Wednesday, January 14, 2026
Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Employer Barring Muslim Head Covering Wasn’t Religious Discrimination
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a public transit agency in an action brought by a fired bus driver who claimed religious discrimination because she was not allowed to wear a hijab, a head covering donned by Muslim women.
It was bad driving on the part of plaintiff Shannon Cross—who was deemed to be 100% at fault in a 2019 collision with a bicyclist—as well as violations of rules that led to the termination of her employment, defendant Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (“CCCTA”) maintained, persuading District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California. Upholding the judgment, in a memorandum opinion, were Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, joined by Kiyo A. Matsumoto, a District Court judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Cross said in her Feb. 24, 2021 complaint:
“Plaintiff Shannon Cross is an African-American Muslim woman who was employed at CCCTA as a transit operator, and was subject to harassment and discrimination on account of her religious practice of wearing her Hijab (head scarf). Soon after plaintiff complained to Human Resources about the harassment and discriminatory treatment, defendant terminated plaintiffs employment, citing pretextual grounds.”
Cross’s Claims
She claimed religious and racial discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. Cross sought reinstatement, back pay, attorney fees, and an order “requiring Defendant to provide management training on the subjects of harassment, retaliation and discrimination, including specific training on the accommodation of Muslim religious practices.”
Responding to Cross’s contention that discrimination was manifested by two supervisors who told her she could not wear her hijab, the Ninth Circuit opinion says:
“…CCCTA explained that the supervisors were ‘merely attempting to enforce the dress code.’ and under CCCTA’s handbook for transit operators, supervisors were expressly empowered to issue verbal warnings for perceived rule infractions of CCCTA’s policy, such as wearing unauthorized headwear….Because these statements do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the supervisors harbored an animus against the Muslim religion rather than an attempt to enforce the dress code. Cross fails to establish discriminatory intent through direct evidence.”
The judges said that Cross also failed to show discrimination by pointing to a similarly situated employees in other classes being treated more favorably. Although the plaintiff drew attention to another bus driver, Ronnette Brown, a non-Muslim, having had been in an accident involving a bicyclist without being fired, the judges noted that there were different circumstances: that Brown had not been at fault while Cross was; the accident Brown was in was non-preventable was Cross’s was; Brown was a “25+ year veteran” while Cross had been driving a bus for less than a year.
Reason for Firing
Cross contended she was fired in retaliation for her insistence on wearing a hijab. The opinion says she failed to show that the stated reason—the accident—was pretextual.
She also claimed there had been a hostile work environment, citing a comment by a supervisor who said, “You can’t wear that,” referring to the hijab,” another supervisor telling her she was not allowed to wear “that thing” and a remarking, “now I’m going to wear my hat for religious purposes.” The judges responded:
“But three allegedly offensive comments over the course of nearly a year are not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment.”
The case is Cross v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, 24-6068.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company