TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2008
DETROIT (AP) - A federal judge on Tuesday waded into a dispute last
heard in a local small claims court involving a Muslim woman who sued a
judge for dismissing her case because she refused to remove her veil
during testimony.
U.S. District Judge John Feikens said he will issue a written opinion in
the case of Ginnnah Muhammad but did not say when. The 44-year-old
Detroit woman said Judge Paul Paruks request to remove the veil
covering all but her eyes and his March 2007 dismissal was
unconstitutional based on her right to practice her religion.
The claim against Paruk also cites a federal civil rights law in
alleging that Muhammad was denied access to the courts because of her
religion.
Muhammad wore a niqab - a scarf and veil that covers her head and most
of her face - during the October 2006 hearing in Hamtramck, a city
surrounded by Detroit. She was contesting a $3,000 charge from a
rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had broken
into.
Assistant state attorney general Margaret Nelson, who represented Paruk,
argued the case should be dismissed because his decision wasnt based on
religion. She said he needed to "fully observe" Muhammad in order to
properly determine the facts.
"It was a temporary, necessary, limited action (that had) only
incidental impact on the practice of her religion," Nelson said.
While state law prohibits appeals of small claims court decisions,
Nelson said Muhammad could refile her case because it was dismissed
without prejudice.
Nelson said the case was a contract dispute between Muhammad and
Enterprise Rent-A-Car. The company countersued her later in October 2006
and ultimately won a judgment of $2,083. Muhammad has appealed that
decision in Wayne County Circuit Court.
Ayad said the federal case is about constitutional issues, not
contractual ones. He said Muhammads case is a "fight for all similarly
situated Muslims," particularly in metropolitan Detroit, with one of the
largest Muslim and Arab populations in the country.
Muhammad, who owns a business selling skin-care products, said after the
hearing that she loves the United States because people can freely
practice their religion. But she said she understands the need for
accommodations on all sides.
For instance, she would have removed her veil before a female judge. And
she removed her niqab and was checked by a female security guard in a
closed room upon entering federal court on Tuesday.
"You shouldnt have to change when you walk into a courtroom," she said.
Feikens said numerous times during the hearing that the case was
discretionary, meaning he did not have to act on it based on prior
Supreme Court decisions. The repeated references led Ayad to say after
the hearing he was "afraid" that Feikens will let the dismissal stand.
If so, Ayad said, he will appeal. He said the case is unprecedented and
could go all to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor, said it was an
interesting case but one unlikely to reach the highest court in the
land. The Supreme Court is more interested in conflict among cases, he
said, not uncharted legal issues.
He said it was a procedural mistake to file in federal court, but he
also called Paruks dismissal "bizarre" and "insensitive."
While Friedman sees legal flaws on both sides, he doesnt discount the
cases social significance.
"Its obviously reflective of a ... clash of cultures - the closed
nature of veils coming against the open nature of American courts," he
said.
Source:
http://muslims-news.blogspot.com/2008/04/detroit-judge-sued-for-dismissing.htmlPhoto:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-59/veil-140-thumb.jpg