Police Settle Orthodox Jew’s Lawsuit Over Yarmulke

LAS VEGAS, NV — The Metropolitan Police Committee on Fiscal Affairs is scheduled to approve a $350,000 payment next week for Detective Steve Riback, an observant Orthodox Jew who claimed he was experiencing religious discrimination on the job.

“We believe that it is a fair settlement, and we hope that Fiscal Affairs will approve it,” said attorney Craig Anderson, who represents the Metropolitan Police Department.

Anderson wouldn’t comment further.

In a federal lawsuit filed in August 2007, Riback sought an injunction to prohibit police officials from disciplining him for wearing either a short beard or yarmulke at work. A yarmulke is a skullcap worn by Jewish men and boys.

A year later, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt concluded that the department’s no-beard policy violated Riback’s First Amendment right of religious freedom.

The ruling left the yarmulke question for a jury.

Allen Lichtenstein, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence Leavitt presided over settlement negotiations and helped the parties reach a resolution before trial.

The settlement payment for Riback appears on the fiscal committee’s consent agenda for Monday. Matters on the consent agenda are described as routine.

“It’s been approved by the lawyers and the parties, so I would fully anticipate that there would be no problem,” Lichtenstein said.

He described the settlement as a global agreement that includes fees for Riback’s lawyers. Lichtenstein wouldn’t say how much of the settlement will go to the detective.

Riback, a 10-year veteran of the Metropolitan Police Department, was transferred to the office of quality assurance in October 2006. The position does not require him to wear a uniform.

Lichtenstein said the settlement will allow Riback to continue working in the office of quality assurance with a short beard and a baseball cap. When asked whether the agreement specifically addresses the yarmulke issue, the lawyer said only, “It will allow him to fulfill his religious obligation by wearing a head covering.”

When Riback filed his lawsuit, the department had a personnel policy that prohibited officers from wearing beards but provided waivers for officers who needed to wear facial hair for medical reasons.

In his order last year, Hunt recognized the importance of religious neutrality for police officers, but found that “people are unlikely to view a closely trimmed beard … as a religious symbol.”

“This is especially true if other officers wear beards for medical reasons, because there is nothing to indicate that one beard is worn for secular reasons while the other is for religious,” the judge wrote.

Hunt also acknowledged that the department has a “significant” interest in its officers “maintaining a uniform personal appearance.”

However, he wrote, “Metro fails to explain why religious beards undermine this interest, but medical beards do not.”

According to Hunt’s order, the department’s headgear policy applies to all officers, “and there is no evidence that it is motivated by religious animus.”