Court Upholds California's Repeal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Vaccination Mandate

 In Royce v. Pan, (SD CA, March 17, 2025), a California federal district court rejected a free exercise challenge to California's removal of the "personal belief" exemption from the state's compulsory school vaccination requirements. The court rejected arguments that the repeal of the exemption evidenced hostility to religion and that the law is not generally applicable because it exempts comparable secular activity.  The court said in part:

First, SB 277 did not specifically repeal a religious exemption.  Rather, it repealed a general personal belief exemption that was secular and neutral on its face.  Repeal of a secular exemption does not demonstrate hostility towards any religion or religious practice.  Second, even if SB 277 could be characterized as repealing a religious exemption, repealing a prior religious exemption is not hostile towards religion per se....

Plaintiffs argue that SB 277 is substantially underinclusive and treats secular activity more favorably than religious exercise by eliminating exemptions for religious reasons but permitting secular exemptions that undermine the State’s interest in a similar way.....  In particular, Plaintiffs highlight medical exemptions, exemptions for home schooled children and children enrolled in independent student programs, exemptions for students who qualify for IEPs, exemptions for students over 18 years of age, and conditional enrollment for migrant, homeless, foster, and military children.....

The court concluded that none of these exemptions are comparable to a religious exemption and that rational basis review applies because the law is neutral and generally applicable.

9th Circuit: Profs Lack Standing to Challenge Addition of Caste Discrimination to University's Anti-Discrimination Policy

In Kumar v. Koester, (9th Cir., March 12, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Hindu California State University college professors lack standing to challenge the addition of "caste" as a protected class under the university's anti-discrimination and harassment policy. Plaintiffs claim that this addition falsely attributes a caste system to Hinduism. The court said in part:

Appellants allege that the Policy’s inclusion of “caste” stigmatized their religion and caused them to self-censor certain religious practices, like celebrating holidays and discussing religious texts....

The complaint ... alleges that the Policy violates the Religious Clauses of the First Amendment by defining the Hindu religion as including a caste system, and in doing so, “ascrib[es] an oppressive and discriminatory caste system to the entire Hindu religion.”...  

Appellants failed to show that they intend to engage in any religious practice that could reasonably constitute caste discrimination or harassment such that the Policy would be enforced against them....

... How can Appellants be injured by a policy prohibiting conduct that they have no intention to engage in?...

... Appellants have alleged no injury to their ability to exercise their religion.  Rather, their claims only indicate that they are offended by an alleged association of the caste system with Hinduism.  This is the exact “moral, ideological, or policy objection to a particular government action” that the injury in fact requirement is meant to “screen[] out.”...

... [T]he district court made a factual finding that the Policy had no hostility toward religion.  It based that finding on (1) the fact that the Policy does not mention Hinduism; (2) dictionary definitions show “caste” is “readily defined without reference to Hinduism” 

... If the Policy does not stigmatize Hinduism, Appellants have no spiritual injury.  And if there is no injury, there is no standing....  Appellants’ Establishment Clause claim fails for lack of Article III standing....

[Thanks to Dusty Hoesly for the lead.]

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Title VII Religioius Discrimination Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Hittle v. City of Stockton, California, (Docket No. 24-427, certiorari denied 3/10/2025). Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of cert. In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of a religious discrimination suit under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act brought by the city's former Fire Chief.  Among the several reasons given to plaintiff by the city for his dismissal was his attendance at a Christian religious leadership event on city time and with use of a city vehicle, and his approval for three other Department employees to also attend. (See prior posting.) In his dissent, Justice Thomas said in part:

I would have taken this opportunity to revisit McDonnell Douglas and decide whether its burden-shifting framework remains a workable and useful evidentiary tool.

CNN reports on the denial of review.

DOJ Starts Title VII "Pattern or Practice" Investigation of Antisemitism at University of California

The Department of Justice has launched an employment discrimination investigation of the University of California. A DOJ press release this week says in part:

The Federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced that the Justice Department has opened a civil pattern or practice investigation into the University of California (UC) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The investigation will assess whether UC has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race, religion and national origin against its professors, staff and other employees by allowing an Antisemitic hostile work environment to exist on its campuses....

