Council on American-Islamic Relations Legal Defense Fund

453 New Jersey Ave SE

Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel. 202-742-6420 | Fax 202-379-3317
civilrights@cair.com | www.cair.com

October 17, 2019

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Via First Class Mail and Fax
Philadelphia District Office
801 Market St. Suite 1300
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3127
Fax: 215-440-2606

State of Delaware Department of Labor Via First Class Mail, E-mail, and Fax
Division of Industrial Affairs
Office of Anti-Discrimination
4425 N. Market St, 3rd Fl.
Wilmington, DE 19802
DOL_AntiDiscrimination@state.de.us
Fax: 302-622-4105

RE: CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

Ms. Madinah Brown

Dear Madam or Sir:

Please find enclosed an Amended Charge of Discrimination filed on behalf of Ms. Madinah Brown
against her employer, the State of Delaware. Please direct correspondence regarding Ms. Brown’s
EEOC complaint to our office, preferably via electronic mail.

If you have any questions or lasting concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact
our office directly.

Respectfully,

/s/ Zanah Ghalawanji

Zanah Ghalawanji
Staff Attorney*
Council on American-Islamic Relations
zghalawanji@cair.com
Tel. 202-516-4733

*Licensed to practice in MI, not DC.

Practice limited to federal matters.
 Council on American-Islamic Relations Legal Defense Fund
453 New Jersey Ave SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel. 202-742-6420 | Fax 202-379-3317
civilrights@cair.com | www.cair.com

Charge Presented to: Agency(ies)

Charge No(s):

___ FEPA
___ EEOC

State of Delaware Department of Labor and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Name (indicate Mr. Ms. Mrs.) Home Phone (incl. area code) Date of Birth
MS. MADINAH BROWN

Street Address City, State and ZIP Code

Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local
Government Agency That I believe Discriminated Against Me or Others (if more than two, list under PARTICULARS
below).
Corporation Name No. Employees, Members Phone No. (Area Code)
STATE OF DELAWARE 15+ (302) 633-3100

Location of Employment

DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES

– NEW CASTLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

Corporation Street Address City, State and ZIP Code

820 Silver Lake Blvd., Suite 100 Dover, DE 19904

Location of Employment

963 Centre Road Wilmington, DE 19805

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es)): DATE(S) DISCRIMINATION

___ RACE TOOK PLACE
___ RELIGION Earliest Latest
___ COLOR 2011
___ SEX
___ RETALIATION
___ AGE ___ CONTINUING ACTION
___ DISABILITY
___ OTHER (NATIONAL ORIGIN)

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional paper is needed, attached extra sheet(s)):

Please see Attachment A below.

 Council on American-Islamic Relations Legal Defense Fund
453 New Jersey Ave SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel. 202-742-6420 | Fax 202-379-3317
civilrights@cair.com | www.cair.com

ATTACHMENT A

Ms. Madinah Brown (“Ms. Brown”) is an African-American Muslim woman who wears the hijab
(a religious head covering) in accordance with her sincerely held religious beliefs. In 2011, Ms.
Brown began her employment with the State of Delaware (“Employer” or “Delaware”) as a Youth
Rehabilitation Counselor II and, after her demotion, a Youth Rehabilitation Counselor I
(“Position”) at the Department of Youth and Family Services located in New Castle County
Detention Center. Ms. Brown currently holds this position with Delaware.

The State of Delaware has discriminated against Ms. Brown. First, Delaware refused to initially
hire Ms. Brown because she wore hijab. Second, when she interviewed a second time without it,
she was hired. Yet as soon as she requested an accommodation to wear hijab while at work and
explained the religious significance of her hijab, Delaware denied her accommodation, forced her
to remove it, prohibited her from working, and refused to compensate her unless she agreed to take
off her hijab. Delaware continues to deny Ms. Brown’s religious accommodation request and
prohibits her from working because she wears hijab.

I. Delaware discriminated against Ms. Brown by refusing to hire her because of her
hijab.

In October 2011, Ms. Brown applied and interviewed for a Youth Rehabilitation Counselor
position with the State of Delaware. Prior to Ms. Brown’s interview, a friend expressed concern
about Ms. Brown’s hijab. The friend informed Ms. Brown that she would likely be denied the
position because friend’s acquaintance previously worked with the correctional facility and left
due to issues in connection with requests for a similar religious accommodation.

Ms. Brown nevertheless attended an interview with the State of Delaware while wearing hijab. In
November 2011, she was not selected for the position and Delaware gave no justification as to
why Ms. Brown’s credentials or experience did not meet qualifications. Ms. Brown, a single
mother of three facing various financial and employment hurdles, decided to reapply without
wearing hijab. Though it violated her beliefs, and was a painful decision, she found it necessary
because she was desperate to support her family. In December 2011, Ms. Brown reapplied for the
Youth Rehabilitation Counselor position. She received an interview shortly thereafter.

In February 2012, Ms. Brown attended the interview wherein some of the same panelists asked
her questions and requested she submit paperwork to be processed. Notably, some of the same
panelists from her first interview were present, with one even recognizing Ms. Brown without her
hijab. She was offered the position.

II. Delaware prohibited Ms. Brown from wearing hijab in accordance with her
sincerely-held religious beliefs.

In February 2012, Ms. Brown began working for Delaware, making the decision to work without
hijab because she needed a source of income to financially support her family. She felt compelled
 Council on American-Islamic Relations Legal Defense Fund
453 New Jersey Ave SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel. 202-742-6420 | Fax 202-379-3317
civilrights@cair.com | www.cair.com

to remove her hijab because she did not see another option wherein she could remain employed
and was worried she would incur the same issues her friend warned her about. Indeed, over the
course of Ms. Brown’s employment, Delaware strictly prohibited her from either working or
clocking in if she wore her hijab.

Ms. Brown continuously had to choose between her sincerely-held religious beliefs and
maintaining employment to support her family. Ms. Brown believed Delaware would retaliate if
she wore her hijab to work. In 2014, Ms. Brown made the conscious decision to proudly and freely
practice her religious beliefs. She found the courage to begin wearing her hijab to work. When she
arrived at work, however, one of her supervisors (“Superintendent 1”) personally reprimanded Ms.
Brown and informed her it was unacceptable for her to wear hijab for “safety reasons.” Ms. Brown
complained to her union representatives, but she was informed they could not do anything because
it was unclear what policy Superintendent 1 was referring to.

In July 2014, Superintendent 1 and a previous assistant superintendent (“Assistant Superintendent

1”), began instructing Ms. Brown to remove her hijab. On July 29, 2014, Ms. Brown filed a
complaint pertaining to her hijab with her employer’s HR department. On July 31, 2014, she e-
mailed HR to request the status of her complaint. An HR employee responded to Ms. Brown and
inquired whether she was wearing her hijab. Ms. Brown responded: “I have complied with the
verbal instructions of Superintendent 1, Assistant Superintendent 1, and my supervisor to NOT
wear my religious head covering to work.” No other action was taken by HR. Ms. Brown continued
to acquiesce to Delaware’s demands because she feared Delaware would retaliate against her by
terminating her employment.

On August 7, 2014, Ms. Brown met with Superintendent 1 who informed her of the facility’s
stance toward religious head coverings, specifically that Delaware prohibited the wearing of
religious head coverings due to safety reasons. On August 11, 2014, Ms. Brown e-mailed
Superintendent 1 and requested he provide that information in writing via e-mail. On August 11,
2014, Superintendent 1 responded, “When we met in person in the DSCYF Administration
Building on Thursday morning August 7, 2014, I explained in detail the Division policy and the
reasoning for the Division’s decision regarding head garments.” Later that day, Superintendent 1
sent an additional e-mail informing Ms. Brown, “As I stated in our meeting on Thursday August
7, 2014, the policy of the Division on all head garments is for safety and security reasons for direct
care staff in a Level 5 facility to ensure the safety of staff and residents. The wearing of head
garments may also cause an undue burden to the facility and its operation in ensuring safety and
security.” On August 11, 2014, Ms. Brown forwarded that e-mail to her union representatives and
supervisors.

On August 13, 2014, Ms. Brown’s union representatives filed a grievance on her behalf.
Specifically, Ms. Brown and her union requested that Ms. Brown be made “whole by allowing her
to practice her religious beliefs without prejudice of race, creed, religion, color, or sex. On August
18, 2014 Delaware’s human resources representative (“HR Representative 1”) e-mailed that
grievance to Superintendent 1 and other HR representatives.
 Council on American-Islamic Relations Legal Defense Fund
453 New Jersey Ave SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel. 202-742-6420 | Fax 202-379-3317
civilrights@cair.com | www.cair.com

On October 26, 2014, Ms. Brown met with Superintendent 1 and followed up via e-mail, “At our
meeting we spoke in regards to my religious head covering. I gave you some examples on how we
could compromise in allowing my religious covering no longer be a safety and security issue. I
described to you how I could create my head covering to have some sort of detachable Velcro or
similar detachments as the lanyards we wear around our necks to hold our key badges. We were
unable to compromise and I assured you I would be continuing on to the next step [of the grievance
process].”

