• Home
  • News
  • Scissors, Boxcutters Are OK; Religious Knife Is Not, Lawsuit Says IRS Ruled

Labor & Employment

Scissors, Boxcutters Are OK; Religious Knife Is Not, Lawsuit Says IRS Ruled

Posted Jan 8, 2009 3:22 PM CST
By Martha Neil

A Texas woman filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in federal court this week, contending that the tax agency had refused to allow her to carry with her to work a small knife required by her religion.

According to her lawyer, "the IRS banned the kirpan as a so-called dangerous weapon, even though the government allows hundreds of sharp scissors, letter openers, knives and box cutters in the Mickey Leland Federal Building in downtown Houston, where [Kawaljeet Kaur] Tagore worked," reports the Houston Chronicle.

An observant Sikh, Tagore, now 35, is required to wear the knife as an article of faith, the suit says. She was allegedly fired by the IRS in 2006 when she refused to take off the knife. Earlier, however, the IRS allowed her to work from home for nearly a year.

Tagore's kirpan reportedly had a 3-inch blade that was not sharp, and was not intended to be used as a weapon. However, a supervisor told her a federal law bans blades of more than 2.5 inches in federal buildings.

Her lawsuit seeks back pay and benefits, reinstatement to her job and the seniority she would have had if she wasn't fired, plus compensatory and punitive damages.

The same kirpan also was at issue in a separate incident involving Harris County sheriff's deputies, who allegedly threatened her with a stun gun after seeing the knife on her hip and handcuffed her when the family reported a burglary at their home last year, the newspaper writes. An internal affairs investigation into that incident is ongoing.

A representative of the Sikh Coalition tells the Chronicle that kirpans are common religious items for Sikhs that must be worn at all times, and says other employers allow them.

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Jan 8, 2009 7:18 PM CST

Sihk, and ye shall find.  I don’t see the issue with a little toy like this at IRS.  I am working on a religion that will require its devotees to pack a highland two-hander, at least five pounds in weight and 59.5 inches in length, to any meeting or social event where persons from England may be present.

Flag this comment

2.

A. Ahluwalia
Jan 8, 2009 11:24 PM CST

B. McLeod, your ignorance is appalling.  The kirpan is a religious article of faith, not a “little toy” as you so irreverantly referred to it.  Is the cross a little toy? A yamukah a little toy?  Instead of commenting on something you obviously have no knowledge about, why don’t you pick up a book and educate yourself before having the audacity to make light of a very serious situation.  I am pretty sure you would not appreciate any American’s religious rights to be violated, including your own, and that is exactly what transpired in this case.  Open your eyes, America is very diverse and such foolish comments like yours are unacceptable.

Flag this comment

3.

T. Spence
Jan 9, 2009 7:18 AM CST

I dont think McLeod was making light of a religious article, I believe ‘little toy’ referred to the idea that this article was an actual weapon. As weapons go, it would be considered a little toy. This story reminds me of the school girl in Georgia (if i remember correctly) that had a tweety bird key chain. Well, the head of tweety broke off and there was a small chain left. She was expelled for carrying a weapon! The school had determined that chains (I am sure they mean the kind that go from wallet in rear pocket to front pocket) were weapons.

Flag this comment

4.

akman
Jan 9, 2009 8:00 AM CST

what if ur religion requires u to carry a bomb to rid the world of infidels - are we going to allow that too?

Flag this comment

5.

B. McLeod
Jan 9, 2009 8:54 AM CST

I consider that I am as much entitled to my appalling ignorance as any of my colleagues.  However, I did not intend to offend any baptised sikh by my insensitive reference to Ms. Tagore’s kirpan, for which, I apologize.  To clarify, it seems to me that a three-inch symbolic blade which is not sharp is actually no more dangerous than common office articles such as pens or letter-openers, and should not be regulated as a weapon.

Flag this comment

6.

B
Jan 9, 2009 11:04 AM CST

Are blades more than 2.5 inches banned by federal law or federal regulation (perhaps both)?  Either way, I wish the standard for rational basis review was actually rational.  This law/regulation is clearly irrational and should be striken down on that basis.

Flag this comment

7.

Heidi
Jan 9, 2009 12:08 PM CST

This may be too simple, but could there be such thing as a kirpan with a 2.5” blade?  If it were less than 3” would it still be a kirpan?  Food for thought. 

And, by the way, it is easy to see how an object that is called a knife but is not sharp and is not intended as a weapon (think butter knife as another example) may be safely carried.  On the other had, carrying a bomb for “religious” reasons in the context described above has as its sole purpose to commit violence, which I think trumps the right to carry it into a federal building.  But then rational discussion doesn’t seem to be your point.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.