In Bridges v. Prince Georges County, Maryland, (D MD, Feb. 1, 2024), a Maryland federal district court refused to grant summary judgment for either plaintiff or the defendants in a suit by a Muslim chaplain alleging that his 1st Amendment rights were violated by the application process for a paid supervisory position at the county detention center. At issue was a "Statement of Applicant's Christian Faith" that was part of the application form created by Prison Ministry of America (PMA) which, under contract with the county, was to provide a non-denominational chaplain supervisor for the jail. After finding that plaintiff had standing and that PMA was a state actor during the hiring process, the court said in part:
Because a reasonable jury could find the Statement of Christian Faith to be “a religious test” ..., summary judgment cannot be granted in favor of Defendants on this count. However, Defendants’ assertion that the Statement was optional creates a sufficient dispute of material fact as to render summary judgment inappropriate in Plaintiff’s favor, as well....
Regardless of whether the Statement of Christian Faith was mandatory or not, the inclusion of such a statement, especially given that it appeared on its face to be required, clearly employed a non-neutral policy as it specifically allowed for participation by Christians and no others. This non-neutral practice, then, could be viewed by a reasonable jury as placing a burden on Plaintiff’s religious expression by denying him the ability to apply for a job that he otherwise would have been able to seek, due to his religion.... As such, a reasonable jury could find that this burdened Plaintiff’s freedom of expression and that the policy was not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest, and thus summary judgment cannot be granted in favor of Defendants. However, the question of whether the inclusion of the Statement of Christian Faith in the application burdened Plaintiff’s religious exercise, given Defendants’ assertion that the Statement of Christian Faith was not actually required, creates a genuine dispute of material fact, and, therefore, summary judgment cannot be granted in favor of Plaintiff, either.