In March 2018, Ms. Brown took a leave absence for personal reasons, of which included stress
from not being able to practice her faith. Ms. Brown returned to work in July 2019 and decided to
make another attempt to wear hijab at work. Ms. Brown no longer wished to compromise her
sincerely-held religious beliefs, even if it meant risking her employment. Ms. Brown wore her
hijab to work and without issue on July 18, 19, 22 and 27, 2019.

III. Delaware prohibited Ms. Brown from attending work when she wore hijab and forced
her to leave work without pay because she refused to remove her hijab.

On July 19, 2019, prior to beginning her shift, a supervisor (“Supervisor 1”) texted Ms. Brown that
the assistant superintendent (“Assistant Superintendent”) and the new superintendent
(“Superintendent 2”) relayed to him that Ms. Brown could not work if she wore hijab. When Ms.
Brown asked Supervisor 1 to provide this information in the form of a statement, Supervisor 1
called her. Ms. Brown asked him: “If I come to work in my religious covering, I’m not permitted
to work?” Supervisor 1 responded, “Yes.” Ms. Brown asked Supervisor 1 to put that in writing but
Supervisor 1 denied that request. Later that night, Ms. Brown worked her shift with her hijab on
without issue. Ms. Brown also worked while wearing hijab on July 22, 2019 without issue. Her
Supervisor during that shift, (“Supervisor 4”) did not reprimand her.

On July 23, 2019, Supervisor 1 approached Ms. Brown and relayed a directive from
Superintendent 2, specifically that Superintendent 2 prohibited Ms. Brown from working with
hijab. Delaware forced Ms. Brown to clock out because she refused to remove her hijab. On July
24, 2019, Ms. Brown requested the day off due to the stress her employer was causing her. On July
25, 2019, Ms. Brown arrived at work wearing hijab. Supervisor 1 approached her before she
clocked in and said, “I’m told to tell you that you have two options: (1) to uncover and clock in or
(2) clock out and cover.” Delaware forced Ms. Brown to leave work that day.

On July 27, 2019, Ms. Brown worked while wearing her hijab and without issue. On July 28, 2019,
another Supervisor, (“Supervisor 2”) informed her she could work only if she removed her hijab.
If she did not remove her hijab, she would be forced to clock out. Supervisor 2 informed her this
rule was relayed by the administration—in other words, Superintendent 2 and Assistant
Superintendent.

On July 29, 2019, Ms. Brown arrived at work to sign paperwork. The facility’s program manager
informed Ms. Brown that she would be prohibited from working if she chose to wear her hijab.
 Council on American-Islamic Relations Legal Defense Fund
453 New Jersey Ave SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel. 202-742-6420 | Fax 202-379-3317
civilrights@cair.com | www.cair.com

On July 30, 2019 the union president (“Union President”) e-mailed her employer’s Director and
informed him that Delaware discriminated against Ms. Brown by prohibiting her from practicing
her faith and wearing hijab. Youth Recreational Counselor II contacted Superintendent II via e-
mail and requested a religious accommodation for Ms. Brown to wear hijab. Superintendent II
denied the request.

On July 31, 2019 Ms. Brown’s union representatives requested Ms. Brown “be compensated for
all days she was not permitted to work as a result of discrimination.” Delaware did not provide
Ms. Brown with compensation. Rather, Delaware continued to prohibit Ms. Brown from working
as long as she wore hijab. That day, Supervisor 1 sent her home again because of her hijab.

On August 1, 2019, Supervisor 1, in the presence of another supervisor (“Supervisor 3”), asked
Ms. Brown if she was working. Ms. Brown affirmed. Supervisor 1 then asked Ms. Brown, “Are
you going to follow that directive?” Ms. Brown requested clarification and asked whether that
meant that she needed to remove her hijab. Supervisor 1 said, “Yes.” Supervisor 3 then motioned
to Ms. Brown as if she was wearing a hood, to remove her hood off her head. Ms. Brown was
forced to clock out.

