Chanel Sued By Former Employee Alleging Denial of Religious Accommodation

The Fashion Law reported yesterday on a religious discrimination lawsuit filed last November in a California state trial court against the fashion company Chanel.  Mia Komarevic, former manager of a Chanel outlet in San Francisco, alleges that after she reported a Director who had violated company policy by wearing merchandise out of the store for the night and then returning it as new, her fellow managers retaliated in several ways.  Among other things, they attempted to force her to resign by refusing to grant her a religious accommodation, forcing her to work on Sundays in violation of her Serbian Orthodox beliefs. Ultimately she was fired for unspecified "performance reasons." Earlier this month, defendants removed the case to federal district court for the Northern District of California. (Komarevic v. Chanel, Inc., (Case No. 4:17-cv-00008).

Cert. Petition Filed In California Repairative Therapy Ban

A petition for certiorari (full text) has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Welch v. Brown, cert. filed 1/3/2017).  In the case, the 9th Circuit rejected facial free exercise and Establishment Clause challenges to California's ban on state-licensed mental health professionals providing "sexual orientation change efforts" for patients under 18. (See prior posting.) Pacific Justice Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Federal Employee Fired For Conducting Baptism Must Rely On Title VII, Not 1st Amendment

In Holly v. Jewell, (ND CA, Jan. 3, 2017), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a 1st Amendment religious discrimination claim by a former maintenance worker at the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park. Plaintiff Roger Holly, an African American Baptist Minister who was employed by the Park was fired because, while on break out of uniform, he performed a baptism on the seashore adjoining the Park.  The court held that Title VII provides the sole remedy for discrimination in federal employment, and "Plaintiff has not asserted a First Amendment violation that is distinct from his claim that he suffered employment discrimination and retaliation based on his religion."

City Changes Policy On Arrestees Wearing of Religious Head Coverings

As previously reported, in May a Muslim woman filed suit in federal court against the city of Long Beach, California and its police complaining that her hijab (headscarf) was forcefully removed while she was being booked by police and held overnight in jail.  The Long Beach Press-Telegram reported yesterday that the police have now changed their policy regarding religious headgear.  Last month police chief Robert Luna issued an order providing:

If an arrestee is wearing a religious head covering, employees shall make all reasonable efforts to allow this practice, except where safety and security concerns dictate otherwise.

The jail administrator says this means that the person arrested will be allowed to keep his or her head covering unless there is concern that the person is potentially suicidal and could use the item to harm himself or herself.

Probation Requirement To Stay Away From Church Is Too Broad

In People v. Saltekoff, (CA App., Nov. 30, 2016), a California appellate court reversed and remanded to the trial court a condition of probation imposed on Jonathan Saltekoff who pleaded guilty to attempted kidnapping of a 9-month old infant. The trial court had required that Saltekoff stay at least 100 yards away from Bethel Church, the church to which Saltekoff's parents belonged.  It was also the church in which the kidnapping victim's family was very active, and they did not want to have to worry about Saltekoff showing up. The appeals court said:

Here, we assume the challenged condition burdens defendant’s exercise of religion, because it bars him completely from going to his family’s church. This bar is in place regardless of whether the victim is present or not. The record supports a restriction on defendant’s occupying the same space as the victim at any given time, but it likely does not support banning defendant from his family’s church absent the victim’s presence there. Of course, the church itself may choose to place limits and restrictions on its attendees. But government restrictions on defendant’s free exercise of his religion must be narrowly tailored to support a compelling state interest.

9th Circuit Upholds Required Disclosures By Pregnancy Clinics

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Harris, (9th Cir., Oct. 14, 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's FACT Act which requires licensed pregnancy counseling clinics to disseminate a notice on the existence of publicly-funded family planning services, including contraception and abortion.  Unlicensed clinics must disseminate a notice that they and their personnel are unlicensed. The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to three religiously-affiliated non-profits, rejecting free speech and free exercise objections. The court concluded that the required notice by licensed facilities is professional speech subject to intermediate scrutiny. UPI reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

TRO Lifted In Challenge To Kaporos Ceremonies

Just as Yom Kippur was beginning on Tuesday evening, a California federal district court dissolved a TRO that it had issued last week (see prior posting) in a challenge under California's business practices law to the pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kaporos. In addition to lifting the TRO, the court ordered the parties to meet to set a date for a preliminary injunction hearing. (Full text of court order). The case has attracted significant attention, including the filing of an amicus brief by a Houston law professor Josh Blackman. AP reports on developments. The Atlantic says that the restraining order had no effect because defendants (Chabad of Irvine) had not scheduled a ceremony.  Instead Jews performed the koporos ceremony at a local slaughterhouse because of changes in California law.

