February 2020 E-Newsletter

Civil Rights and Personal Injury and General Practice Law Firm, Dedicated to Social Justice

Muslim Correction Officer with Medical Condition Seeks $2 Million in Damages for Religious and Disability Discrimination

After the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) determined that there was probable cause that she was discriminated against based on her religion and her medical condition, Maureen M. Billings, a Muslim correction officer with the New York State Department of Corrections at Bedford Correctional Facility, has filed a Federal Civil Rights complaint in which she is seeking damages in excess of $2 million.

Ms. Billings is seeking monetary and injunctive relief, including past and ongoing economic loss, compensatory and punitive damages, disbursements, costs and fees brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. § 2000e], First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983, Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C §12112 and New York Executive Law §296, on the basis of Plaintiff’s creed, disability, and Plaintiff’s opposition to unlawful discriminatory practice and retaliation. The defendants named include the State of New York, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Roger A. Murphy, Paul J. Artuz and Diane Curra.

On October 14, 2016, Ms. Billings submitted a letter to the Diversity Management Office requesting permission to wear her hijab, a religious head covering worn by Muslim women, because it is a religious requirement to cover her hair. Michael Washington, the director of diversity management, acknowledged the request and said the request would be individually assessed.

Her request was eventually approved, but with three conditions: the hijab must be worn tucked under her uniform shirt; it must be no longer than nine square feet allegedly for safety reasons; and the hijab must be worn in a fashion so that it would immediately tear away, should anyone try to grab it. Before making these accommodations, the hijab was to be inspected by the deputy superintendent of security to confirm that it met the guidelines specified in this approval. On April 28, 2017, Ms. Billings received written notification that she was approved to wear a hijab during work hours. On May 1, 2017, she was ordered to report to Mr. Murphy’s office. Since her religion forbids her from being alone in a room with a man, she asked that a female union representative accompany her. Mr. Murphy, the deputy superintendent for security, reprimanded her for not wearing her hijab without consulting him first and ordered her to tuck it into her shirt. Ms. Billings replied that there were no ranking supervisors on duty that weekend.

The next day, Ms. Billings was ordered to report to Defendant Artuz’ office. She was accompanied by Officer Deborah Floyd, a union representative. He told Ms. Billings he needed to call Albany in regards to the hijab. Upon consultation, the defendant stated the hijab must be three feet by three feet in size. When she asked the defendant what directive stated that rule, he replied, “You can like it or take it off.”

Ms. Billings and Officer Floyd cut down the hijab to the required size; this was not done in the presence of Captain Artuz. Upon reviewing the hijab, he said he had to consult with Albany again. After calling Albany, he told the plaintiff that she had three options: return to her post and work without wearing the hijab; continue to wear the hijab and go home, then deal with the consequences; or demonstrate the hijab can be pulled off quickly without her being choked. “After all, we would not want an inmate to choke you,” he said to her.

Ms. Billings requested a female to be present because her religion forbids her from disrobing before a man who is not related to her. Although two female supervisors were on duty at the time, Captain Artuz told her there were no high-ranking female supervisors on duty. In being forced to choose between religious observance and keeping her job, she removed her hijab before Captain Artuz.

Upon returning to her post, Ms. Billings almost fell twice because, she claimed, her knee gave out. She was sent home on Workers Compensation. The doctor diagnosed her with stress related to her knee. Despite having a doctor’s note that stated the diagnosis, the complainant was not allowed to return to work, according to Ms. Billings; the respondent stated that stress was a mental illness and, therefore, was not covered under workers comp.

On August 1, 2017, Ms. Billings received a letter requesting a corrected doctor’s note. On June 27, 2017, Ms. Billings received a letter of termination of pay as of May 27, 2017; lastly, Deputy Murphy issued Ms. Billings a letter dated August 4, 2017 that she was overpaid $13,598 from May 16 through July 19, 2017. This was the time she was taken off payroll, despite receiving clearance from her doctor. She believes the retaliation from her employer is from her filing a case with the Division of Human Rights and the EEOC.

The NYSDHR examined the note from Neurology Medical Services of Long Island dated July 21, 2017 that said the complainant was “neurologically cleared and stable to return to work on August 1, 2017.” The Division further determined that the complainant sent a series of letters to the Director of Security Services, which were ignored. On January 30, 2018, the NYSDHR found Probable Cause that Ms. Billings was subjected to discrimination based on her religion and disability. On December 25, 2019, Ms. Billings filed a complaint with the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, requesting a jury trial and justice for her mistreatment.

Cathryn Harris-Marchesi, Esq. and Mr. Brewington are working on the case for the firm.

The Determination by the NYS Division of Human Rights can be seen here .
The Federal Complaint can be seen here.

556 Peninsula Blvd., Hempstead, New York 11550 | Phone: 516-489-6959 | Fax: 516-489-6958

Attorney Advertising
DISCLAIMER: THIS NEWSLETTER IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS
LEGAL ADVICE ON ANY MATTER. LEGAL COUNSEL SHOULD BE CONSULTED FOR ADVICE REGARDING ANY MATTER.

COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON