Human Resources Employee Sues Seeking Religious Accommodation to Avoid DEI Participation

 A lawsuit was filed last month in a California federal district court by Courtney Rogers, a former human resources employee of a multinational food service company, who was fired after she objected to taking part in the company's DEI program, captioned Operation Equity.  Rogers sought a religious accommodation because Operation Equity violates her religious and moral beliefs. The program offers special training and mentorship to women and people of color. The complaint (full text) in Rogers v. COMPASS Group USA, Inc., (SD CA, filed 7/24/2023), alleged in part:

59. ROGERS has sincerely held religious beliefs, based on deeply and sincerely held religious, moral, and ethical convictions, that people should not be discriminated against because of their race.

60. ROGERS’s religious beliefs conflicted with the job’s requirements because she was required to work on implementing something COMPASS called “Operation Equity,” an employment program designed to exclude white males from opportunities for training, mentorship and promotion.

Rogers had proposed swapping 2 to 3 hours per week of her duties with another employee, but the company refused to discuss an accommodation. The complaint alleges violations of Title VII and various provisions of California law. She seeks damages and reinstatement. SHRM reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: Fire Chief's Dismissal Was Not Motivated by Religious Discrimination

In Hittle v. City of Stockton, California, (9th Cir., Aug. 4, 2023), 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 religious leadership event on city time and with use of a city vehicle, and his approval for three other Department employees to also attend. The city had also received anonymous complaints that plaintiff gave favored treatment to other employees who were part of his Christian coalition. The court said in part:

Hittle must demonstrate that his religion was “a motivating factor” in Defendants’ decision to fire him with respect to his federal claims, ..., and that his religion was “a substantial motivating factor” for his firing with respect to his FEHA claims....

[B]ecause neither Montes nor Deis made any remarks demonstrating their own hostility to religion, but focused on the Summit’s lack of benefit to the City and other evidence of Hittle’s misconduct, Hittle failed to demonstrate that hostility to religion was even a motivating factor in his termination....

... [B]ased on the record before us, the district court’s granting of summary judgment in Defendants’ favor was appropriate where Defendants’ legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing Hittle were, in sum, sufficient to rebut Hittle’s evidence of discrimination, and Hittle has failed to persuasively argue that these non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual.

In a press release, First Liberty Institute said it would seek review of the 9th Circuit panel's decision.

Hindu Profs May Move Ahead with Some Challenges To "Caste" In Anti-Discrimination Policy

In Kumar v. Koester, (CD CA, July 25, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed for lack of standing plaintiffs' free exercise and equal protection challenges to California State University's inclusion of the term "caste" in its Interim Non-discrimination Policy. However, the court concluded that plaintiffs-- South-Asian, Hindu CSU professors-- may move ahead with their Establishment Clause and vagueness claims. 

Plaintiffs object to the University's policy that treats "caste" as a social and religious hierarchy created by the Hindu religion. They contend that caste is no part of Hinduism and that its inclusion in the University policy promotes racial and religious stereotypes and subjects plaintiffs' Hindu religious beliefs to public ridicule. The court dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection challenges because "abstract stigmatic injuries" are not sufficient to create standing.  Insofar as plaintiffs argue that the Policy provides insufficient protection to non-Asian victims of caste discrimination, plaintiffs allege no injury to themselves. As to plaintiffs' free exercise challenges, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs emphatically denounce the caste system and reject the notion that it is part of their religion. Thus, the Policy does not threaten any of Plaintiffs' rights to practice their religion.

As to plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claims, the court said in part:

To evaluate the merits of an Establishment Clause claim, a court must reference historical practices and understandings.... A government practice that unevenly impacts religion may nevertheless be constitutional if it is supported by history and tradition.... Defendant contends that inclusion of the term "caste" is supported by a long history and tradition of disallowing racial discrimination in schools. While Defendant is correct that there is a long history of preventing racial discrimination in education, Defendant has not adequately demonstrated that there is a history or tradition of incorporating words with religious connotations to curb racial discrimination. Therefore, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that implicating Hinduism through the Policy's inclusion of the term "caste" is supported by history and tradition.

[Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

California Law Does Not Interfere With Pre-Schools' Religious Curriculum

In Foothills Christian Church v. Johnson, (SD CA, June 15, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed a free exercise challenge by Christian pre-schools to California's child care licensing requirement. It held that California's Child Day Care Facilities Act does not prevent the schools from offering a program that includes compulsory participation in religious activities and events. While the Act requires that schools make attendance at religious activities voluntary in the discretion of the child's parents or guardian, it also allows schools to refuse to admit children whose parents or guardians are unwilling to agree that their children will attend religious instruction and activities. The court thus held that since plaintiffs inaccurately assessed the Act's requirements, they lack standing to pursue their free exercise claims.

Court Says Center's Food Distribution Is Likely a Religious Exercise Under RLUIPA

In Micah's Way v. City of Santa Ana, (CD CA, June 8, 2023), a California federal district court refused to dismiss a suit by a center that provides aid to impoverished and disabled individuals claiming that the city has violated its rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment by refusing to issue it a Certificate of Occupancy unless it agrees to stop providing food and beverages to its clients. While the center had operated for 5 years without a certificate of occupancy, the city began a concerted effort to get Micah's Way as well as a needle exchange program nearby to move out of the neighborhood after the city's mayor who lived nearby experienced a break-in at his home. The court held that Micah's Way plausibly alleged that its food distribution activities are a "religious exercise" under RLUIPA and that the city has substantially burdened that religious exercise. The court also concluded that plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause. Voice of OC reports on the decision.

Court OK's Police Department's Rejection of Religious-Themed Flags and Uniform Patches

In Sangervasi v. City of San Jose, (ND CA, May 22, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by a police officer William Sangervasi who challenged the police department's refusal to adopt his proposed patch and flag designs. The court explained:

In August 2019, as part of the region’s celebration of Silicon Valley Pride Month, Chief Garcia raised a rainbow-themed LGBTQ pride flag in place of the City of San Jose flag on the flagpole outside SJPD headquarters....

On July 28, 2020, Chief Garcia issued official SJPD Memorandum #2020-33, introducing a rainbow-themed LGBTQ pride shoulder patch for the SJPD uniform.... 

On November 11, 2020, Mr. Sangervasi sent a memorandum to Chief Garcia titled, “Desecration of The Uniform by Memorandum #2020-33.” ... Mr. Sangervasi’s memorandum “detailed his intent to forever protect and defend the sacrosanct neutral and impartial visual appearance of The American Uniform” by submitting various “free speech patch and flag designs” that he wanted the SJPD to adopt.... Mr. Sangervasi proposed patch designs featuring phrases and images such as “natural hetero-sexual pride,” what appears to be Christian rosary beads encircling the traditional SJPD crest, and an image of the Christian archangel Saint Michael.... He proposed flag designs featuring phrases and images including, for example, “father + mother = girls + boys,” “white lives matter,” and the confederate battle flag.... Two days later... Mr. Sangervasi was placed on indefinite administrative leave.... On December 11, 2020, Mr. Sangervasi received a letter from Acting Chief Dave Knopf denying Mr. Sangervasi’s demand that the SJPD adopt Mr. Sangervasi’s patch and flag designs.

The court, rejecting plaintiff's free exercise, free speech and equal protection claims, held:

Mr. Sangervasi does not allege any burden on his sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable. Rather, he complains that, if the SJPD authorizes specialty uniform patches to be worn on a voluntary basis, it must allow him to wear religion-themed patches of his own design.... These allegations fail to state a claim for relief because the City has not created a public forum in which Mr. Sangervasi has a right to express any views, let alone those views that may be grounded in religious practice or belief. In the absence of such a forum and as discussed above, the SJPD’s patch designs amount to government speech and do not burden Mr. Sangervasi’s religious practice.

9th Circuit Remands Employees' Challenge to Vaccine Exemption Denial

In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, (9th Cir., May 15, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a decision from a California federal district court that denied preliminary relief to two city and county employees who were denied religious exemptions from CCSF's COVID vaccine mandate. The appeals court said in part:

The district court erroneously concluded that “[n]either Plaintiff has demonstrated that their religious beliefs are sincere or that those beliefs conflict with receiving the COVID-19 vaccine...."...