California Court Issues TRO Against Kaporos Practices

As previously reported, in late September an animal rights group filed suit against Chabad of Irvine in a California federal district court challenging Chabad's promotion of the pre-Yom Kippur ceremony of kaporos that involves use of live chickens which are then slaughtered. (Complaint in United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine, (CD CA, filed 9/29/2016)). The complaint contended that defendants are in violation of California's unfair business practices law. On Oct. 6, the court on its own motion ordered plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. (Full text of court order.)  On Oct. 7, plaintiff filed a response (full text) arguing in part:

UPC has standing under the Unfair Competition Law based on its diversion of organizational resources spent addressing Defendants’ unlawful activity and attempting to convince authorities to take action. 

The court was apparently convinced.  It issued another order (full text) on Oct 7 granting plaintiff a temporary restraining order barring defendants from killing chickens or other animals in exchange for a fee or donation in violation of California Penal Code Sec. 597(a). It set a hearing on whether to order a preliminary injunction for October 13, the day after Yom Kippur-- effectively barring the pre-Yom Kippur practice by defendants for this year.

Settlement Reached In Suit By College Researcher Who Claimed Anti-Creationism Discrimination

The College Fix today reports that a six figure settlement has been approved by a California state trial court in Armitage v. Board of Trustees of the California State University.  In the suit (see prior posting), a former electron microscope technician in the Biology Department of California State University Northridge claimed that he was terminated because of hostility to his published research findings supporting "young earth" creationist theory. The suit alleged infringement of plaintiff's free exercise and academic freedom rights.

Suit Claims Kaporos Violates California's Business Practices Law

A lawsuit was filed last week in a California federal district court by an animal rights group challenging the legality under California law of the pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kaporos (or kapparot) practiced by many observant Jews.  The ritual involves waving a live chicken overhead to symbolically transfer one's sins to it, and then slaughtering the chicken. The complaint (full text) in United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine, (CD CA, filed 9/29/2016) alleges that the ritual as implemented by Chabad of Irvine constitutes an "unlawful business practice" under California's Business and Professions Code because the practice violates the state's ban on "intentional and malicious killing of animals" other than for use as food (California Penal Code Sec. 597(a), 599c).  The complaint adds:

taking out vengeance on an innocent animal for one’s own shortcomings is exactly the type of societal evil the legislature sought to prohibit in enacting this provision. 

According to the complaint Chabad charges $27 to each person for furnishing and disposing of the chicken, making a $25 profit per chicken. The suit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunctions and declaratory relief. On Monday, UPC issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

New California Law Requires Disclosure of Title IX Exemptions

As reported by The Advocate, last Friday California's Gov. Jerry Brown signed S.B. 1146 (full text) into law.  The new law requires religiously affiliated schools in California that have obtained an exemption from any of the anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX or California's Equity in Higher Education Act to publicly disclose that fact.  The federal Department of Education has granted exemptions nationwide to some 43 colleges and universities (6 in California) from non-discrimination requirements that conflict with the schools' religious tenets. These variously include bans on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as on other grounds. California schools now must disclose this fact to students, faculty and applicants for admission in publications, student orientation and other specified ways. Information on exemptions must also be filed with California's Student Aid Commission.

Settlement Ends Long-Running Dispute Over Control of Sikh Temple In California

A long-running dispute over control of a Sikh Temple in Yuba City, California, appears to have come to an end after a court-ordered election of new board members resulted in a cooperative transition of leadership.  According to yesterday's Appeal-Democrat, the election (ordered by the court to be held without regard to the Temple by-laws quorum requirements) led to victory by a slate of 73-board members who were opposed to the incumbent directors. The parties then entered a settlement agreement covering all four of the pending cases growing out of the controversy. The agreement was presented to the court yesterday.  Under the settlement, the new directors take office immediately and they will amend the Temple's bylaws to reduce from 8 to 4 years the term of board members. During a board meeting yesterday evening, the new board received the keys and financial records of the Temple.

Winery Says Zoning Restrictions On Outdoor Weddings Violate RLUIPA and Speech Rights

The Ventura County Star reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed in a California federal district court by a southern California winery challenging a Ventura County ordinance that requires conditional use permits for outdoor events, including weddings.  Six months ago the county denied Epona Estate's application for a permit to allow weddings, charitable fundraisers, luncheons and similar events at the winery.  The suit contends that the restriction on outdoor weddings violates the winery's free speech rights as well as its rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Court Upholds California's Removal of Belief Exemption From Vaccination Requirement

In Whitlow v. State of California, (SD CA, Aug. 26, 2016), a California federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction against California's recently enacted SB 277 , a law requiring school students (other than those being home-schooled) to be immunized against ten specific diseases, and removing the state's prior exemption for those whose personal beliefs oppose immunization. The court said:

it is clear that the Constitution does not require the provision of a religious exemption to vaccination requirements, much less a PBE.

