Ohio Civil Rights Commission Rejects Complaint Over Muslim Police Cadet’s Hijab


Muslim refused to cooperate with Commission personnel. CAIRorists lose!

Source: FFA – Ohio Civil Rights Commission rejects and repudiates CAIR-OH complaint that Columbus Police unlawfully denied Muslim right to wear hijab while on duty, UPHOLDS police department’s values neutral dress code.

Ohio Civil Rights Commission rejects and repudiates CAIR-OH complaint that Columbus Police unlawfully denied Muslim right to wear hijab while on duty, UPHOLDS police department’s values neutral dress code.

Florida Family Association sent out several email alerts that asked people to send emails to encourage Ohio Governor and Civil Rights Commission to uphold Columbus Police Department’s “values neutral dress code” for law enforcement officers.  More than 15,000 people sent emails to each commissioner and the governor.

The last email alert, sent out on August 1, 2016 prompted the Ohio Civil Rights Commission to send a copy of their July 28, 2016 Letter of Determination regarding CAIR-OH’s complaint to Florida Family Association.

Subject:    RE: Ismahan Isse CAIR complaint
Date:    Tue, 2 Aug 2016 12:47:59 +0000
From:    Payton, Michael
To:    David Caton

August 2, 2016

Dear Mr. Caton,

Upon the conclusion of our investigation, our Commissioners voted 5-0 on July 28th to dismiss the charge of discrimination based on No Probable Cause to believe the law has been violated.  I will send you an electronic copy of our Letter of Determination in this matter in a separate email today.

G. Michael Payton
Executive Director

The Ohio Civil Rights Commission Letter of Determination:

•    Affirms the Columbus Police Department’s values neutral dress code.
•    Reports the Muslim cadet never asked to wear a hijab and was therefore not terminated for such issue.
•    Denies all discrimination allegations made by CAIR-OH affidavit.

Portions of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission Letter of Determination are provided below.

“On August 20, 2015, Charging Party, Council on American Islamic Relations, Ohio (CAIR-OH), filed an affidavit with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission alleging that Respondent, City of Columbus, Division of Police, engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices.   Specifically, CAIR-OH filed a sworn charge alleging a female police cadet, Ismahan Isse, was forced to resign because the police division did not allow her to wear her religiously mandated hijab (headscarf) while on duty.  CAIR-OH concurrently alleges Respondent placed a hiring ban on persons who wear a religious headscarf and therefore discriminated against Muslim women due to their sex and religion.

Despite repeated attempts, the Commission was unable to interview a material witness, Ms. Isse, who refused to cooperate with Commission personnel.  Based upon the investigation, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission finds that there is insufficient information to establish that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Ms. Isse on the basis of sex or religion.

While witnesses did confirm Ms. Isse expressed concern over the inability to wear a hijab, there is no evidence to suggest Ms. Isse was terminated, constructively discharged or even resigned specifically because Respondent did not allow here to wear the headscarf while in police uniform.  Without Ms. Isse’s direct testimony, the Commission must credit Respondent’s witnesses on this point.  The witnesses stated Ms. Isse never asked to wear a hijab and did not seek a reasonable accommodation of her religious beliefs.  Each witness confirmed Ms. Isse resigned prior to becoming a sworn police officer, citing purely personal reasons for the resignation.

CAIR-OH also alleges Respondent placed a ban on hiring Muslim women.  The Commission’s investigation confirms Respondent does – in fact – hire Muslim women, which is most readily evidenced by the fact that Respondent hired Ismahan Isse.  Therefore, the Commission’s investigation uncovered no evidence to substantiate there is a ban on hiring Muslim women.

The Commission also examined general allegations concerning the alleged discriminatory application of Respondent’s policies.  While Respondent did confirm that Ms. Isse was not permitted to wear a headscarf, there is no evidence to suggest she was targeted due to her sex or religion.  Respondent is a para-military organization.  Respondent has a neutral “Professional Appearance Policy” (Policy No. 11.01).  This policy provides that division personnel shall only wear authorized uniform garments.  Policy, p.1)  Deviations from the Appearance Policy must be approved in advance through the chain of command.  (Policy, p.5)  Further, Respondent’s witnesses confirmed that religious insignia, such as head coverings, may not be visible on sworn officers while in uniform.  Respondent states deviations from the Appearance Policy are categorically denied.  Sworn peace officers are mandated to wear designated organization-issued uniforms and emblems for uniformity, safety, and neutrality, which Respondent emphasizes is germane to the position held, despite an employee’s sex or religious affiliation.

The Commission could find no evidence suggesting employees of one religious preference are favored over another.  Nor could the Commission find evidence that Respondent treats males differently from females.  There is no evidence to suggest that Ms. Isse requested to wear the hijab as an accommodation of her religious beliefs and was consequently denied.  Nor is there evidence to suggest Respondent allowed non-Muslim peace officers the ability to wear headscarves, hats or head coverings, other than those defined in the Professional Appearance Policy, which are permitted only for tactical or weather-related purposes.


Based on the investigation conducted in this matter, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission has determined that there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE for the Commission to issue an administrative complaint accusing Respondent of an unlawful discriminatory practice.  Consequently, the Commission hereby orders that this matter be DISMISSED.

6 thoughts on “Ohio Civil Rights Commission Rejects Complaint Over Muslim Police Cadet’s Hijab

  1. Recurrent theme in movies, etc. is the bad guy dressed in police attire. How insane of us to permit muslims to work in police departments where they are privy to every detail of uniform and procedure.

    In any dispute between a kufar and a muslim, would it be possible for a muslim officer to be fair? It would be against his religious teachings!
    Does the departments realize that muslims are COMMANDED to lie for islam and since they muslims received training in deception from birth they will not even register on lie detection equipment.

    • I understand and share your concerns. Actually I’m the Saturday People they would kill first and you might be the Sunday People they would kill afterwards. It’s their words not mine. This cleared up that my people experienced Forced Ghettos for Centuries and limited professions I would not be able to live here if we went backwards to Second Class citizens. I do believe 5 8 10yrs for plotting terrorist acts or joining ISIS should be at least 25 yrs until the person is too old to be a threat.

    • Muslims are not fit to be in any position within government. They do not have allegiance to the American people or the US. The violent deeds of Muslims are simply a product of the religion they believe in. The problem is not race, gender, or culture but religion, and that religion has a name- Islam. Muslims will not assimilate into the American culture.It is partitive the Muslims stay out of the American government.

  2. Thank G-d Sanity has returned! CAIR KEEP pushing eventually there will be push-back! Your connections to HAMAS, and the Muslim Brotherhood reflects who you are no matter what disguise you wear

  3. I learned a long time ago from the Study of History & Political Discourse that once you stop People from their ability to speak and express themselves freely two things happen. 1 They continue talking but underground only to people they know so the government no longer knows what they are thinking 2. The end result the recognize the Government for what it is and they will eventually take to Arms to overthrow the Government.
    The Government may think that can’t happen today. Think about 1776. The British Empire against a ill equipped ill- trained Peoples Army that needed to be in the fields to feed their families fighting the greatest power on Earth at the time well trained combat proven organized looking upon the Colonist almost as Foreigners. Only 1/3 of the Colonist supported the Revolution. Therefore 1/3 of the Colonists, later with the help of the French and many IOUs not $ the American wore down the British to Surrender the US.
    Don’t fool with what the Founding Fathers described as Our G-d Given Rights Amendments 1-10 Bill of Rights and in order of importance Speech/Expression, then bearing Arms to protect themselves not from their neighbor but possibly the …..

If sharia law continues spreading, you'll have less and less freedom of speech - so speak while you can!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.