A woman who is too ugly to be seen in public should not get $100,000 because someone was obligated to photograph her.
The hijab does not cover the face. I do wonder if a Sikh would be required to remove his turban. If not on the premise that it is a religious item than her case was valid. But it could also be argued that a hijab unlike the Sikh turban is not an essential part of religious identity. Since many Muslim women do not wear one unless required to.
I any event the required removal was not worth that much of a payout.