U.S. Justice Department Files Injuction Against California Prison System Over Beard Policy

The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division filed a request for a preliminary injunction against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, saying that a policy of having guards be clean shaven goes against the religious rights of guards.

For decades, CDCR policy has been to allow guards to have a beard of up to 1 inch in length. However, new policies post-COVID forced CDCR officials to rethink the policy, as new California Division of Occupational Safety and Health guidelines said that respirators might need to be worn at times, and that beards would interfere in their usage. In 2022, the CDCR instituted a clean shave policy to comply with state safety regulations.

However some guards, primarily of the Sikh and Muslim faiths, quickly challenged the rule. While many did comply, shaving caused major mental effects as they had gone against their faith to keep their job. The guards asked for religious exemptions, but to no success. The next year, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Sikh Coalition said the policy went mainly against guards of color both because of the religious reasons, as well as some having medical conditions such as pseudofolliculitis barbae that made shaving painful.

Despite this, the CDCR continued to put safety first while the groups asked the U.S. Government to step in. Eight guards even filed religious discrimination complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). While the state denied changing their policy once again, this led the Justice Department to step in, leading to the Justice Department Civil Rights Division to file the injunction request on Monday.

“Sikhs, Muslims and employees of other minority faiths should not be forced to choose between the practice of their faith and their jobs,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke in a statement on Monday. “Religious freedom and religious accommodation are bedrock principles of our democracy. We are taking action to ensure that the rights of employees of minority faiths are respected and accommodated in the workplace. As faith communities celebrate Ramadan and other important holidays across religions in the coming weeks, the Justice Department will continue to combat religious discrimination in the workplace.”

CDCR religious freedom case

U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert added that “Our district is one of the most diverse in the country, with communities of many different faiths practicing customs that are central to their beliefs. The action brought today is an important use of the federal civil rights laws to protect this religious expression. My office will continue to work hand in hand with the Civil Rights Division to ensure that individuals of all faiths can receive due consideration for appropriate religious accommodations at workplaces in this district.”

However, the CDCR stood firm in their decision on Monday, saying once again that worker safety was the most important factor.

“CDCR respects all sincerely held religious beliefs and strives to reasonably accommodate individuals seeking religious reasonable accommodations to the extent doing so does not conflict with other legal obligations,” said CDCR spokeswoman Mary Xjimenez. “Tight-fitting respirator masks are legally required under workplace safety laws for certain functions in state prison operations.”

Legal experts told the Globe on Monday that it will likely be a difficult decision for the judge, as it largely boils down to public and work safety against religious freedom and rights.

“This is far from an open and shut case for a judge,” said civil rights attorney Tim Brasser to the Globe on Monday. “The CDCR is legally bound to the regulations for safety purposes, but beards are of great religious importance to some religions. Ultimately, this comes down to the judge they pull and how they interpret the law. Eastern District is Sacramento based, and they have been known to be a bit everywhere in how they come down on issues like this. They’ve got a wide range of judges. And, plus, this is one of those hard decisions where people can understand both sides of the coin. You need safety and you need religious freedom. What’s the balance, you know?”

More on the decision is to come out soon.