Said, is not whether some kind of hardhat might fit over a turban Under Sikh law, a turban may not be covered at all.
Nager, Kalsi’s attorney, said earthly law is on his side, as well “This has been going on across the country,” he said.
Nager also said that, in a recent directive, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration promised not to cite employers who make hardhat exceptions for Sikhs.
“We’re not saying there are no safely considerations here,” the lawyer said. “We say the religious rights outweigh the safety considerations in this particular case.”
But the TA may have some law on its side, too.
The Sikhs lost a 1991 challenge to the California motorcycle-helmet law. In 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Oregon law that prohibited a Sikh school teacher from wearing religious garb in class.
In 1981 the U.S. Amy stopped granting religious exceptions to the uniform rules. The Army found “the wearing of beards, unshom hair, turbans and religious bracelets contrary to Army operational and safety requirements.”
The courts said OK. But Kalsi, who has been working temporary jobs since his firing, said he is more than ready for the court fight. “I am very much angry,” he said. “People come here for a better future.” His wife and children are very depressed because I am out of work. I have to pay the mortgage and utilities. My wife is the only one working. She doesn’t make that much.”
Added Kalsi: “This is the first time someone attacked my religion.”
Rep. Robert G. Torricelli, D-N.J., has come out in support of Kalsi and penned a hard-hitting letter to New York City Mayor Rudolph Guliani, “I worked with my colleagues in Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Act of 1993.” Torricelli wrote, “This legislation states that the government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
“No American should be fired from a job because his or her religious practices are frowned upon by an employer. When a government agency is the employer, this type of religious discrimination is particularly distressing”
Kalsi has also received the support of the Sikh communities in New York and New Jersey. In an informal hearing with the TA administration. Sikh community leaders asserted that the TA’s position in terminating Kalsi was legally indefensible and inconsistent with regulations regarding Sikhs in other agencies.
The Sikh Community Council, a Brooklyn-based, non-profit group. pointed out that the Long Island Railroad, a sister agency to the NYCTA, exempts Sikhs from wearing hard-hats as a requirement for employment. The council said. “We need to fight this type of indirect and insidious challenge to our (Sikh) identity at a social, political and legal level.”
Article extracted from this publication >> January 20, 1995