On August 2, 2019, Supervisor 1 texted Ms. Brown and requested to speak with her. He then called
Ms. Brown via phone and informed her that she was prohibited from returning to work unless she
agreed to remove her hijab. Supervisor 1 stated that Superintendent 2 and Assistant Superintendent
gave him a directive prohibiting Ms. Brown from working on the floor with residents if she wore
her hijab. Following the call, Ms. Brown responded via text message and asked Supervisor 1 to
provide that directive in writing and via e-mail. Supervisor 1 did not respond. Nonetheless, Ms.
Brown arrived at work. However, Supervisor 3 informed her that she would have to remove her
hijab. Ms. Brown was forced to clock out.

On August 5, 2019, Supervisor 3 informed Ms. Brown she could not work unless she removed her
hijab. She was forced to clock out.

On August 8, 2019, Ms. Brown’s union representatives met with Delaware’s superintendents
regarding Ms. Brown’s hijab. Union representatives informed Ms. Brown that Delaware’s
superintendents said it was unsafe for her to wear the hijab, because individuals could choke Ms.
Brown while she wore hijab. Union representative responded that employees at the facility
currently wear lanyards at work, and by that logic, the lanyard posed the same safety hazard.
Further, union representatives informed Delaware’s superintendents that Ms. Brown had contacted
a seamstress to create a “breakaway hijab.” A breakaway hijab easily comes off if someone
attempts to choke Ms. Brown with her hijab. Delaware denied Ms. Brown’s request to wear a
breakaway hijab.

Ms. Brown was forced to clock out on August 9, 10, and 11. On August 12, 2019, Supervisor I
sent Ms. Brown home stating, “You know the routine.”
 Council on American-Islamic Relations Legal Defense Fund
453 New Jersey Ave SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel. 202-742-6420 | Fax 202-379-3317
civilrights@cair.com | www.cair.com

Ms. Brown soon realized that Delaware had demoted her without notice. She realized her demotion
on her paystub, which noted the change from Youth Rehabilitation Counselor II to Youth
Rehabilitation Counselor I. Ms. Brown’s pay had also decreased.

On August 19, 2019, Ms. Brown arrived at work wearing hijab. Supervisor 1 threatened further
disciplinary action and informed her, “Unless you uncover, you don’t have a station. Tomorrow
I’ll have to sit down with you and discuss disciplinary actions because this can’t keep happening.”
Ms. Brown requested he provide that information via e-mail. Supervisor 1 responded: “Absolutely
not. We need to sit down face to face.” Supervisor 1 prevented Ms. Brown from clocking in.

On August 20, 2019, Ms. Brown arrived at work wearing hijab. Supervisor 1 requested she meet
him at the unit where Ms. Brown typically meets with youth. Supervisor 1 asked Ms. Brown why
she was wearing her hijab. Ms. Brown responded that no policy states that she is prevented from
wearing her hijab. She stated, “I’m Muslim and I choose to follow my faith.” Supervisor 1 took
notes and said he would follow up via e-mail. A union representative accompanied Ms. Brown
during the conversation.

On August 21, 2019, Ms. Brown arrived at work wearing hijab. Another supervisor told Ms.
Brown to remove it or clock out without pay. Ms. Brown clocked out and went home.

On August 22, 2019, Ms. Brown arrived at work and clocked in, Supervisor 3 motioned to Ms.
Brown to remove her hijab and informed her that she would not be allowed to work if she kept her
hijab on. Ms. Brown was again forced to clock out.

On August 23, 2019, Supervisor I, in the presence of another employee, yelled at Ms. Brown from
across the parking lot that unless she planned on removing her hijab, everything would remain the
same. Ms. Brown was forced to clock in and out.

On August 24, 2019, Supervisor 3 followed Ms. Brown to the time clock and informed her that
she would only be allowed to work if she followed the stipulations and removed her hijab. Ms.
Brown was forced to clock in and out.

On August 25, 2019, Supervisor 3, motioned from the control room for Ms. Brown to remove her
hijab. Ms. Brown clocked in, asking if this was the same as every other night. Supervisor affirmed
and Ms. Brown was forced to clock out.

On August 28, 2019, Ms. Brown attempted to clock-in to her shift but experienced technical
difficulties with the metal detector and doors. Ms. Brown yelled toward the control room so staff
control could hear her and unlock the door. Supervisor 3, in the presence of other employees,
yelled back, “Now you’re looking like a terrorist.” Ms. Brown was shocked by Supervisor 3’s
degrading attacks of her person and faith. She was forced to clock in and out.

