A Muslim woman filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against a Hamtramck judge because he dismissed her small claims case after she refused his order to remove her veil while testifying.Ginnnah Muhammad filed suit in U.S. District Court in Detroit, accusing 31st District Judge Paul Paruk of violating her First Amendment rights to freely exercise her religion and the Civil Rights Act by denying her access to the courts.
Muhammad wore a niqab -- a scarf and veil to cover her face and head except for her eyes -- to Paruk's courtroom Oct. 11 as she contested a $2,750 repair bill from a car rental company after thieves broke into a vehicle she was using. Paruk said he needed to see Muhammad's face to gauge her truthfulness. Muhammad's lawsuit also seeks to allow her to wear her veil at her next scheduled court date, on April 18 before Paruk. The car rental company has sued Muhammad because she has not paid the bill, and it is seeking a ruling from Paruk to order Muhammad to pay.
Given the tight time frame, Muhammad's attorney, Nabih Ayad, is asking the federal court to impose a stay on the Hamtramck case. Ayad also said he would file a motion next week with the Hamtramck court asking Paruk to recuse himself from the case. Muhammad, 42, of Detroit said Wednesday that Paruk's handling of her case made her feel "empty, like the courts didn't care about me." Paruk did not return a message seeking comment.
In the past, Paruk has noted that not all Muslims consider the niqab a religious symbol. He also has said he sought to accommodate Muhammad by letting her wear the veil except when she was to testify. Michigan has no rules governing how judges must handle religious attire in court. In metro Detroit, which has one of the country's largest Arab-American populations, a small minority of Muslim women -- primarily those of Yemeni descent -- wear the niqab.
Frank S. Ravitch, a law professor at Michigan State University who specializes in First Amendment religion issues, said the key question will be whether Paruk would apply the same standard to all witnesses. "If this is seen as a generally applicable law, then her chances of winning are much slimmer," he said. "But ... if this is just a rule the judge made up in her case, then the state's going to have to show a ... really compelling reason for denying her request for an exemption."