Beyond the district court’s factual error, its decision reflects a misunderstanding of Title VII law. A religious belief need not be consistent or rational to be protected under Title VII, and an assertion of a sincere religious belief is generally accepted.... 

The district court did not explain its conclusion that Appellants had not established sincerity beyond stating that there are “no grounds upon which to assert the mistaken conclusion that the FDA-approved vaccines . . . are . . . derived from murdered babies” and generally stating that personal preferences are not sincere religious beliefs. And CCSF offered no argument or evidence that Appellants’ beliefs are insincere. Absent any indication otherwise, it seems that the district court erroneously held that Appellants had not asserted sincere religious beliefs because their beliefs were not scientifically accurate. Remand is warranted for the district court to reevaluate Appellants’ claims applying the proper failure-to-accommodate inquiry....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Teachers Sue Over School District's Policy on Transgender Students

Suit was filed last month in a California federal district court by two middle school teachers who claim that their school district's policy on dealing with transgender students violates their free speech and free exercise rights, as well as the rights of parents.  The complaint (full text) in Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, filed 4/27/2023), alleges in part:

According to EUSD’s policies, all elementary and middle school teachers must unhesitatingly accept a child’s assertion of a transgender or gender diverse identity, and must “begin to treat the student immediately” according to their asserted gender identity. “There’s no requirement for parent or caretaker agreement or even for knowledge.”... There is absolutely no room for discussion, polite disagreement, or even questioning whether the child is sincere or acting on a whim. 

... Once a child’s social transitioning has begun, EUSD elementary and middle school teachers must ensure that parents do not find out. EUSD’s policies state that “revealing a student’s transgender status to individuals who do not have a legitimate need for the information, without the student’s consent” is prohibited, and “parents or caretakers” are, according to EUSD, individuals who “do not have a legitimate need for the information,” irrespective of the age of the student or the specific facts of the situation....

Faced with EUSD’s immoral policies deceiving parents, both Mrs. Mirabelli and Mrs. West sought an accommodation that would allow them to act in the best interests of the children in their care—as required by their moral and religious convictions....

Mrs. Mirabelli’s and Mrs. West’s request was flatly denied.

The two plaintiffs devised a "joint statement of faith" for purposes of the lawsuit, even though they come from different religious traditions. One is Roman Catholic and the other a "devout Christian."  They alleged:

Plaintiffs’ faith teaches that God immutably creates each person as male or female; these two distinct, complementary sexes reflect the image of God; and rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God within that person.

... Plaintiffs also believe that they cannot affirm as true those ideas and concepts that they believe are not true, nor can they aid and abet the deception of others. Doing so, they believe, would violate biblical commands against dishonesty and lying.

Fox News reports on the lawsuit.

Oakland Catholic Diocese Files for Chapter 11 Reorganization.

The Catholic Diocese of Oakland, California announced yesterday that it is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, saying in part:

The filing is necessary in light of the more than 330 lawsuits alleging child sexual abuse brought against RCBO under a recent California statute that allowed decades-old claims otherwise time barred and expired to be filed....

Most of the claims brought under the most recent California statute stem from allegations of sexual abuse that occurred in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s by priests who are no longer active in ministry and/or deceased. Chapter 11 is a court-supervised, transparent process that allows for the evaluation of the merits of each claim and gives claimants a say in the outcome and visibility into the proceedings and RCBO’s finances. With the Chapter 11 filing, legal actions against RCBO will stop, allowing RCBO to develop a plan of reorganization, based on assets and insurance coverage available to be used to settle claims with abuse survivors.

Catholic schools that operate in the diocese are separate entities and are not included in the bankruptcy filing.

