scrutiny in atribunal. – For further advice in relation to references, turn to our policy clinic onpage 21. Reasonableness of dismissal Meakin v Liverpool CC Leisure Services Directorate Unreported, September 2001, EAT Meakin was a caretaker with 28 years’ service. On 15 July 1998 a fight tookplace at the council’s premises between Meakin and Forde. Following aninvestigation, both employees were dismissed. Meakin’s internal appeal failed.Meakin’s unfair dismissal claim failed. He argued that dismissal was too severeas no mitigating factors had been considered, namely his length of service,clean record, the employer’s rejection of Forde’s racist behaviour towardsMeakin, unwarranted suggestions made by Forde about Meakin’s sister and thatduring the fight, Forde had had his hands around Meakin’s neck. Meakin’s appeal to the EAT also failed. Both the council and tribunal hadconsidered all points of mitigation that could have been made on behalf ofMeakin. Even if there were differences between Meakin and Forde such as lengthof service, Meakin’s misconduct could still merit dismissal. If this was thecase, even taking into account long service and past good conduct, the factthat the other employee involved had a less good record was irrelevant. Key points – The test for the reasonableness of a dismissal is that outlined in BritishHome Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379: (1) Did the employer believemisconduct had occurred? (2) Was that a reasonable belief in the light of whatit knew at the time? (3) Was it a belief based on reasonable investigation? (4)Was it reasonable to dismiss having regard to the gravity of that misconduct? – The tribunal must not decide the matter on what it would have done in theemployer’s position, as long as the dismissal is within the range of reasonableresponses available. – In dismissal cases involving more than one employee, the position of eachshould, in principle, be considered separately. But just because one has moremitigating factors than another does not mean dismissal is unreasonable forboth. Dismissal for asserting statutory right automatically unfair Silva & anr v Albion Hotel (Freshwater) Unreported, November 2001, EAT Silva was contractually entitled to a bonus and when this was not paid hecomplained to Albion. In March 1999, he was dismissed for poor management andreceived no bonus. As Silva did not have one year’s service, he could not claim unfairdismissal. Instead, he claimed his dismissal was automatically unfair becausethe principal reason for it was his allegation that Albion had infringed astatutory right, namely his right not to suffer unlawful deductions from”wages”, which included non-payment of the bonus. This claim was notsubject to a qualifying period and provided Silva acted in good faith whenmaking it (which was a question of fact) it was immaterial whether Silvaactually had that statutory right or indeed whether Albion had breached it. Thetribunal held Silva had brought the claim in good faith and he was entitled tothe bonus. His dismissal was automatically unfair. The EAT upheld this part ofthe tribunal decision. Key points – Section 104 of the Employment Rights Act treats a dismissal asautomatically unfair if the principle reason for the dismissal is that theemployee alleged that the employer had infringed a relevant statutory right,such as unlawfully deducting wages. There is no qualifying period for bringinga claim. – Employees making allegations of infringements do not have to spell outprecisely the section of the Act that has been infringed but must make itreasonably clear to the employer what right they believe has been infringed. – Even if the employer is certain no statutory right has been infringed, itshould still think carefully before dismissing – as long as the tribunal findsthe employee made the allegation in good faith, it can still rule the dismissalautomatically unfair. Incorporation of collective agreement terms Radford v LTI Limited IDS Brief 698, EAT LTI recognised three trade unions. The most recent collective agreementstated that it would remain in force until 31 July 1998. In October 1998 LTI informed the workforce of impending redundancies. Theunions said the redundancy procedure described in the collective agreementshould be applied, but LTI’s position was that the agreement had expired and analternative selection