On August 31, 2019, Supervisor 3 forced Ms. Brown to clock in and out.
 Council on American-Islamic Relations Legal Defense Fund
453 New Jersey Ave SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel. 202-742-6420 | Fax 202-379-3317
civilrights@cair.com | www.cair.com

On September 2, 2019, Ms. Brown attempted to go through the metal detector and clock in when
a control room employee prevented her entry. The employee informed Ms. Brown that according
to policy, she would not be allowed to work with her hijab. Supervisor 3 reiterated that she would
not be allowed to work with her hijab and forced her to leave.

On September 6, 2019, a supervisor from second shift B informed Ms. Brown that she could not
work with hijab. Ms. Brown was forced to clock in and out. On September 7, 2019, 3 informed
prevented Ms. Brown from working with hijab. She was then forced to clock in and out.

On September 9, Supervisor 4 asked Ms. Brown if she would like to work. When Ms. Brown
confirmed, he responded that she would have to remove her hijab. This confused Ms. Brown, who
recalled a conversation she had with Supervisor 4 in July wherein he actually commended her for
her decision to wear hijab and allowed her to work with her hijab on at least one occasion.

On September 11, 2019, Delaware provided Ms. Brown with a document that stated, “NCCDC
Policy #103A (Dress Code for Non-Uniformed Staff) prohibits the wear of restricted clothing
items, in this instance, wearing a religious head covering while performing your duties in a secured
area.” Delaware provided Ms. Brown with two options: “Option 1: If you wish to submit a request
for policy deviation, please present to administration, suitable alternatives of religious head
garments that you believe would uphold NCCDC’s safety and security requirements while
enabling you to adhere to your religious tenants” OR “Option 2: Report to work and perform your
assigned duties wearing no religious head garment.” This came as a shock to Ms. Brown, who had
requested to wear her hijab and provided suitable alternatives to her hijab on numerous occasions.

Recently, Delaware began prohibiting Ms. Brown from clocking in and working entirely unless
she agrees to violate her religious beliefs and remove her hijab.

On October 1, 2019, Delaware issued Ms. Brown a document labeled “Attendance Improvement
Plan” stating, “You are being placed on an Attendance Improvement Plan (AIP) for violating the
DYRS Attendance Policy. You will be on an AIP for 90 days.

Since, Ms. Brown made attempts to clock-in to work but Delaware prevented her from doing so
unless she removed her hijab.

Another employee (“Employee 1”) also wears the hijab and Delaware has subjected her to similar
issues. At least three additional Muslim female employees were forced to resign from employment
with Delaware because Delaware prohibited them from working while wearing hijab. Delaware
recently required another employee to remove her head wrap, despite having worn it for two years
without issue.

III. The State of Delaware violated Ms. Brown’s federal and state rights under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1965, as amended, and the Delaware Code.
 Council on American-Islamic Relations Legal Defense Fund
453 New Jersey Ave SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel. 202-742-6420 | Fax 202-379-3317
civilrights@cair.com | www.cair.com

The State of Delaware Department of Youth and Family Services discriminated against Ms. Brown
on the basis of religion, sex, race, and color when it refused to initially hire Ms. Brown because
she wore hijab and subsequently prohibited Ms. Brown from working because she wore her hijab.

Delaware was required to accommodate Ms. Brown’s sincerely held religious beliefs, unless doing
so would impose undue hardship. Wearing hijab does not pose an undue burden. Delaware
prohibited Ms. Brown from wearing hijab because they stated it posed a security and safety risk.
Yet, Ms. Brown proposed a solution that would mitigate the potential safety hazards Delaware
cited, with no cost to Delaware. Ms. Brown offered to wear a breakaway hijab that is easily
removable, especially if it is pulled or grabbed. Delaware denied Ms. Brown’s request to wear a
breakaway hijab. Meanwhile, other employees wore head garments at Delaware’s place of
business without issue. Indeed, if the risk was that dire, Ms. Brown should not have worked with
her hijab on all the occasions Delaware allowed her to do so.

Delaware likewise retaliated against Ms. Brown by prohibiting her from working if she chose to
wear her hijab, forcing her to clock out, and eventually preventing her from clocking in all together,
and denying her pay because she refused to remove her hijab, and demoting her from Youth
Counselor II to Youth Counselor I and decreasing her pay.

Ms. Brown is still employed with Delaware and currently faces discrimination. Most recently,
Delaware discriminated against Ms. Brown by calling her a “terrorist.”

As a direct result of these workplace-based issues, Ms. Brown continues to experience

discrimination as a result of practicing her sincerely-held religious beliefs. Delaware’s conduct
amounts to discrimination on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, and the Delaware Code. Del. Code. Ann. Tit. 19 § 710.