Triable Issues of Fact Remain on Ministerial Exception in Age Discrimination Suit Against Catholic School

 In Atkins v. St. Cecelia Catholic School, (CA App., April 28, 2023), a California state appellate court held that there are triable issues of material fact as to whether the ministerial exception applies in the age discrimination case brought against a Los Angeles Catholic elementary school by plaintiff who was employed for 40 years as a part-time office administrator and for the last 19 years also as a part-time art teacher. Reversing the trial court's granting of summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit, the court said in part:

While St. Cecilia presented evidence that Atkins prayed with the students in her art class and promoted the ADLA’s six tasks of catechesis by encouraging “Christ-like” behavior in her class, there was no evidence that she ever taught, or was expected to teach, any type of religious curriculum. There was also no evidence that Atkins ever led any religious services, accompanied the students toreligious services, or prepared the students to participate in religious services or activities. Given that Atkins held dual roles at St. Cecilia as an art teacher and an office administrator, we cannot conclude on this record that educating students in the Catholic faith lay at the core of her job responsibilities. Considering the totality of these circumstances, St. Cecilia was not entitled to summary judgment based on the ministerial exception.

9th Circuit: Jehovah's Witness' Suit Over State-Employee Loyalty Oath Is Remanded

In Bolden-Hardge v. Office of the California State Controller, (9th Cir., April 3, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a district court's dismissal of a suit by a Jehovah's Witness who challenged California's refusal to allow her to add a paragraph to the state-employee loyalty oath specifying that by signing it she is not giving up the right to exercise her religion which requires her primary loyalty be to God. Reversing dismissal of plaintiff's Title VII claims, the court said in part:

California’s apparent rationale for the oath requirement is to ensure that if an oath taker’s religion ever comes into conflict with the federal or state constitutions, religion must yield....

[T]o exempt the Controller’s Office from a federal accommodation requirement solely because the requested accommodation would violate state law would essentially permit states to legislate away any federal accommodation obligation....

Bolden-Hardge alleges a disparate impact... She contends that her religious beliefs are “consistent with [those] of other Jehovah’s Witnesses,” who also believe that their faith forbids them from swearing primary allegiance to any human government.... [T]his belief is in tension with the loyalty oath requirement....

The loyalty oath is a business necessity, the Controller’s Office argues, because public employees must be “committed to working within and promoting the fundamental rule of law while on the job.”... It asserts that allowing addenda that indicate an oath-taker’s primary loyalty to God would render the oath meaningless and undermine critical state interests. This assertion may well prove true and, if so, the Controller’s Office may be able to defeat Bolden-Hardge’s disparate impact claim at a later stage of the litigation. But this is not apparent from the face of her Complaint,,,,

Church Preschool Challenges California's Anti-Discrimination Rules for Food Program Participants

Suit was filed earlier this month in a California federal district court by a Christian church and its preschool challenging the state's agreement form that was required for participants in the state's Child and Adult Food Care Program. The complaint (full text) in Church of Compassion v. Bonta, (SD CA, filed 3/10/2023), alleges in part:

The new 2022 CDSS PSA required the Church and Dayspring to certify that their management of the CACFP Food Program will be “operated in compliance with all applicable civil rights laws and will implement all applicable non-discrimination regulations....

Because of the Church’s orthodox religious beliefs regarding human sexuality, it was unable to comply with the PSA when it submitted its application for the 2022-2023 year. Specifically, Dayspring signed the PSA statement, but deleted the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

The complaint alleges that the requirement violates plaintiffs' Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clause rights. National Center for Law & Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Fire Chief's Religious Discrimination Claim

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in Hittle v. City of Stockton (video of full oral arguments). In the case (full text of district court opinion), a California federal district court rejected religious discrimination and retaliation claims brought by Ronald Hittle, Stockton, California's former Fire Chief. He was fired in part for attending a two-day religious "Global Leadership Summit" with three other city employees on city time and using a city vehicle. First Liberty issued a press release on the oral arguments.

Catholic Diocese of Santa Rosa, California Files for Bankruptcy

Last week, the Catholic Diocese of Santa Rosa, California (the state's smallest Catholic diocese) announced that it is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. According to the Diocese, the decision was made because of the large number of child sex abuse lawsuits filed against it during a 3-year window created by the California legislature for suits to be filed even though the statute of limitations had previously run. Some of the lawsuits relate to conduct that occurred as long as 60 years ago. The Diocese said in part:

These cases are too numerous to settle individually and so they have accumulated until the closing of the three-year window. Now that the window is closed, we have received notice of at least 160 claims and we have information that perhaps more than 200 claims have been filed in total against the Diocese.