Under Title VII, the Justice Department has the authority to initiate investigations against state and local government employers where it has reason to believe that a “pattern or practice” of employment discrimination exists....

CBS News reports on the investigation.

Coffee House Sued Over Separate Antisemitic Incidents Involving Harassment of Customers

 A suit under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act alleging religious discrimination was filed yesterday in a California state trial court against an Oakland, California coffee house that (unknown to plaintiff) had a history of promoting menu items with names connected with Hamas. The complaint (full text) in Hirsch v. Native Grounds, Inc. (D/B/A Jerusalem Coffee House), (CA Super. Ct., filed 3/3/2025), alleges that plaintiff, a Jewish American who entered the coffee house with his 5-year-old son, was asked restaurant's owner (also a defendant) to leave because he was wearing a baseball cap that featured a Jewish star.  The complaint alleges in part:

26. Within minutes of sitting down, Mr. Hirsch was approached by Defendant Harara. Harara demanded to know whether Hirsch was a “Zionist.” ... When Hirsch refused to answer Harara’s question, Harara demanded that he leave the premises. 

27. Harara threatened to call the police and repeatedly demanded that Hirsch leave the premises, which he described as his private business.... When Hirsch pointed out that he was being asked to leave because his hat depicted a Jewish star, Harara stated that “this is a violent hat, and you need to leave.” 

28. An employee of the East Bay Community Space ... stated that it was the business’ right and that “they could ask you to leave for any reason.” Mr. Hirsch again pointed out that a business cannot refuse service to someone solely ... because of their religion. Raven [the employee] disagreed, claiming “they’re allowed to ask you to leave for any reason” and ... claiming that “the only reason they know you’re a protected class is that you’re putting on your hat. You’re choosing to be here in this situation.”

San Francisco Standard reports on the lawsuit.

This suit follows one filed in a California federal district court by another plaintiff several days earlier alleging antisemitic discrimination at the same coffee house.  The complaint (full text) in Radice v. Jerusalem Boxing Club, LLC, (ND CA, filed 2/27/2025), alleges in part:

2. Once in July 2024 and once in August 2024, Mr. Radice visited Oakland in connection with his work as the interim executive director for a nonprofit organization to secure the East Bay Community Space ... as a venue for a fundraiser event for that nonprofit organization. The Community Space’s building houses JBC and JCH [Jerusalem Coffee House]. 

3. On both occasions, Mr. Radice was harassed and excluded from JCH (a place of public accommodation), explicitly because he is Jewish. On the second occasion, Mr. Radice was refused service and followed out of JCH and down the block. Accordingly, JBC violated Mr. Radice’s civil rights under both federal and California law. 

ADL issued a press release announcing the filing of this lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Software Company's Denial of Discount to Christian Nonprofit

A suit under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by a Christian nonprofit organization that offers a video curriculum designed to instruct teenagers about Christian beliefs on sexuality.  The complaint (full text) in Holy Sexuality v. Asana, Inc., (SD CA, filed 2/18/25), alleges that Asana, Inc. which sells subscriptions for project management software, violated the public accommodation religious discrimination provisions of California law when it denied plaintiff the 50% discount offered to nonprofits. According to the complaint:

To qualify, nonprofits must: have 501(c)(3) status; not be an education or academic institution, hospital, hospital auxiliary, nurse register, mutual organization, or credit union; and not “advocate, support, or practice discrimination based on age, ethnicity, gender, national origin, disability, race, size, religion, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic background.”...

But, under its Religious Discrimination Policy, Asana denies that discount to “[r]eligious organizations that exist to solely propagate a belief in a specific faith.”...

Asana’s religious discrimination was and remains arbitrary, especially because Asana grants discounts to nonprofits who hold views opposite to Holy Sexuality’s and grants discounts to other religious nonprofits.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Refusing to Allow Minister To Wear Collar At His Criminal Trial Was Not Reversable Error

 In People v. Johnson, (CA App., Feb. 18, 2025), a California state appellate court held that a trial court's refusal to allow a criminal defendant, an ordained minister, to wear his clerical collar and have a Bible with him during his trial was not reversable error. Defendant was charged with gross vehicular homicide while intoxicated. The court said in part:

Assuming only for purposes of argument that the trial court erred in not allowing defendant to wear a collar, we must determine whether the error would have been prejudicial.  Federal constitutional error requires reversal unless the beneficiary of the error can show it was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” ...