procedure was used. Radford’s score placed him in theredundancy pool, and he was dismissed. He successfully claimed unfair dismissal.Although the collective agreement was not incorporated into Radford’scontract, because it was not of day-to-day significance to the relationshipbetween him and LTI, the consultation and selection criteria used had beeninadequate. Both parties appealed to the EAT, which confirmed that the tribunalhad been entitled to find the selection procedures in the collective agreementwere not incorporated because they were not of day-to-day significance. The tribunal found Radford had not been adequately consulted on anindividual basis. However, the tribunal had erred in not asking whether theconsultation was so inadequate as to render the dismissal unfair. Likewise, inrelation to the selection criteria, the tribunal had erred in substituting itsown decision instead of considering what a reasonable employer would have done.Accordingly, Radford’s dismissal was found to be fair. Key points – Redundancy selection procedures laid out in collective agreements areunlikely to be incorporated into the employment contract unless there isexpress provision, because they do not have day-to-day significance in theemployment relationship. – A tribunal may decide some aspects of an agreement are part of thecontract and others not. Provisions for enhanced payments over and aboveredundancy pay, for instance, might well be incorporated. – Where no consultation about redundancy has taken place with either thetrade union or employee the dismissal will normally be unfair unless thetribunal finds a reasonable employer would have concluded consultation wouldhave been utterly futile. – Collective consultation over selection criteria does not release theemployer from its obligation to consult individually with selected employees. – Whether consultation in any particular case was so inadequate as to renderthe dismissal unfair is a question of fact and degree for the tribunal. Disability discrimination – who’s the correct comparator? Cosgrove v Caesar & Howie IDS Brief 698, EAT Cosgrove was employed as a secretary. She became depressed and, after beingabsent for 12 months, was dismissed. Cosgrove presented claims for unfairdismissal and disability discrimination. The tribunal found no evidence that Cosgrove had been treated anydifferently from the way her employer would have treated anyone else who hadbeen absent for a year. It also noted that neither Cosgrove nor her doctorcould suggest any reasonable changes to her work arrangements. Thediscrimination claim was dismissed. Cosgrove appealed. The EAT decided thetribunal’s approach was incorrect. The EAT found the material reason forCosgrove’s dismissal was her absence and uncertainty as to whether she wouldreturn. It then asked whether the reason for her dismissal related todisability and found that it did. Lastly, the EAT asked if the employer wouldhave dismissed another employee to whom the material reason did not apply. Itsaid the proper comparison was with an employee who had not been absent anddecided there would not have been a reason to dismiss such a person unlessother potentially fair grounds for dismissal existed. Cosgrove had been treatedless favourably than someone to whom the material reason did not apply. The EAT then looked at whether the apparent discrimination was justified andsaid that it cannot be justified where the employer has made no considerationof reasonable adjustments. Cosgrove’s employer had not believed she wasdisabled so had not considered adjustments such as shorter working hours or amove to another office. The EAT found there was discrimination and remitted thecase for a remedies hearing. Key points – This case follows the Court of Appeal decision in Clark v Novacold Ltd[1998] IRLR 420, which held that if a person is dismissed for a disabilityrelated absence, the correct comparator for deciding on less favourabletreatment is a person who is able to attend work, rather than a non-disabledperson who has also been absent. – Employers will not be able to justify dismissal in these circumstancesunless they have considered reasonable adjustments under section 6 of the DDA.The onus is on the employer: simply accepting the opinion of the employee orthe employee’s doctor will not discharge this obligation. Comments are closed. last_img read more