 ... [I]n 2003 the Diocese faced similar circumstances but with many fewer cases. At that time excess property was sold, money borrowed and the Diocese paid approximately $12 million dollars with an additional $19 million coming from insurance. Since then, the Diocese has expended an additional $4 million on individual settlements. Now, facing at least 160 new cases, with excess property depleted, with insurance for many of the years either non-existent or exhausted it is impossible to see any way forward without recourse to the bankruptcy protections our Country makes available....

[W]e are deeply saddened that so many have endured abuse in the past and that the scourge of child sexual abuse is a part of our diocesan history. The present action of the Diocese is necessary and through this process we hope to provide for those who have come forward and who are yet to come forward at least some compensation for the harms they have endured.

Links to all the legal filings in the case are available at this website. Catholic News Agency reports on the bankruptcy filing.

Suit Challenges California's Exclusion of Religious Schools from Funding for Students With Disabilities

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by six Jewish parents and two Orthodox Jewish day schools challenging the exclusion of sectarian schools from receiving funds made available to California under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The complaint (full text) in Loffman v. California Department of Education, (CD CA, filed 3/13/2023), alleges in part:

12. Defendants’ administration and implementation of California law excludes Plaintiffs from the generally available public funding necessary to provide an education to students with disabilities.

13. Plaintiffs merely seek to educate and care for children with disabilities and practice their Jewish faith on an equal basis with other California citizens. 

14. As the Supreme Court recently held, they are entitled to equal treatment because “religious schools and the families whose children attend them . . . ‘are members of the community too.’” Espinoza v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2262 (2020). Excluding Plaintiffs from government programs—for no other reason than the fact that they are  religious—is “odious to our Constitution and cannot stand.”

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

Latest Attempt to Prevent City from Removing Cross from Public Park Fails On Procedural Grounds

Lion's Club of Albany, California v. City of Albany, (ND CA, March 9, 2023), is the latest installment in the ongoing litigation over the removal of a 28-foot tall, illuminated Latin cross located in a park which the city has purchased. (See prior related posting.) The Lioin's Club has an easement allowing it access to the cross to maintain it. After a prior decision finding that the city violated the Establishment Clause when it purchased the park and left the cross standing, the city instituted eminent domain proceedings in state court to acquire the easement so it could remove the cross. The state trial court judge granted the city prejudgment possession of the easement so the city could take down the cross and store it in a safe place pending the outcome of the eminent domain proceedings. The Lion's Club asked the state court of appeals to stay the trial court's order. That petition was denied for technical reasons that could have been cured. Instead, the Lion's Club came back to federal court seeking a temporary restraining order to prohibit removal of the cross.  In this decision, the court denied that request invoking the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which requires a federal court to dismiss a case when the plaintiff is essentially attempting to appeal a state court decision through the lower federal courts rather than by filing appeals through state court channels.

Suit Challenges California's Protection of Out-of-State Minors Seeking Gender-Affirming Health Care

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court challenging the constitutionality of California Senate Bill 107 which protects out-of-staters obtaining gender transition services for a minor in California from the reach of laws in their home states that create civil or criminal liability for allowing a minor to receive such services. The complaint (full text) in Our Watch With Tim Thompson v. Bonta, (CD CA, filed 3/7/2023), claims that:

SB 107 will allow California doctors, via telehealth appointments, to prescribe cross-sex hormones to children in South Dakota or Utah, where gender-reassignment treatment is banned. 

... SB 107 also denies parents the right to access their child’s medical information. Section 1 of the bill mandates that doctors conceal a child's medical information from parents if it is related to "gender identity" drugs and procedures. S.B. 107 § 1. 

SB 107 amended California law to directly conflict with federal law by taking away other states’ rightful jurisdiction of children visiting California who seek – or claims to be seeking – puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, irreversible gender reassignment surgery, etc. Section 4 of SB 107 updates the California Family Code to read: “[t]he presence of a child in this state for the purpose of obtaining gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care…is sufficient to meet the requirements” for California courts to exercise jurisdiction over a custody decision. S.B. 107 § 4. This ignores the proper and rightful jurisdiction of the child’s home state....