... [P]rohibiting defendant from wearing a clerical collar did not result in a structural defect in the constitution of his trial.  Nothing in the record indicates his inability to wear a collar impacted the outcome of his trial, interfered with his fundamental trial rights, or in any way impacted the trial’s structural truth-finding process.  Any error by the trial court in not allowing defendant to wear a collar was not structural. 

We thus must determine whether the assumed error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt...  Defendant offers no argument on this point.  As a result, he has forfeited the issue....  Any error by the trial court denying defendant his request to wear a clerical collar was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and not prejudicial.

The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life under California's Three Strikes Law. The Court of Appeals however remanded the case for resentencing, finding that defendant did not receive fair notice that a three-strike sentence would be sought.

Refusal To Sell Generic Cake for Same-Sex Wedding Reception Violates California Anti-Discrimination Law

In Civil Rights Department v. Cathy's Creations, Inc., (CA App., Feb. 11, 2025), a California state appellate court in a 74-page opinion held that a bakery violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA) when it refused to sell a predesigned white cake to a customer because the cake would be used at the customer's same-sex wedding reception. The bakery had a policy of refusing customer requests that violate fundamental Christian principles. The court rejected defendant's free exercise and free speech defenses and concluded that the bakery's referral of the customer to another bakery did not eliminate the violation. The court said in part:

Here, the policy’s application hinges not on the act of marriage, but on the same sex status of the couple to be married.  Thus, the policy’s purposeful exclusion of same sex couples is facial discrimination because of sexual orientation....

... [T]he fact that Miller’s adoption of the discriminatory policy was driven by her sincerely held religious beliefs rather than malice or ill will is irrelevant to the issue of intentional discrimination....

Discriminatorily denying service and then telling would-be customers they may take their business down the street (or farther) to a separate, unassociated establishment where they may be served by way of referral in no way ensures full and equal access to the product or service at the same price and under the same conditions.... [A] referral to a separate and independent business subjects the customer to “‘the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments’” that public accommodation laws like the UCRA are generally designed to address.....

Focusing on the bakery's free speech and free exercise defenses, the court said in part: 

The act of providing a product to a wedding reception with the intent to send a message does not transform that product into pure speech if the product itself is not the self-expression of the vendor.  If this were the case, a host of nonexpressive products or services provided for a same-sex wedding reception could be deemed to convey a message merely because they were provided for the event—e.g., flatware, chairs and linens, etc.  Moreover, many standard products provided to a wedding reception are equally as visible as the cake and used by the couple in a symbolic manner....  The mere fact these products are prepared for and provided to a same-sex wedding in a routine economic transaction does not transform them into the self-expression of the vendor....

There is also little likelihood a viewer would understand the cake’s sale and provision to a same-sex wedding conveyed any message about marriage generally or an endorsement and celebration of same-sex marriage in particular....

Here, the UCRA does not draw any distinctions between secular and religious activities, and there is no evidence the UCRA was enacted as a means to discriminate against religion.  Moreover, defendants’ argument the statutory provisions relating to the preservation of housing for senior citizens ... are contradictory secular exemptions under the UCRA, rendering it not generally applicable, is unpersuasive.

University Did Not Violate Constitution by Permitting Anti-Zionist Encampment

In Groveman v. Regents of the University of California, (ED CA, Feb. 4, 2025), a California federal district court dismissed a suit alleging that the University of California Davis participated in the denial of plaintiff's constitutional rights when it allowed a pro-Palestinian encampment to continue even though it violated University rules on camping and obtaining permits. Plaintiff who is Jewish and identifies as a Zionist was blocked by the encampment from walking through the campus. He was told that Zionists are not welcome and was struck by an umbrella. Rejecting plaintiff's equal protection claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of establishing even a causal connection between defendants’ actions and plaintiff’s exclusion from the encampment, let alone that defendants acted with discriminatory intent.... Nor does plaintiff allege any facts suggesting that the university treated Jewish individuals differently than the encampment participants; there is no indication that Jewish individuals sought to establish an encampment, or that if they had, the university would have rebuffed them or prevented them from engaging in comparable treatment of pro-Palestinian protestors....

Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

Plaintiff alleges that defendants “deprived [him] of the right to express his Jewish identity freely” by “allowing the encampment to thwart religious dialog[ue]” in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment....  It is not possible to draw a plausible inference that defendants’ actions (or inactions) had the effect of favoring or disfavoring any religion or burdening plaintiff’s religious exercise....

The court also concluded that defendants had qualified immunity. Plaintiff's claim under Title VI was dismissed for lack of standing because he was not connected with any University program that received federal funding. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's Americans With Disabilities Act claim. While plaintiff had a mobility issue, the fact "that a single path preferred by plaintiff was not accessible does not plead a violation of Title II of the ADA."

Lifeguard Who Has Religious Objections to Pride Month Has Claim for Undermining of His Religious Accommodation

In Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department, (CD CA, Jan. 25, 2025), a California federal district court allowed a Fire Department captain assigned to the Lifeguard Division to move ahead on certain of his Free Exercise, Title VII and state anti-discrimination law claims after the Department revoked his previous religious exemption from the County's directive to fly the Progress Pride Flag during LGBTQ+ Pride Month. The suspension of his accommodation was triggered by his removing Pride flags that had been put up in an area to which he was assigned. The court said in part:

Little is an "Evangelical Christian with traditional and orthodox beliefs on marriage, family, and sexual behavior and identity."...

[T]he Fire Department granted Little's accommodation request and agreed that, for the remainder of June, Little would be assigned to facilities that were incapable of flying the Progress Pride Flag due to insufficient flag clasps.... 

Little alleges that his request for a religious accommodation was protected activity, and that Defendants retaliated against Little for seeking that accommodation by suspending him from his role on the Background Investigation Unit....

... [T]he pleading here gives rise to a sufficient "suspicion" of religious animosity to warrant "pause" before dismissing Little's neutrality claim as implausible.... The FAC alleges that Chiefs Boiteux and Lester knew that Little had been granted a religious accommodation and conspired to undermine that accommodation by bringing additional flag poles to the Area 17 sites so that they would be required to fly Progress Pride Flags in time for ,,,Little's scheduled shift there....

However, the court rejected other claims by plaintiff, including his free speech claim, saying in part: 

Because Little has not shown that the speech at issue is anything other than government speech, he has failed to state a viable compelled-speech claim under the First Amendment....

9th Circuit: Police Department's LGBTQ Outreach Was Government Speech That Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Sangervasi v. City of San Jose, (9th Cir., Jan. 14, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a California federal district court's denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a police officer who objected to the police department's authorizing officers to wear an LGBTQ Pride uniform patch and to the raising of a Pride flag at police headquarters.  Plaintiff wanted to create other uniform patches and flag designs featuring Christian or anti-LGBTQ themes. His proposal was denied and he was placed on indefinite administrative leave. He sued, claiming violation of his equal protection, free speech and free exercise rights. The court said in part:

The district court properly dismissed Sangervasi’s free speech and free exercise claims because Defendants were engaging in government speech and Sangervasi was speaking as a government employee....  The district court properly dismissed Sangervasi’s equal protection claims because he failed to allege facts demonstrating a discriminatory intent.

Challenges to School Policy on Disclosure of Gender Identity Change May Move Ahead

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Jan. 7, 2025), a California federal district court denied motions to dismiss a suit brought by teachers and parents challenging a policy of the state board of education that schools are not to disclose a student's announced change of gender identity to the student's parents without the student's consent. The policy is intended to protect student privacy.  Among other challenges, plaintiffs claimed that the policy violates their 1st Amendment free exercise and free speech rights. The court said in part:

According to the Complaint, the policies force parents to accede to a school’s plan to neither acknowledge nor disclose information about their child’s gender dysphoria.  By concealing a child’s gender health issues from the parents, parents are precluded from exercising their religious obligations to raise and care for their child at a time when it may be highly significant, because they are kept uninformed of the need for their child’s religious guidance.  “....

