Article

ECBAWM Files Amicus Brief in the Fourth Circuit Arguing Against District Court’s Holding on Sovereign Immunity

ECBAWM filed an amicus brief on behalf of Aziz Huq and Erwin Chemerinsky in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today in support of Jane Roe, the appellant in Roe v. United States, et al. The brief argues that the District Court erred by holding that sovereign immunity bars Roe’s claims against federal officials in their official capacities seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. ECBAWM partners Ilann M. Maazel and Sam Shapiro authored the brief.

The brief can be read in its entirety here.

Article

ECBAWM and CAIR-NY Obtain Settlement Ending Yonkers Police Department’s Discriminatory “Hijab Removal” Practice

The Yonkers Police Department has agreed to end its discriminatory practice of forcing suspects to remove hijabs and other religious attire while in custody. Pursuant to a settlement obtained by ECBAWM and the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-NY), the YPD will be permitted to remove religious head coverings (including hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes, and more) only in very limited circumstances. The YPD has further agreed to train its employees about the new policy and report to ECBAWM and CAIR-NY annually for three years to ensure proper compliance.

“The policy changes laid out by this decision provide a comprehensive roadmap for other cities to follow in remedying this egregious violation of civil rights,“ said ECBAWM partner O. Andrew F. Wilson. “Following the settlement obtained last year against the NYPD, we are optimistic that these cases will offer a precedent to spur other cities and police departments nationwide to address this ongoing issue in a meaningful way.”

“The amount of damages awarded in our settlement further reflect how seriously the City of Yonkers has taken this event and the incursion into the religious rights of our client,” added Emma Freeman, an ECBAWM attorney who also represents the plaintiff.

The settlement also requires the City of Yonkers to pay $175,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The plaintiff is represented by ECBAWM attorneys O. Andrew F. Wilson and Emma Freeman. For additional information, please see today’s press release.

Related Press

Yonkers Police Revise Policy on Women Wearing Hijabs in Custody

Article

ECBAWM, as Independent Investigator, Releases Report on the City of Rochester’s Response to the Death of Daniel Prude

On September 16, 2020, the Rochester City Council, by Ordinance No. 2020-283, appointed our law firm, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel, LLP (“ECBAWM”), to serve as Special Council Investigator to investigate the City’s response to the arrest and death of Daniel Prude. On March 12, 2021, we released our final Report of the Investigation.

The Report reflects six months’ worth of work by ECBAWM lawyers and staff; it is over 50 pages in length, and it contains dozens of factual findings, as well as an analysis of the facts as found. No brief public statement can summarize those findings, that analysis, or the Report as a whole. We urge any interested person to take the time to read the Report in full. That said, when our firm was appointed, we committed that our work would answer the fundamental question that many people in the Rochester community were urgently asking, and that many continue to demand an answer to today:

Did officials of City government suppress information about the arrest and death of Daniel Prude between March 23, 2020, when the arrest occurred, and September 2, 2020, when the Prude family publicly released body-worn camera footage of the incident?
The straightforward answer is yes. The Investigation revealed no explanation that fully accounts for the more than four-month delay between the death of an unarmed man at the hands of Rochester police, and public disclosure of the facts and circumstances under which the death occurred — other than a decision or series of decisions not to make such disclosure.
The Investigation uncovered a great deal of evidence and reached specific, sometimes nuanced, conclusions. Understanding that evidence and those conclusions require consideration of the full Report, with time and attention to detail.

The Investigation was conducted by ECBAWM attorneys Andrew G. Celli, Jr.Katherine Rosenfeld, and Scout Katovich; and was supported by paralegals Kathryn Ravey and Jocelyn Rodriguez.

Supporting documentation for the Report can be found at RochesterInvestigation.com.

Media coverage of this Report has been reported by the Associated Press, the Democrat & Chronicle, and NBC New York.

Article

Federal Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss ECBAWM’s Religious Head Covering Class Action Against the City of New York

On September 30, 2020, federal judge Analisa Torres denied a motion to dismiss brought by the City of New York against a class-action lawsuit filed by ECBAWM and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, New York on behalf of all New Yorkers forced to remove their religious head coverings for mug shots while in NYPD custody. The Court upheld Plaintiffs’ claims under the Federal Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), both of which protect the rights of all New Yorkers to express their beliefs through religious clothing. The Court’s decision means that ECBAWM and CAIR-NY will continue to press forward with their efforts to end the NYPD’s practice of forcing arrestees to undress for mug shots and vindicate the rights of all who have been subjected to this harmful policy.

“This decision allows all New Yorkers to pursue their claims against the NYPD for gratuitously stripping them of their religious clothing,” said O. Andrew F. Wilson, a partner at ECBAWM.

“The Court’s decision recognizes that the U.S. Constitution and federal law both protect the right of every New Yorker to wear their chosen religious headgear—even while in police custody,” said ECBAWM attorney Emma Freeman. “This is a significant victory for people of all faiths.”

ECBAWM’s O. Andrew F. Wilson and Emma Freeman represent the plaintiffs.

.