Awadallah V Town of West New York

Case
2:16-cv-05421
Document 1 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1
Aymen A.
Aboushi,
Esq.
The Aboushi Law Firm PLLC
1441 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Tel. (212) 391-8500
Fax (212) 391-8508
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________x
Yousef Awadallah
CIVIL ACTION NO.:__________
Plaintiff,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
Town of West New York, West New York
Police Department, John and Jane Does 1-10.
Defendants.
__________________________________________ x
Introduction
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of religion, and to
provide appropriate relief to Yousef Awadallah who has been adversely affected by such
practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs below, Defendants has
discriminated against Plaintiff and employees whose religion conflicts with the Defendants
Appearance Policy (appearance policy), in violation of Title VII and New Jerseys Law
Against Discrimination. This discrimination includes the unlawful failure to provide negligible
religious accommodations to Defendants appearance policy. Indeed, this action seeks to declare
as unlawful Defendants appearance policy so that men of faith do not have to choose between
protecting and serving their community or practicing their faith.
JURISDICTION
AND
VENUE Page 2 of 6 PageID: 2
Case 2:16-cv-05421 Document
1 Filed
09/07/16
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 451, 1331, and 1343.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were within the jurisdiction of the
United States District Court for the District of District of New Jersey. Defendants principle
place of business is within this district.
PARTIES
3.
Plaintiff is a police officer who is employed by the West New York Police
Department and the Town of West New York, NJ.

4.
At all relevant times, Defendants are municipalities located in Hudson County, NJ,
duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey.
5.
John and Jane Does 1-10 represent individuals whose identities are not yet known,
but participated in, carried out, and or were responsible for the unlawful conduct alleged herein.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
6.
Plaintiff filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC.
7.
On August 20, 3016, the Commission issued to right to sue letter to the Plaintiff.
8.
All conditions precedent to the initiation of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
9.
Plaintiff observes the Muslim faith and, as part of his religious observance, wears a
light beard.
10.
Defendant maintains an Appearance Policy that is applicable to all employees.
11.
The appearance policy prohibits male employees from wearing beards of any length
no matter what the reason.

14.
Since at least 2014, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices in
violation of Sections 701(j) and 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j) and e(2).
15.
Defendants
have refused
accommodate
qualified
CaseSpecifically,
2:16-cv-05421
Document
1 Filedto09/07/16
Page
3 of 6 individuals
PageID: 3 whose
religion conflicts with Defendants appearance policy where the requested accommodation
would not pose an undue hardship upon Defendants.
16.
Defendants have also failed to inform employees of its policy through which
individuals may seek a religious accommodation to the appearance policy.

17.
Defendants have unlawfully denied the existence and availability of religious
accommodations to its appearance policy when such accommodations have been requested by
employees.
18.
Defendants have unreasonably delayed action on employee requests for religious
accommodation, including delays of nearly a year, forcing employees to choose between

violating their religious beliefs or violating Defendants unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious
appearance policy with the attendant risk of discipline or dismissal.
19.
For example, Plaintiff was not permitted to work overtime while he displayed his
slight beard, costing him thousands of dollars in compensation. This was due to an unlawful
appearance policy of prohibiting employees from working overtime if they had any facial hair,
except for a mustache, but could work their normal shifts with facial hair.
20.
Plaintiff sought a religious accommodation but the Defendants denied there was
any policy regarding accommodation.

21.
Plaintiff was then told that his request was being considered, but that he would not
be able to work any overtime hours while wearing his beard. This process dragged on for nearly
a year while the Defendants were considering Plaintiffs request.
22.
Defendants ultimately denied Plaintiffs request.
23.
Particularly egregious is the fact that the Defendants refused to even consider any
religious accommodation without first unlawfully requiring Plaintiff to submit proof that he
was a practicing
Muslim, requiring
a certification
from09/07/16
his Imam Page
that wearing
beard was
Case 2:16-cv-05421
Document
1 Filed
4 of 6 aPageID:
4 part of
the Plaintiffs religious observance.
24.
Defendants unlawfully created a religious test.
25.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in the paragraphs above were
and are intentional.