... Teachers do not completely forfeit their First Amendment rights in exchange for public school employment.  To the extent that teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD has hired their speech to speak falsely or deceptively to parents of students, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  Likewise, to the extent teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD’s curriculum includes what the teachers sincerely believe to be lies and deceptions for communications with school parents and that such prevarications are religiously or morally offensive, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.  EUSD contends that it is not a lie to not answer a question.  That the teachers sincerely held religious beliefs to the contrary cannot be simply dismissed....

There are no controlling decisions that would compel this Court to limit or infringe parental rights, notwithstanding the State’s laudable goals of protecting children.  This Court concludes that, in a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.  Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and the motions to dismiss are denied.

Ministerial Exception Doctrine to Development Director's Suit Against Holocaust Education Organization

In Lavy v. American Society for Yad Vashem, (CD CA, Dec. 19, 2024), a California federal district court refused to find that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a pregnancy discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against an organization dedicated to preserving the legacy of Holocaust victims.  The court said in part:

... [T]he record does not support a finding that Plaintiff is a “minister” within the meaning of the ministerial exception. The record does not show that Plaintiff’s job duties required her to be of any specific faith, to educate anyone on a particular religion’s customs or laws, to spread a religious message, or to oversee or participate in any religious ceremonies. Plaintiff’s primary job duty throughout her employment with Defendant was fundraising development....

Defendant does not provide either evidence or legal authority demonstrating that its mission of historical education and memorialization moves it under the broad umbrella of “religious institutions” for purposes of the ministerial exception. Rather, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has raised a genuine dispute that Defendant operates primarily as a fundraising organization. For example, Defendant has not offered any evidence that its bylaws or certificate of incorporation set forth any religious purpose....

The court similarly found that defendant did not show that it qualifies for the religious corporation exemption from California's anti-discrimination law. 

Good News Clubs Sue California School District for Access

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by Child Evangelism Fellowship alleging that a California school district has prevented Good News Clubs from meeting in district elementary schools. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship NORCAL, Inc. v. Oakland Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, filed 12/11/2024), alleges in part:

1. For over two years, Defendant OUSD and its officials have unconstitutionally and impermissibly prohibited CEF from hosting its Good News Clubs in public elementary school facilities owned by OUSD. The Good News Club provides free moral and character training to students from a Christian viewpoint and strategically meets at public schools after school hours for the convenience of parents. CEF’s Good News Club has enriched the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of students across OUSD for over a decade. 

2. ... CEF was forced to temporarily end its Good News Club meetings in 2020 due to COVID-19 but sought to resume its meetings starting in January 2023. Despite having a long and storied history of providing after-school enrichment programs to students in OUSD, numerous schools within OUSD inexplicably denied the Good News Club access to use OUSD facilities while allowing numerous secular organizations and activities to resume meeting after school hours.  

3. CEF seeks a judgment declaring Defendants’ discriminatory use policies unconstitutional, both on their face and as applied, under the Free Speech, Establishment, and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. CEF also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ... together with damages....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenging Anti-Zionist Proposed Curriculum Is Dismissed

In Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles v. Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, (CD CA, Nov. 30, 2024), a California federal district court dismissed both for jurisdictional reasons and on the merits a suit by plaintiffs who were Jewish Zionists against a group that developed a set of teaching materials that the group hoped Los Angeles Public Schools would adopt. The court said in part:

According to plaintiffs, the challenged curriculum "denounces capitalism, the nuclear family, and the territorial integrity of the lower 48 states of the United States[,]"... and is designed "to expunge the idea of Zionism, and the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel, from the public square[.]"... Plaintiffs allege there is "rank discrimination embedded in the LESMC," ... because the challenged curriculum, among other things, "includes statements that the existence of the State of Israel is based on ethnic cleansing and land theft, apartheid and genocide" and that "Zionism is distinct from Judaism."... Because the challenged curriculum contains anti-Zionist material, plaintiffs allege that the curriculum is antisemitic.,,,

The court held that plaintiffs' claims were not ripe for judicial review and that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims. It went on to also reject plaintiffs' equal protection and free exercise challenges on additional grounds. It held first that the defendants other than the school district were not state actors for purposes of the 14th Amendment. It went on to hold:

... [I]t is clear that the [complaint] is a direct "attack on curricula" — and "absent evidence of unlawful intentional discrimination, parents are not entitled to bring Equal Protection claims challenging curriculum content."... In short, plaintiffs' equal protection claims under both the California and United States constitutions must be dismissed....