first_imgWe hope that today’s “READERS FORUM” will provoke honest and open dialogue concerning issues that we, as responsible citizens of this community, need to address in a rational and responsible way?WHAT’S ON YOUR MIND TODAY?Todays“Readers Poll” question is: Do you feel that the taxpayer should subsidize the Evansville Thunderbolts?Please go to our link of our media partner Channel 44 News located in the upper right-hand corner of the City-County Observer so you can get the up-to-date news, weather, and sports. We are pleased to provide obituaries from several area funeral homes at no costs.  Over the next several weeks we shall be adding additional obituaries from other local funeral homes.  Please scroll down the paper and you shall see a listing of them..If you would like to advertise on the CCO please contact us at City-County [email protected]:  Any comments posted in this column do not represent the views or opinions of the City-County Observer or our advertisers.FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmailSharelast_img read more

Maher responds to Mary Queen of Shops portrayal

first_imgIt has to be one of the most talked-about television shows on a bakery in history. The first episode of the new series of Mary Queen of Shops, screened on 7 June, saw retail guru Mary Portas come head-to-head with Maher & Sons bakery owner Angela Maher in a battle of wills. This culminated in Portas and her crew being asked to stop filming and leave the premises.The programme portrayed Maher as someone stuck in her ways and not willing to change, despite falling sales at her Raynes Park business. However, Maher has claimed the way the show was edited made all her comments look negative and that Portas refused to speak to her off camera. Speaking exclusively to British Baker, Maher said: “In retrospect, I wish I hadn’t been so defensive, but there was no attempt to build up a relationship and no positive comments.”Following the show, many viewers were left asking the question why did she apply to take part? Maher claimed she was approached by the production company and was “given the impression that this programme was to be a celebration of small businesses bucking the trend in the recession, while offering some advice and ideas for the future”.”There was really no mention of failing businesses or total reinvention,” she said. “I think that I was naïve in the extreme with regards to the programme, having never really watched much ’reality TV’ or Portas shows in particular.”As for the speciality breads that Portas encouraged her baker, Paul, to produce, Maher said that, since taking part in the show, she has added a number of lines, including Mediterranean, Oat and Pumpkin, as well as a cottage loaf. However, the bakery was already producing a range of speciality breads prior to the programme, she explained, including Spelt and Honey, Rye and Caraway Seed, Multigrain, Soda and Scoffa. “Unfortunately these were not featured in the show,” she said.Despite various internet campaigns to ’Save Paul the Baker’, Maher said that he continues to work at the bakery and his efforts were much appreciated.l For the full interview see read more

News story: Home Office hosts first serious violence event in London

first_imgOther speakers at the event included London’s Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime Sophie Linden, Chief Executive of Islington Borough Council Lesley Seary and Commander Mark McEwan from the Metropolitan Police Service.These events form part of the delivery of the 61 commitments in the Serious Violence Strategy and the government’s commitment to working with communities to strengthen responses to the issue ensuring everything is being done to protect young people from harm. These events are really important in order to share the complexity of the issues surrounding youth violence. It has to be dealt with collaboratively and with shared resources, common goals, and a long-term commitment. I am very hopeful that the conferences hosted by the Home Office will meaningfully join up thinking and alter attitudes that label young people as negative members of society rather than the results of their increasingly difficult environments. It is vital that young people are always part of the conversation and given the chance to be leaders and designers of solutions. I would like to see young people present at future events. The Crime Minister, Victoria Atkins, has today (Monday 8 October) hosted the first in a series of monthly events taking place across the country, aimed at tackling serious violence.The events, led by Home Office ministers, will bring together local partners to take action against serious violence in communities. They will be used to raise awareness of the government’s Serious Violence Strategy which places local action at its core. The events will also highlight the national and regional support available, discuss local action already underway and spot new opportunities to work together to tackle serious violence.Over 100 partners from police, health, education, social services, youth offending services, housing, local authorities, and the voluntary sector attended today’s London event at Coin Street Community Centre.Today’s event takes place a week after the Home Secretary Sajid Javid announced a new package of measures to tackle violent crime including a consultation on a new legal duty to underpin a ‘public health’ approach, a £200 million youth endowment fund, and a review into middle-class drug use.Speaking at the event, the Minister for Crime, Victoria Atkins said: Head of Youth and Community Programmes at Coin Street Community, Natalie Bell said: Local communities are at the heart of our response to the troubling rise in serious violence and I’m delighted so many people could attend today’s event. The energy and commitment in the room to work together and do everything possible to tackle this issue was inspiring and I’m excited to see the results. The government is determined to crack down on violent crime and I look forward to visiting many more communities in the coming months and learning about their vital work.last_img read more

Press release: Change of Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Libya – April 2019

first_img 2002 to 2004 FCO, Strategic Policy Adviser, Strategy and Innovation Directorate 2014 to 2018 FCO, Principal Private Secretary, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 2011 to 2014 Pretoria, Deputy High Commissioner 2005 to 2006 FCO, Head, Enlargement Group, EU Directorate Further information 2007 to 2011 Brussels, Counsellor, Trade, Development and Wider World, UK Permanent Representation to the EU Media enquiries Follow the Foreign Office on Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn Mr Martin Reynolds CMG has been appointed Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Libya in succession to Mr Frank Baker CMG OBE who will be leaving the Diplomatic Service. Mr Reynolds will take up his appointment in April 2019.CURRICULUM VITAEFull name: Martin Reynoldscenter_img 1998 to 2002 Singapore, Second Secretary, Economics Follow the Foreign Office on Twitter @foreignoffice and Facebook For journalists 2006 to 2007 Brussels, First Secretary, Enlargement and Western Balkans, UK Permanent Representation to the EU 2004 to 2005 FCO, Head, Enlargement Section, EU Directorate 1997 to 1998 FCO, Desk Officer, Falkland Islands Email [email protected]last_img read more

Millie’s Cookies maximises on wedding market

first_imgMillie’s Cookies is looking to further secure its position as a supplier to the wedding market with its latest product innovation.It comes as the SSP-owned brand, which now operates 110 UK sites and 10 international stores, launched its latest cookie product – the cookie cupcake – into the wedding market this month.Richard Kirk, head of marketing, channel developements, SSP, told British Baker: “Our giant cookie product is popular with our consumers for wedding gifts, so it seemed like a simple and natural progression into a huge market and it gives our customers the opportunity to further interact with the Millie’s brand.“Wedding cupcakes have grown in popularity over the years and, with our own cookie version, it gives us the chance to be at the forefront of the market. Launching them at the start of October also gave us the opportunity to target those who are starting to plan weddings for spring and summer 2013.”He added that Millie’s Cookies had seen like-for-like sales increase by 51% this year; Kirk said the firm would attribute sales of its cookie cupcakes to a large proportion of that rise.The firm launched its wedding favours offering in June last year, which includes a series of round and heart-shaped cookie products, individually packaged.last_img read more