The suit alleges that the law violates constitutional rights of familial association as well as Article IV's full faith and credit clause. Advocates for Faith & Freedom issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Poll Worker Loses Free Exercise Challenge to Vaccine Mandate

In Wolfe v. Logan, (CD CA, Jan 25, 2023), a California federal district court in an In Chambers proceeding granted Los Angeles County officials' motion to dismiss numerous challenges by plaintiff to the county's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for poll workers. Rejecting plaintiff's Free Exercise challenge, the court said in part:

The policy, as alleged by Wolfe, is neutral and generally applicable. It does not directly target religious expression; the burden that a vaccination requirement places on religious practice is incidental. Wolfe alleges that the vaccination requirement is "without exception."... Because there are no exceptions, there is no individualized exemption process that might invite religious discrimination. Moreover, the vaccine requirement makes no distinction between secular or religious objections people might have to the vaccine; everyone is required to get one if they wish to act as a poll worker.... The policy could hardly be more neutral and generally applicable, and it is therefore not subject to strict scrutiny.

Church Can Move Ahead Against County in Suit on Covid Restrictions

 In Abiding Place Ministries v. Newsom, (SD CA, Feb. 14, 2023), a California federal district court allowed a church to move ahead with certain of its claims against San Diego County for enforcing Covid restrictions against public gatherings. The court held that the county's public health officer had qualified immunity against the damage claims because "there was no clear precedent in March or April 2020 that would have put every reasonable official on notice that promulgating orders restricting in person religious gatherings to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus was clearly and definitively unconstitutional."

The court however allowed plaintiff to move ahead with Free Exercise, Freedom of Assembly, Establishment Clause, Free Speech and Equal Protection claims against the County. The court said in part:

The County threatened enforcement, penalties, and fines if Plaintiff did not comply with the County Order.... Plaintiff alleges this action by the County “forced the Church’s members to remain away from church against their will, under threat of punishment,,,,”  [T]he allegations of the FAC regarding the County’s alleged unconstitutional policy is sufficient overcome the County Defendants’ argument that it cannot be liable under Monell. Accordingly, the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED on this ground.....

[The FAC] alleges the County’s Orders and Defendants’ enforcement “had the primary effect of inhibiting religious activity” and caused “excessive government entanglement with religion.” ... Plaintiff contends its religious services exempted from gatherings were treated differently than other public gatherings.... At this stage of the pleadings, the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action is DENIED....

Whatever level of scrutiny is applied, Plaintiff has alleged they were prohibited from engaging in protected speech and assembling in person for the purpose of worship while other gatherings promoting non-religious speech were permissible.... Taking those allegations as true, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged claims for violations of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of assembly clauses....

Plaintiff contends Defendants “intentionally and arbitrarily categorized individuals and conduct as either ‘essential’ or ‘non-essential.’”... At the pleading stage, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection clause....

Ministerial Exception Bars Disability Discrimination Suit Against Zen Center

In Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc., (ND CA, Feb. 14, 2023), a California federal district court dismissed on ministerial exception grounds a disability discrimination suit brought against a Zen Center by plaintiff who was participating in the Center's Zen Buddhism practice program. The program included both a "formal practice" (meditations, services, educational programs) and a "work practice" (cooking, dishwashing, bathroom and guest room cleaning, ringing bells) component. Finding that the ministerial exception applied, the court said in part:

[B]oth the formal practice and the work practice, “lie[s] at the very core of the mission of” SF Zen Center. Guadalupe, 140 S. Ct. at 2064. And so, drawing all reasonable inferences in Mr. Behrend’s favor, every reasonable trier of fact would be compelled to find his position implicates the fundamental purpose of the ministerial exception. The Work Practice Apprentice position was undisputedly a residential religious training program, and work practice was undisputedly a part of that religious training. Work as part of learning to practice the faith and work as part of training to lead the faith implicate the same fundamental purpose of the exception.