In effect, the only hardship plaintiffs allege is that the existence of the challenged curriculum — and its possible adoption — offends them. But mere offense is insufficient to allege a burden on religious exercise....

In short, plaintiffs' claim that the challenged curriculum violates the Free Exercise Clause because it is intended "to suppress public expression of, and public support for, Zionist beliefs and to prevent Zionists from acting on their sincerely held religious belief[,]" ... must be dismissed, as plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a substantial burden on their religious exercise or practice.

The court also rejected claims under Title VI and the California Education Code. It then concluded:

... [I]t must also be noted that significant First Amendment concerns underlie plaintiffs' claims and requested relief.... In effect, plaintiffs seek to litigate the propriety and legality of a potential curriculum with which they disagree. Their claims thus conflict with the First Amendment in several respects, and are largely barred on that basis as well.

Various state law claims were also stricken under California's anti=SLAPP statute.

Noticias Newswire reports on the decision.

Parents Sue California High School Alleging Long History of Tolerating Antisemitism

Suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by parents of six high school students in the Sequoia Union High School District charging the high school with tolerating antisemitism expressed by students and teachers.  The complaint (full text) in Kasle v. Puttin, (ND CA, filed 11/15/2024), alleges in part:

SUHSD has a long history of tolerating casual antisemitism on its campuses.  Students and faculty have openly joked about Nazis and the Holocaust, while certain teachers have peddled antisemitic falsehoods about Middle East history without facing consequences.  District leadership has consistently turned a blind eye to such behavior.  SUHSD’s antisemitism problem worsened significantly after October 7, 2023, when Hamas—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization—invaded southern Israel and then mutilated, raped, and murdered more than 1,200 people.  Although quick to address other global injustices, SUHSD remained conspicuously silent about this historic massacre of Jews, contradicting the District’s professed commitment to equity....

The 64-page complaint alleges violation of Title VI, of the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as of parallel provisions of California law and asks for an injunction in part:

prohibiting Defendants’ discriminatory and harassing treatment of Plaintiffs in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights; 

prohibiting the District, its employees, agents, and representatives from engaging in any form of antisemitic behavior or conduct, including, but not limited to, verbal, written, or physical actions that demean, harass, or discriminate against individuals based on their Jewish identity or their identification with and commitment to Israel;

ordering the District to adopt and implement a clear and comprehensive policy specifically addressing antisemitism, as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism....

It also asks the court to appoint a Special Master to monitor the district's implementation of policies against antisemitism. 

Ropes & Gray issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Firefighters Can Move Ahead With Title VII Claims Over Forced Leave to Accommodate Religious Objections to Covid Vaccine

In Bingham v. City of San Jose, (CA App., Oct. 30, 2024), a California state appeals court held that five San Jose firefighters who were placed on unpaid leave when they asserted religious objections to the Covid vaccine may move ahead with their claims under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit, the appeals court held in part:

Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the extended and involuntary unpaid leave allegedly imposed on them was not a reasonable accommodation.  By not requiring plaintiffs to take the COVID-19 vaccines mandated by the County vaccination order, the City eliminated the conflict between the order and plaintiffs’ religious beliefs concerning the COVID-19 vaccines.  However, the alleged unpaid leave did not reasonably preserve plaintiffs’ employment status....

... [T]he amended complaint alleges that the City Fire Department was facing a severe staffing shortage and that a County public health order allowed employers facing such shortages to seek a waiver of the vaccination requirement.  Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that they could have been transferred to positions answering 911 calls, which presumably is not a Higher-Risk Setting and therefore would not have required vaccination under the County vaccination order.  If these allegations are accepted as true, as they must be at the demurrer stage... that would have allowed plaintiffs to work without a vaccination.  Thus, far from establishing the City’s undue hardship defense, the face of the complaint shows that the City could have reasonably accommodated plaintiffs’ beliefs without undue hardship. 

CBN reports on the decision.