26.
The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were done with malice or
with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiff whose religion
conflicted with Defendants unlawful appearance policy.
Count I. Violation of Civil Rights Act
27.
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
28.
Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights under the Civil Rights Act by failing to
provide him with a reasonable religious accommodation.

29.
The requested accommodation would not have resulted in an undue hardship upon
the Defendants.
30.
Indeed, Defendants policy regarding facial hair is arbitrary, unreasonable, not
related to any legitimate workplace concern or responsibility, and wholly aimed at depriving
Plaintiff his right to practice his religion in accordance with the law.
Count II. Violation of New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
31.
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
32.
Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights under the New Jersey law Against
Discrimination by failing to provide him with a religious accommodation as required under the
NJLAD.
33.
The requested accommodation would not have resulted in an undue hardship upon
the Defendants.
34. Indeed,
Defendants
police regarding
facial
hair is arbitrary,
Case
2:16-cv-05421
Document
1 Filed
09/07/16
Page 5 unreasonable,
of 6 PageID: not
5
related to any legitimate workplace concern or responsibility, and wholly aimed at depriving
Plaintiff his right to practice his religion in accordance with the law.
35.
Defendants sought to stymie Plaintiffs request for an accommodation and in doing
so, costs him thousands of dollars in compensation.

36.
Defendants unlawfully forced Plaintiff to choose between practicing his religion
and providing for his family.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
A.
Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, agents, servants,
employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging
in employment practices that discriminate on the basis of religion.
B.
Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which
provide equal employment opportunities regardless of religion, and which eradicate the effects of
its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C.
Order Defendants to make whole Mr. Awadallah, who has been discriminated
against because his religion conflicts with Defendants appearance policy by providing
appropriate back-pay and overtime pay, with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined
at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendants unlawful
employment practices.
D.
Order Defendants to make whole Plaintiff who have been discriminated against
because their religion conflicts with Defendants appearance policy by providing compensation
for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described
herein above in amounts to be determined at trial.
E.
Defendants to
make whole
by providing
compensation
for past
CaseOrder
2:16-cv-05421
Document
1 Plaintiff
Filed 09/07/16
Page
6 of 6 PageID:
6 and
future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of herein, including
but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, and inconvenience, in amounts to be
determined at trial.
F.
Order Defendants to pay Plaintiff punitive damages for its malicious and reckless
conduct described herein, in amounts to be determined at trial.

G.
Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.
H.
Plaintiff his costs of this action and reasonable attorneys fees.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all triable issues raised in the complaint.
Dated: September 5, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
The Aboushi Law Firm PLLC
By: s/ Aymen Aboushi
Aymen A. Aboushi, Esq.
1441 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Tel. (212) 391-8500
Fax (212) 391-8508
The Law Offices of Joel Silberman

By: s/ Joel Silberman
Joel Silberman, Esq.
549 Summit Avenue
Jersey City, NJ 07306
Tel. (201) 420-1913
Fax (201) 420-1914

Awadallah V Town of West New York

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Awadallah V Town of West New York

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Awadallah V Town of West New York

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case

Department and the Town of West New York, NJ.

Plaintiff filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC.

Defendant maintains an Appearance Policy that is applicable to all employees.

no matter what the reason.

Since at least 2014, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices in

individuals may seek a religious accommodation to the appearance policy.

Defendants have unlawfully denied the existence and availability of religious

Defendants have unreasonably delayed action on employee requests for religious

accommodation, including delays of nearly a year, forcing employees to choose between

any policy regarding accommodation.

Defendants ultimately denied Plaintiffs request.

Defendants unlawfully created a religious test.

The unlawful employment practices complained of in the paragraphs above were

and are intentional.

provide him with a reasonable religious accommodation.

Indeed, Defendants policy regarding facial hair is arbitrary, unreasonable, not

Defendants sought to stymie Plaintiffs request for an accommodation and in doing

so, costs him thousands of dollars in compensation.

Defendants unlawfully forced Plaintiff to choose between practicing his religion

and providing for his family.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, agents, servants,

conduct described herein, in amounts to be determined at trial.

Plaintiff his costs of this action and reasonable attorneys fees.

The Law Offices of Joel Silberman

You might also like