Legal Center

United States Judicial Opinions Regarding the Sikh Religious Identity
Summary of Landmark Decisions

Gurdev Kaur Cheema v. Harold Thompson, 67 F. 3d 883 (9th Cir. 1995)
In Cheema, a Sikh family filed a federal civil rights action requesting a federal court to enjoin a grade school from enforcing a statutory ban on weapons in schools. The law precluded their children, baptized Sikhs, from carrying a kirpan in their classroom. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision to lift its wholesale ban on the carrying of a kirpan and imposed a "plan of accomodation" that allowed students to carry a kirpan pursuant to a variety of restrictions, including the requirement that the kirpan be tightly sewn to the sheath so that it cannot be removed. [more]

LOOC, Inc., d/b/a/ Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. Prabhjot S. Kohli, 347 Md. 258 (C.A. Md. 1997)
Prabhjot S. Kohli, a job applicant, filed a complaint with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, alleging religious discrimination arising from Domino's failure to hire him for a managerial position in their pizza store, due to his refusal to shave his beard, which was worn for religious purposes. An administrative law judge found that Domino's failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that it would suffer undue hardship if required to accommodate the Sikh applicant's religious practice, and therefore engaged in unlawful religious discrimination in its employment practices. An appeal board ordered Domino's to revise its no-beard policy, pay Kohli back pay, and offer him the next available position as manager in training. [more]

Khalsa v. Weinberger, 779 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985)
Guru Sant Singh Khalsa brought an action against the Army for refusing to process his enlistment application because he could not comply with Army appearance regulations. Khalsa contended that Army regulations requiring soldiers to cut their hair, shave, and wear only specified types of jewelry and headgear violated his right under the First Amendment to exercise his religious beliefs. The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of limited reviewability of military regulations and decisions, stating that in balancing the substance of Khalsa's claim and his potential injury against the extent of interference with military functions and expertise, the Army appearance regulations were not subject to judicial review. [more]

Indianapolis Yellow Cab, Inc. v. Indiana Civil Rights Comm'n, 570 N.E. 2d 940 (Ind. 1991)
Amarjit Singh Sher, a practicing Sikh, desired to lease a cab from Indianapolis Yellow Cab and requested to be trained as a driver. The manager advised Sher that he could not drive a Yellow Cab unless he removed the turban that covered his head. Sher filed a complaint of religious discrimination with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission. The Commission entered an Order determining that Yellow Cab had engaged in religious discrimination. [more]

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Partap Singh (NY, 1987)
A kirpan case. [more]

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HARJINDER SINGH, Defendant-Appellant (OH, 1996)
A kirpan case. [more]

[BACK]