Eviction Did Not Violate Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

In Wexler v. City of San Diego, California, (SD CA, Nov. 4, 2024), a California federal district court rejected plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was evicted from rental property he had occupied for a few days. The court said in part:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dup-A-Key harmed him by changing the rental unit’s door locks on the Sabbath....  Plaintiff alleges harm from Defendant Rough Rider Real Estate because he “had to record” Defendant’s employee drilling of a “No Trespass” sign onto the property on the Sabbath.... Plaintiff further alleges harm from Defendant Police Officers because the alleged unlawful eviction occurred on the Sabbath....  However, these actions are not violations under the Free Exercise Clause.  Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants Dup-A-Key and Rough Rider Real Estate were government entities.  Nor does Plaintiff sufficiently allege that any government policy was not neutral or not generally applicable.  Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s First Amendment § 1983 claims against all Defendants with leave to amend.

The court also rejected a variety of other challenges to the eviction alleged by plaintiff, including a claim that police officers discriminated against him because he mentioned to them that he was an Orthodox Jewish person.

9th Circuit: California IDEA Rules Violate Free Exercise Clause

In Loffman v, California Department of Education, (9th Cir., Oct. 28, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a California federal district court's dismissal of a suit by the parents of a special needs child that challenges as a violation of the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses a portion of California's rules implementing the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In California, a private school may be certified as a NPS (non-public school offering special education programs) so long as the school is non-sectarian. When a local educational agency refers a child to an NPS, the state pays the child's full tuition there. However, religiously affiliated schools may not be certified as NPS's even if the curriculum offered to special needs children is secular. Here, plaintiffs wanted to send their children to an Orthodox Jewish school but obtain the benefits available from an NPS. The 9th Circuit said in part:

 ... [A]ny religiously affiliated school seeking to enter into an NPS contract in California must choose whether to maintain its religious affiliation or to serve as an NPS eligible for consideration ... in determining whether it may be in the best position to provide an IEP [individualized education program] for an individual child.  

Religious entities that are equally or better qualified than secular ones to provide special education and related services are disqualified solely because they are “owned, operated, controlled by, or formally affiliated with a religious group or sect, whatever might be the actual character of the education program or the primary purpose of the facility.”...

As we have previously recognized, a statutory scheme that requires a family to “forgo a sectarian education . . . in order to receive” special education benefits otherwise available in a private school setting imposes a “burden on their free exercise rights.”  ...

Parent Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged “that a government entity has burdened [their] sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not ‘neutral’ or ‘generally applicable,’” so the focus “shifts to the defendant” to show that the challenged action survives strict scrutiny....

[E]ven if the State Appellee could demonstrate a compelling interest in neutrality here, it has failed to demonstrate that the nonsectarian requirement is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.  Thus, we conclude that the State Appellee fails to demonstrate that the nonsectarian requirement satisfies strict scrutiny.

National Catholic Register reports on the decision.

Pregnancy Centers Sue California AG To Stop Enforcement of Business Fraud Statutes Against Them

Suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by a California anti-abortion pregnancy center and a Christian organization of pregnancy centers challenging the California attorney general's attempts to apply the state Business Fraud statutes to plaintiffs' promotion of abortion pill reversal. The 86-page complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Bonta, (CD CA, filed 10/2/2024), alleges that the Attorney General's enforcement threats violate plaintiffs' free speech and free exercise rights, saying in part:

12. Plaintiffs here ... wish to truthfully inform the public that it may be possible to counteract the first abortion drug’s lethal effects if women change their minds and seek treatment within the first three days after taking it. 

13. Plaintiffs wish to say the same (and similar) things about APR that the other nonprofits have. But the Attorney General’s actions show that if they do, they may be subject to injunctions, civil penalties of up to $2,500 per “violation,” and potential jail time....

18. The Attorney General says he supports a woman’s right to choose whether to keep her pregnancy, yet he seeks to deprive a woman who changes her mind, or who was coerced or tricked into taking the first abortion drug, of truthful information about a safe and effective way to save her pregnancy. 

19. The Constitution protects Plaintiffs’ right to speak to the public and women about lawful medical treatments provided by licensed medical professionals.  

20. This action seeks to enjoin the Attorney General from targeting, chilling, and punishing Plaintiffs’ speech about APR and a declaration that his actions violate Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to speak freely, to practice their religion, and to due process under the law.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.