Industry board opposes transmission line as MPUC decision is appealed

first_imgINDUSTRY – The Board of Selectpersons has indicated its opposition to the New England Clean Energy Connect project in a May 7 letter to the Maine Public Utilities Commission, rescinding its previously-issued support. Meanwhile on the state level, a power company appealed the MPUC order that granted an important certificate for the project with an additional day of state agency hearings scheduled for Thursday.MPUC ordered the issuing of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the $1 billion project last month. The Central Maine Power project would create a 145-mile, Direct Current transmission line with 1,200 megawatt capacity that would link Canadian hydro power to the New England grid via a converter station in Lewiston. In March, MPUC’s staff issued an Examiner’s Report that recommended the commissioners issue the certificate and allow the project to go forward. The three commissioners unanimously agreed, finding that the project’s improvements to the electric system’s reliability and cost outweighed potential impact to scenic and recreational values. That decision was welcomed by Central Maine Power and denounced by opponents.One of those opponents was NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, an energy company that was an intervenor during the MPUC process. On May 7, NextEra appealed the MPUC order granting the certificate, arguing that CMP hadn’t adequately investigated alternatives to the transmission line, among other issues. The appeal will be heard by the Maine Supreme Court.On the same day, Industry’s Board of Selectpersons indicated to the MPUC that they were revoking the town’s support for the project and taking up a new position of formal opposition. Industry’s board supported the project in a letter sent to the MPUC in fall 2018, but that previous communication had been sent when the board had “limited information, as Central Maine Power was only in the initial application phase,” according to the May 7 letter. Industry would join the towns of Farmington and Wilton as Franklin County communities that previously supported NECEC but had since come down in opposition to the transmission line.Jay town officials have received a petition to hold a town meeting on Jay’s support for NECEC. The Jay Board of Selectpersons will be discussing the petition on May 13.The project’s next steps in to seek permitting from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Land Use Planning Commission. A joint hearing, continuing the five days of hearings held in Farmington in early April, will be held Thursday at the Cross Insurance Arena in Bangor.In advance of that hearing, CMP has indicated that it would not use herbicides or pesticides in the construction of the 53 miles of new corridor.CMP President and CEO Doug Herling called that commitment “another positive step forward towards a significant environmental milestone created by [NECEC],” in a statement released Wednesday.“With an on-going objective of continuous improvement on environmental responsibility, we operate our business in a sustainable and prudent manner, including reduction of our own carbon footprint,” Herling said.Natural Resources Council of Maine, which opposes the project, said that refraining from the use of herbicides or pesticides would not change the “fundamental flaws” of the project.“The damages that would be done to Maine’s North Woods have been well documented and would occur regardless of herbicide use,” NRCM staff scientist Nick Bennett said, listing issues such as reduced brook trout habitat and deer wintering yards, as well as the visual impacts of the project.In addition to the state agencies, federal approval is required, including approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At the end of April, the Environmental Protection Agency sent a letter to the USACE asking for additional information, including more detail about mitigation for steam and brook impact and possible alternatives to the NECEC corridor.last_img read more

IOTA’s future looks bright

first_imgIOTA’s future looks bright October 15, 2005 Managing Editor Regular News IOTA’s future looks brightcenter_img Higher interest rates mean more revenue for legal aid Mark D. Killian Managing Editor It’s a new day for The Florida Bar Foundation.After years of struggling with declining revenues that forced cuts in legal aid funding and the depletion of the Foundation’s reserve accounts, increased revenue from a steady rise in IOTA account balances and climbing IOTA interest rates are bolstering the charitable organization’s financial health.The Foundation expects to have more than $27 million available for its grant programs in 2005-2006, up from slightly more than $11 million a year ago.“Happy circumstances of increased revenue provide for increased opportunities,” President Bill Davis said at the Foundation’s recent Tallahassee meeting.On the recommendation of its Grant Program Committee, the Foundation board voted to increase its allocation for legal assistance to the poor and law student assistance grant programs from $10.5 million last year to more than $16.1 million this year. The board also doubled funding for its administration of justice grants program to $1 million.The Foundation also earmarked $10.3 million to begin re-establishing its grant program reserve. Davis said the specific goal of rebuilding the Foundation’s reserves is to maintain allocations for its grantees for up to four years if or when IOTA revenues go into another down cycle. That’s the way the annual grant allocations to legal assistance providers were kept relatively stable — along with allocating more of the Foundation’s income to legal assistance to the poor programs and less to the administration of justice and law student assistance projects — when IOTA bank interest rates dropped in the mid- to late-1990s. Then the Foundation had to deal with IOTA income that tumbled from about $19 million a year to between $10-$11 million per year.The increase in legal aid funds in 2005-06 still comes up short of the funding levels of the late 1990s, when inflation and the increase in Florida’s poverty population is taken into account.“Thank goodness we had a staff and previous boards that saw fit to create a reserve which carried [the Foundation’s] grantees without so much pain during the last downturn,” Davis said, noting the goal is to fund the reserves at about $24 million by September 2006.Board member Kathleen McLeroy of Tampa said she supports re-establishing the reserve fund because the Foundation owes an obligation to the clients of its grantees to make sure the legal aid infrastructure is in place in Florida.“I think we should be the overseer of legal aid programs throughout the state and we owe the clients, not the grantees, but the clients, a stable system,” McLeroy said.James Bell, president of Florida Legal Services, Inc., agreed, saying a reserve fund assures legal aid providers that they can continue their programs “if something drastic happens.”“I think we would be remiss to not have some type of situation where we have a reserve to keep these programs going,” Bell said.“It is nice to know that if the worst case scenario happens, we can sort of taper off our grantees, not just cut them off,” said board member Miles McGrane of Miami.last_img read more

