The demand by Judge Callahan, in my view, was manifestly wrong and unnecessary. However, there does appear to be a disconnect between the alleged injury in the complaint and the attitude of Albaghdady in the court videotape. In a press conference, Albaghdady protested that “I was hurt, the way he treated me. I was really, really scared and terrified.” She spoke of the humiliation and shame of that moment when she appeared before the court for a name-changing hearing.
Yet, while it is not audible on the video, Albaghdady does not raise religious objections or even strongly object in her exchange with the court:
Callahan: “The headpiece…
Albaghdady: “I’m sorry?”
Callahan: “No hats allowed in the courtroom.”
Man seated in the courtroom: “It’s not a hat. It’s a scarf.”
Callahan: “Excuse me, sir.”
Albaghdady: “This one?”
Callahan: “No hats allowed in the courtroom.”
Albaghdady: “This one?”
Callahan: “Yes.”
Albaghdady: “OK. It doesn’t matter.”
“OK, it doesn’t matter” is not the strongest basis for such damages. Moreover, while her lawyers insist that she was intimidated and (as an Iraqi immigrant) is a bit fearful of any judge, Albaghdady later strongly argues with Callahan over a question of her application. Callahan appears otherwise respectful and could claim that, absent a religious objection, scarves should be removed and some people have no objection.
The tape makes this case all the more interesting. Albaghdady seems correct on the religious-based claim, but does not come across as the best claimant.
This is not the first court to face such a challenge over the removal of a hijab, here. Indeed in Michigan there has been prior litigation over the requirement to remove a veil, here.
Assuming it is the same judge, “Bill” Callahan was given the “Judge of the Year” award in 1996, here.