San Diego Union Tribune reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

9th Circuit: California Reparative Therapy Ban OK Under 1st Amendment Religion Clauses

In Welch v. Brown, (9th Cir., Aug. 23, 2016), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected facial free exercise and Establishment Clause challenges to California's ban on state-licensed mental health professionals providing “sexual orientation change efforts” for patients under 18.  The court concluded that the law does not excessively entangle the state with religion because it only applies within the confines of the counselor-client relationship. The state conceded that the law does not apply to clergy in their roles as pastoral counselors providing religious counseling to congregants. The court also rejected the contention that the law has the primary effect of inhibiting religion, saying in part:

although the scientific evidence considered by the legislature noted that some persons seek SOCE for religious reasons, the documents also stressed that persons seek SOCE for many secular reasons.

[Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Court Rejects As Applied Challenge To California Reparative Therapy Ban; Seattle Adopts Its Own Ban

In Pickup v. Brown, (ED CA, Aug. 9, 2016), a California federal district court dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint raising an "as applied" challenge to California's ban on health professionals providing conversion therapy (sexual orientation change efforts) to minors. The courts had previously rejected facial attacks on the law. (See prior posting.) Now the court held that plaintiffs had not pointed to any action by defendants involving differential application of the law to them.

Meanwhile, last week the Seattle, Washington City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance (full text) banning licensed medical or mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy or reparative therapy to a minor. (Background and White Paper.) Capitol Hill Seattle Blog reports on the Council's action.

Court Says Questions Remain In Private Foundation's RLUIPA Claim Against City

In Daniel & Francine Scinto Foundation v. City of Orange, (CD CA, Aug. 3, 2016), a California federal district court denied a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment in a suit claiming that the city of Orange, California violated RLUIPA by failing to keep adequate records about a building owned by plaintiff and rented by plaintiff to a church.  The tenant-- the Breath of Life Spirit Ministries-- moved out after months of negotiations with the city over potential Fire Code violations. The court said in part:

Even if the Court assumes (without deciding) that renting to a religious institution constitutes religious exercise under RIULPA, the Court cannot conclude Plaintiff has shown “the City’s land use regulation . . . imposed a substantial burden on its religious exercise.”

Moving to plaintiff's argument under the "equal terms" provision of RLUIPA, the court concluded that a dispute of material fact remains as to whether a Section 509(a)(3) private foundation constitutes a "religious assembly or institution" for purposes of RLUIPA.

Another Court Refuses To Enjoin California's Reproductive FACT Act

In Mountain Right to Life v. Harris, (CD CA, July 8, 2016), a California federal district court denied a preliminary injunction against enforcement of California's Reproductive FACT Act. The Act requires medical clinics that offer family planning or pregnancy related services to furnish clients a notice that California has public programs that provide free or low-cost access to family planning, pre-natal care and abortion services. Clinics offering pregnancy-related services that do not have licensed medical personnel on staff must provide notice of that fact. In the case, a faith-based crisis pregnancy center argued that the Act violates its free speech and free exercise rights. The court found that the center did not show a likelihood of success on the merits.  The court concluded that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that people know whether or not they are receiving care from licensed professionals. The statute's other notice requirement is a constitutionally permissible regulation of professional speech to protect the government's substantial interest in its residents knowing the health care resources that are available. Two other federal district courts have reached similar conclusions. (See prior posting.)

Court Rejects Churches' Challenge To California's Abortion Coverage Requirement

In Foothill Church v. Rouillard, (ED CA, July 11, 2016), a California federal district court rejected challenges brought by three churches to letters issued by the California Department of Managed Health Care to seven health insurance companies informing them that under California law they cannot exclude abortion services from coverage when they cover maternity services.  Initially finding that the churches have standing to challenge the directive, the court dismissed with leave to amend plaintiffs' free exercise and equal protection challenges.  The court concluded that the directive was a neutral law of general applicability that survives the rational basis test.  The court dismissed without leave to amend the churches' free speech and establishment clause claims. (See prior related posting.)

Suit Challenges California's Elimination of Religious and Personal Belief Exemptions From Mandatory Immunization

A number of parents as well as several advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in a California federal district court last week challenging the constitutionality of California's SB 277, a law requiring school students (other than those being home-schooled) to be immunized against ten specific diseases, and removing the state's prior personal belief and religious belief exemptions. The law became effective on July 1. (See prior posting.) The complaint (full text) in Whitlow v. State of California, (SD CA, filed 7/1/2016) says that various plaintiffs have a variety of safety and religious objections to immunizations, including concern that some vaccines are manufactured with cell lines that began with aborted fetal cells. The complaint alleges that the new law violates a number of state and federal constitutional protections:

Defendants' conduct infringes on the Plaintiffs' and their children's fundamental rights, including parental rights, right to bodily integrity, right to informed consent and to refuse medical intervention, right to privacy, and/or right to free exercise of religion, by requiring Plaintiffs to choose between those rights and the right to education.

Los Angeles Times reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: The court denied a temporary restraining order, finding there were no allegations of immediate harm. Also there were no efforts to serve defendants. Whitlow v. California, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86848 (SD CA, July 5, 2015).