Energize young credit union professionals

first_img 4SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr Ronaldo Hardy explains how millennials can be advocates and leaders.What CUNA’s Young Professionals Committee aims to achieve: Our main goal is to energize the young professionals in our industry—to give them the tools and resources that will increase their passion for the movement and keep them a part of the industry long-term.To accomplish this, we’re going to need to educate them on our industry, provide leadership development so they can see where the knowledge gained can take them further in the movement, and engage them in political advocacy.Why advocacy among young CU professionals is important: When we hike up Capitol Hill during the GAC (Governmental Affairs Conference), I always make a point—while representing our state—to stand and speak on the issues credit unions face.It’s important for our legislators to see and hear from multiple generations. It provides a more powerful voice because they see more people representing a larger part of our population.On becoming a CEO at age 27: I have a cool story in that I didn’t wake up and say, “I want to go work for credit unions!” continue reading »last_img read more

Two Muslim women drive NYPD to change its practice of forcefully removing the hijab

first_img– Advertisement – According to the Associated Press, while Clark and Aziz began as the initial plaintiffs of the federal lawsuit, multiple women joined them, reiterating the same story of forced hijab removal. According to the legal decision, the new policy now requires NYPD officers who question or arrest a person with religious attire to “take [a] photograph of [the] prisoner with religious head covering in place.” Exceptions to the policy are very limited and include only cases in which religious attire covers the face, for example, a burqa—which would have to be removed for full facial features to be captured.“This is a milestone for New Yorkers’ privacy and religious rights. No one should be forced to undress just to be fed into a facial recognition database. New Yorkers are able to get a drivers’ license or passport while wearing the hijab, and there’s absolutely no reason for it to be removed by police,” STOP’s Executive Director Albert Fox Cahn said in a statement. STOP represented both Clark and Aziz in their proceedings. “Now that the NYPD has agreed to end the policy, they still need to go a step further. That’s because this settlement doesn’t address the thousands of New Yorkers who were subjected to this unlawful policy. That’s why we’re still fighting in court to make sure the NYPD pays for the harm its already inflicted.”- Advertisement – Incidents of forced hijab removal have occurred throughout the U.S. for years. Women have not only been forced to remove their hijab but made to receive their headscarves outside of police department buildings, where the public can see them. Additionally, some women have reported being forced to wear short-sleeved clothing when other options were available. In a country where religious freedom is guaranteed, no one should be forced to remove religious covering nor fear wearing it. If other government identifications can be taken without the removal of religious coverings, such as licenses, mug shots and other photos should not result in the practice of discrimination. Photos depicting one’s facial features can be taken without interfering with religious freedom.center_img xWe may have ended this policy, but we’re still fighting in court to get justice for those victimized by the NYPD in the past. Help us continue the fight to compensate the thousands of New Yorkers already mistreated and harassed by the #NYPD.— S.T.O.P.—Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (@STOPSpyingNY) November 10, 2020The New York City Law Department special federal litigation chief, Patricia Miller, also saw the policy change as “good reform.” She noted that such a change serves as a model for other aspects of the country. “It carefully balances the department’s respect for firmly held religious beliefs with the legitimate law enforcement need to take arrest photos and should set an example for other police departments in the country,” Miller told the AP.For years the department had no official policy and left removing religious attire for mugshots up to the discretion of officers—who sometimes removed them and sometimes did not. This policy change is not the first the NYPD has made as a result of religious discrimination. According to The New York Times, a lawsuit filed in 2016 resulted in the department allowing officers to wear turbans and grow beards for religious reasons.- Advertisement –last_img read more