Hashmi v. City of Jersey City
| Decision Date | 07 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 19-18884 (ES) (MAH) |
| Parties | SHAHZAD HASHMI, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY; MIKE KELLY, Chief of the Jersey City Police Department; and EDGAR MARTINEZ, Deputy Chief of the Jersey City Police Department, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Officer Shahzad Hashmi sues the City of Jersey City (“Jersey City”), Chief Mike Kelly, and Deputy Chief Edgar Martinez[1] of the Jersey City Police Department (together, “Individual Defendants, ” and with Jersey City, “Defendants”) asserting claims of religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. (D.E. No. 14, Amended Complaint (“Am Compl.”)). Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (D.E. No 17). Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court decides this matter without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). As set forth below the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Officer Hashmi's claim that former-General Order 10-18 is facially discriminatory is dismissed with prejudice. His other dismissed claims are dismissed without prejudice.
As alleged in the Amended Complaint, Officer Hashmi is a police officer with the Jersey City Police Department (“JCPD”) and an observant Sunni Muslim. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14 & 19). Officer Hashmi must wear a beard pursuant to his sincerely held religious beliefs. (Id. ¶ 22). While the JCPD generally prohibits officers from wearing beards, there are exemptions-one of which is for religious purposes, a second for medical purposes, and a third for assignment-related purposes. (Id. ¶¶ 23-25, 27-28 & 50). On July 5, 2017, Officer Hashmi obtained a religious accommodation to wear a beard at a length no longer than one-half inch so long as he kept his beard “neat and clean” and complied with all other requirements of the JCPD's beard policy at that time. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24 & 41). Officer Hashmi does not object to that accommodation.
On March 23, 2018, however, and at the direction of Chief Kelly, the JCPD changed its beard policy. (Id. ¶ 25). The new policy was codified in former-General Order 10-18. Officer Hashmi alleges that former-General Order 10-18 required officers who were wearing beards for religious purposes to maintain a beard length of no greater than “one-half inch, un-manicured.” (Id. (emphasis added)). The policy change, Officer Hashmi alleges, which required him to keep his beard unmanicured, did not change the fact that his accommodation letter required him to keep his beard “neat and clean.” (Id. ¶¶ 30 & 40-41 (emphasis added)). Keeping a beard both unmanicured and neat and clean, Officer Hashmi alleges, is “impossible.” (Id. ¶¶ 41 & 88).
“Almost immediately after the change in policy, ” Officer Hashmi claims, he “and other officers who w[ore] beards for religious purposes[] were repeatedly targeted and harassed, ” while officers who wore beards for medical purposes were not. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27). For example, on May 21, 2018, Captain Martinez ordered Officer Hashmi to “provide an explanation for why [his] beard is groomed.” (Id. ¶ 29). Officer Hashmi responded that his religion demands he wear a beard and that his accommodation letter demands he keep his beard “neat and clean.” (Id. ¶ 30). After this incident, Officer Hashmi allegedly suffered more harassment “by his supervisors because his beard was ‘groomed.'” (Id. ¶ 31).
As a result, he filed an internal “EEO Complaint” on May 25, 2018, in which he alleged:
over the course of the past 2 months, I have been repeatedly harassed and threatened on the basis that my beard is ‘too groomed.' I believe that such harassment is a pretext for discrimination and an attempt to force me to shave my beard in violation of my religious beliefs. I have suffered and continue to suffer a violation of my rights.
(Id. ¶ 32).
Less than two weeks later, on June 6, 2018, Officer Hashmi “received a notice of charge or infraction specifying that he ‘had facial hair which does not coincide with departmental policy' and ‘which is in violation of the General Order.'” (Id. ¶ 33). The hearing officer, who is not named in the Amended Complaint, signed a “finding/disposition” that Officer Hashmi was “guilty.” (Id. ¶ 34). As a sanction, Officer Hashmi received an “oral reprimand.” (Id.). That reprimand, Officer Hashmi alleges, “was permanently affixed to his personnel record, ” and it continues to be affixed to his record to this day. (Id. ¶¶ 35 & 53). The oral reprimand, Officer Hashmi claims, “materially affects his employment status in that it affects his ability to, inter alia, seek or obtain a promotion.” (Id. ¶ 37). Officer Hashmi further alleges that “Defendants were notified that Officer Hashmi filed the EEO Complaint prior to disciplining him.” (Id. ¶ 36).
Following the oral reprimand, on June 14, 2019, Captain Martinez advised Officer Hashmi that he would be “written up each and every day” he did not comply with former-General Order 10-18. (Id. ¶ 38). Officer Hashmi responded that he did not understand how to comply with that order by keeping his beard unmanicured while also keeping his beard trimmed at a length of one-half inch. (Id. ¶ 39).
The following day, Jordanna Das of the Jersey City Department of Human Resources emailed Officer Hashmi that his internal complaint was pending and that, in the meantime, he must comply with former-General Order 10-18. (Id. ¶ 40). On June 26, 2018, Officer Hashmi responded to Das's email in search of guidance:
(Id. ¶ 41). Officer Hashmi did not receive a response to his request for guidance. (Id. ¶ 42). The final alleged incident occurred on July 20, 2018, when Captain Martinez confronted
Officer Hashmi about his beard. (Id. ¶ 45). During that confrontation, Captain Martinez allegedly told Officer Hashmi that he was not allowed to shave during the work week, despite there being no explicit rule against shaving during the work week, and that “he did not have a problem ‘knocking [Officer Hashmi] over.'” (Id. ¶¶ 45-48).
On October 26, 2018, the JCPD changed its policy by amending former-General Order 1018 to remove the requirement that beards be kept “unmanicured.” (Id. ¶¶ 51-52). Notwithstanding the change in policy, Officer Hashmi alleges that he “continues to fear retaliation for his complaints.” (Id. ¶ 54). To date, Officer Hashmi has not received a response to his EEO Complaint, even though he requested a response/update several times. (Id. ¶¶ 44 & 55). On February 9, 2019, Officer Hashmi filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and on July 23, 2019, the EEOC issued him a “Notice of Right to Sue.” (Id. ¶ 10).
On January 9, 2020, Officer Hashmi filed the Amended Complaint, which asserts several claims against Defendants: under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violating free exercise and equal protection; under the New Jersey Constitution, for violating free exercise and equal protection; under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), for discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation; and under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), for discrimination and retaliation. On January 24, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). (D.E. No. 17). Attached to their motion are several exhibits, one of which was former-General Order 10-18. (D.E. No. 17-5, Ex. 4). The Court will explain the basis for its consideration below.
In assessing whether a complaint states a cause of action sufficient to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts “all well-pleaded allegations as true and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” City of Cambridge Ret. Sys. v Altisource Asset Mgmt. Corp., 908 F.3d 872, 878 (3d Cir. 2018). “[T]hreadbare recitals of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial