Suit Against Catholic Hospital That Refused Transgender Procedure May Move Ahead

In Minton v. Dignity Health, (CA App., Sept. 17, 2019), a California state appellate court held that a trial court should not have dismissed a suit filed under the Unruh Civil Rights Act by transgender man whose doctor was barred by a Catholic hospital from performing a hysterectomy for treatment of his gender dysphoria.  The refusal was based on Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.  The court said in part:

[Plaintiff] alleges that the Act was violated ... when defendant cancelled the scheduled procedure at Mercy and Mercy’s president told Dr. Dawson that she would never be allowed to perform Minton’s hysterectomy at Mercy.... [T]hat refusal was not accompanied by advice that the procedure could instead be performed at a different nearby Dignity Health hospital. At that point in time ... Minton was denied full and equal access to health care treatment, a violation of the Unruh Act.

Allegedly in response to pressures brought to bear on defendant, within a relatively short period of time Ivie proposed use of the facilities at the alternative hospital. In doing so, and in making those alternate facilities available three days later, defendant undoubtedly substantially reduced the impact of the initial denial of access to its facilities and mitigated the damages to which Minton otherwise would have been entitled. However, the steps that were taken to rectify the denial in response to pressure from Minton and from the media did not undo the fact that the initial withholding of facilities was absolute, unqualified by an explanation that equivalent facilities would be provided at an alternative location.

The Recorder reports on the decision.

California Legislature Tells Clergy How To Treat LGBTQ Community

On September 9, the California legislature gave final passage to Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99  which calls on Californians-- and particularly its religious leaders-- to treat members of the LGBT community with greater respect.  The Resolution reads in part:

WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals; and...

WHEREAS, In a pluralistic society, people differing along spectrums of political and religious perspectives share a common responsibility of protecting the health and well-being of all children and vulnerable communities; now, therefore, be it...

Resolved, That the Legislature calls upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy; and be it further

Resolved, That in addressing the stigma often associated with persons who identify as LGBTQ, we call on the people of California–especially its counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators, and legislators–and the institutions of California with great moral influence–especially its churches, universities, colleges, and other schools, counseling centers, activist groups, and religious centers–to model equitable treatment of all people of the state....

Christian Post reports on the Concurrent Resolution.

Challenge To California Order Requiring Health Plan Abortion Coverage Is Unsuccessful

In Missionary Guadalupanas of the Holy Spirit, Inc. v. Rouillard, (CA Ct. App., Aug. 6, 2019), a California state appellate court held that the state's Department of Managed Health Care did not violate the state Administrative Procedure Act when it notified seven health care service plans that they must cover abortions. The state statute does not require compliance with the rule-making process for a  regulation "that embodies the only legally tenable interpretation of a provision of law." A California statute requires insurance plans to cover "basic health care services." The court said in part:

We hold that an abortion is one of two medically necessary options for the treatment of a woman’s pregnancy. A pregnant patient may elect medical services necessary to deliver a baby, or to terminate the pregnancy. Because California law guarantees every woman the right to choose whether to bear a child or obtain an abortion, the only legally tenable interpretation of the law is that abortions are basic health care services, which health care service plans are required to cover.

This case did not present a question of whether requiring abortion coverage violates the religious freedom rights of the Catholic organization filing suit. Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

California Priest Sues Accusers In Defamation Lawsuit

A defamation lawsuit was filed earlier this month in a California state trial court by Fresno, California, Catholic priest Msgr. Craig Harrison who has been accused of sexually assaulting an altar boy, as well as of other sexual misconduct. The complaint (full text) in Harrison v. Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., filed 8//6/2019), alleges that the organization Roman Catholic Faithful and its president Stephen Brady at a press conference falsely accused Harrison of sexually abusing two high school students. An investigation by the Bakersfield police department has cleared Harrison, but a press release from the organization Church Militant contends that the investigation ignored numerous witnesses against Harrison who has served as the police department's chaplain.

Pro-Life Group Wins Challenge To University's Student Fee Allocation Process

In Apodaca v. White, (SD CA, Aug. 13, 2019), a California federal district court held that California State University- San Marcos cannot use mandatory student fees from objecting students to fund programs and speakers until the University adopts specific and detailed neutral standards for determining which funding applications will be granted. The suit was filed by a pro-life student group that was seeking funding for a lecture about abortion. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

9th Circuit Rejects Free Exercise Challenge To Tax Injunction Act

In Samaj v. County of Riverside, (9th Cir., July 15, 2019), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's free exercise challenge to the federal Tax Injunction Act ("TIA"). The court said in part:

Samaj contends that by stripping the district court of its ability to entertain First Amendment challenges to state taxes, the TIA amounts to a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. We disagree.... Although a more difficult question would be presented if Samaj were altogether precluded from suing to enjoin an allegedly unconstitutional tax, that is not the case here. The TIA only withdraws federal jurisdiction where the party has a “plain, speedy, and efficient remedy” under state law.

Church Sues Over Cannabis Raid

Redheaded Blackbelt reported yesterday:

A church called Redwood Spiritual Healing Ministry filed a lawsuit Thursday, June 27 against the County of Humboldt and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) alleging violations of its 1st Amendment right to religious freedom as well as due process violations when a multiple agency task force destroyed cannabis as well as private property during the execution of a search warrant. The case further alleges that the County of Humboldt may have withheld relevant information from a judge by having CDFW file the Affidavit for the search warrant without informing the judge that the property in question may be a church under the law.

The full text of the complaint in Redwoods Spiritual Healing Ministry v. Humboldt County, California, (CA Super. Ct., filed 6/27/2019) embedded at the end of the news report on the lawsuit.

Former Scientology Adherent Sues Claiming False Imprisonment, Human Trafficking and More

A lawsuit was filed on Tuesday in a California state trial court against the Church of Scientology and its leader David Miscavige by a woman who was born to Scientologist parents and escaped the organization only as an adult.  The complaint (full text) in Doe v. Church of Scientology International, (Los Angeles Super. Ct., filed 6/18/2019), alleges causes of action for false imprisonment, kidnapping, stalking, defamation, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, human trafficking, violations of California's labor laws, and fraud. The complaint alleges in part:

The Church of Scientology presents a façade to the outside world to disguise what in reality is nothing more than a cult built on mind control and destruction of the independence and self-control of those drawn into its sphere. Scientology and its leaders use religious rhetoric to lure trusting and unsuspecting individuals seeking to better themselves into its corporations. Once in CSI, members are isolated from the outside world, their access to information is heavily monitored and controlled, and they are subject to physical, verbal, psychological, emotional and/or sexual abuse and/or assault. Their assets are also targeted by CSI, which calibrates its member services according to the wealth of each member.

NBC News reports on the lawsuit.

Certiorari Denied In Contraceptive Mandate Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Little Sisters of the Poor v. California, (Docket No. 18-1192, certiorari denied 6/17/2019). (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed in part a preliminary injunction issued by a California federal district court against enforcement of the Trump Administration's Interim Final Rules expanding religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act Contraceptive Coverage Mandate. (See prior posting.) The Interim Rules have now been replaced by Final Rules. (See prior posting.)

Church Sues Over Its Removal As Polling Place

A suit was filed this week in a California federal district court by a Unitarian Church that was removed by election officials as a polling place because the church displayed two Black Lives Matter banners on its property and would not remove them for election day.  The complaint (full text) in Unitarian Universalist Church of Fresno v. Orth, (ED CA, filed 6/10/2019) contends that eliminating the church as a voting location violates its First Amendment free expression rights. Religion News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Priest Sexual Assault Case Settled

The Fresno Bee this week reports on the settlement of a claim by a woman that she was sexually assaulted by a Catholic priest:

A Woodland woman has received a $200,000 settlement from the Sacramento Catholic Diocese and the current pastor of a Woodland church after filing a lawsuit in 2017 accusing a former priest of sexual assault and claiming church officials largely ignored her pleas for help.

Certiorari Denied In California Reparative Therapy Ban Challenge

The U.S.Supreme Court today denied review in Pickup v. Newsom, (Docket No. 18-1244, certiorari denied 5/20/2019). (Order List). In the case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of California's ban on state-licensed mental health providers engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with patients under 18. (See prior posting.)

California Bishops Prevail In Part On Anti-SLAPP Defense To Abuse Concealment Claims

In Emens v. California Catholic Conference, (CA Super. Ct., April 17, 2019), a California state trial court granted a portion of an anti-SLAPP motion filed by the bishops of California's 11 dioceses seeking to strike a broad complaint filed against them charging that they have concealed clergy sex abuse. The complaint in the case (full text) filed last October charges that the concealment actions by the various bishops amount to a public nuisance, a private nuisance and civil conspiracy.  It asked for an order requiring release of the names of all clergy accused of child molestation and their history of abuse. California's anti-SLAPP law allows courts to strike a complaint that arises from acts in furtherance of free speech on a public issue unless plaintiff establishes there is a probability that he or she will prevail.

Finding that plaintiff has not established the probability of prevailing on the merits, the court struck portions of the complaint which allege actions in furtherance of free speech rights, but allowed plaintiff to move ahead on those claims that are not based on the exercise of free expression, saying in part:

Some of the conduct alleged does implicate the right of free speech, including the right not to speak. This would include the right not to publicly disclose the names of priests against whom allegations were made which were determined to be unfounded or lack credibility, and disclosing the names of priests against who allegations were made of conduct in the 1950’s where there was no investigation and where the priests have passed away.

The allegation that defendants attacked the credibility of victims does implicate free speech. Defendants may address the credibility of those making accusations against priests. 

Allowing child molesters to live in the community without notice to the community and transferring alleged molesters to new parishes without warning of the general public has First Amendment free speech implications. The actions are not permitting molesters to live in the community and transferring accused molesters, but doing this without notice to the affected communities. There are no allegations that the priests at issue had been convicted of any crime, or that notice was mandated. This would include accusations made against priests which were determined to lack credibility and to be without merit.

Concealing information regarding the actions of defendants and their agents from victims of past abuse also implicates free speech, as it is a general allegations as to all information regarding any reports of abuse, whether that information is connected to the abuse of a particular victim or there was any relation between the time of the abuse and the time of the information, and without regard to the credibility of the information. 

The remaining allegations do not involve the right to free speech or petition. There is no right to conceal sexual assaults from authorities. Protecting abusers from criminal prosecution is neither free speech nor petition. Making affirmative representations of the fitness of priests for assignments which included working with children while concealing information regarding the sexual misconduct of those priests is not an issue of free speech, but an issue of false speech.

Pacific Standard reports on the press conference held yesterday by the plaintiff and his attorneys who see the decision as a victory since it allows plaintiff to move ahead on some of his allegations.

Suit Charging Campus Anti-Semitism Is Settled

The Lawfare Project announced on Tuesday that a settlement has been reached in Volk v. Board of Trustees, a state court lawsuit by two Jewish students at San Francisco State University alleging anti-Semitic discrimination on campus. The suit in particular focused on the exclusion of Hillel from a campus Know Your Rights fair.  The case was scheduled to go to trial later this month.  Under the settlement, the University will issue a public statement saying that "it understands that, for many Jews, Zionism is an important part of their identity." It will hire a Coordinator of Jewish Student Life, and enhance anti-discrimination enforcement. It will allocate an additional $200,000 to promote viewpoint diversity and will allocate space on campus for a mural depicting such diversity. A similar federal court lawsuit was dismissed last October. (See prior posting.) Jewish News of Northern California reported on the settlement.

Suit Challenging San Diego Schools' Anti-Islamophobia Program Is Settled

Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund announced Monday that it has finalized a settlement agreement (full text) with the San Diego Unified School District, resolving a lawsuit that it filed in 2017 challenging an Anti-Islamophobia program instituted by the school district to combat bullying and harassment of Muslim students.  (See prior posting.)  According to FCDF:

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the District distributed a policy memo to area superintendents and principals regarding the First Amendment’s "limits on the conduct of public school officials as it relates to religious activity."

Rastafarian's Challenge To Marijuana Enforcement Is Rejected

In Lepp v. Yuba County, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39855 (ED CA, March 11, 2019), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing plaintiffs' contention that his ability to practice his Rastafarian religion was substantially burdened when state authorities seized his marijuana, and when they failed to promulgate a religious exemption to allow marijuana use.

Churches' Challenge To Required Abortion Health Care Coverage Rejected

In Foothill Church v. Rouillard, (ED CA, March 7, 2019). a California federal district court dismissed a suit brought by three churches challenging a ruling by the California Department of Managed Health Care that requires health insurance companies to include coverage for abortion services in all health insurance policies.  Rejecting the churches' Free Exercise claim, the court held that the churches have not alleged sufficient facts to call into question the defense that the ruling is a neutral law of general applicability. It also rejected the churches' equal protection claim saying that there was no showing that the state acted with the intent to adversely affect plaintiffs' religious beliefs.

Ministerial Exception Defense Rejected In Suit To Apply Labor Code To Preschool Teachers

In Su v. Stephen S. Wise Temple, (CA App., March 8, 2019), a California state appellate court held that teachers in a Reform Jewish Temple's preschool are not covered by the ministerial exception rule.  In the case, California's Labor Commissioner sued on behalf of 40 teachers alleging that the school violated the state's Labor Code by failing to provide rest breaks, uninterrupted meal breaks, and overtime pay.In rejecting the Temple's ministerial exception defense, the majority said in part:

Although the Temple’s preschool curriculum has both secular and religious content, its teachers are not required to have any formal Jewish education, to be knowledgeable about Jewish belief and practice, or to adhere to the Temple’s theology.  Further, the Temple does not refer to its teachers as “ministers” or the equivalent, nor do the teachers refer to themselves as such. Accordingly, we conclude the teachers are not “ministers” for purposes of the ministerial exception.

Presiding Judge Edmon filed a concurring opinion contending that the court need not reach the question of whether the teachers held "ministerial" positions, saying in part:

I would conclude that the Temple has not demonstrated that the ministerial exception has any application to the present dispute, which does not touch on the Temple’s freedom to choose its ministers or to practice its beliefs....

[T]he constitutional imperative against encroaching on a church’s selection of its ministers does not, as a logical matter, suggest that churches must be exempted from all laws that would regulate the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. Given the number and variety of federal and state employment laws, it stands to reason that some laws will impose a greater burden on religious interests than will others. Accordingly, courts can, without doctrinal inconsistency, exempt churches from the application of some employment laws without exempting churches from all such laws.

Challenge To Treatment of Hinduism In California Curriculum Fails

In California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson, (ND CA, Feb. 28, 2019), a California federal district court dismissed the claim that California public schools' History-Social Science Content Standards adopted in 1998 and its History-Social Science Framework adopted in 2016 violate the Establishment Clause by demonstrating hostility toward Hinduism.  Plaintiffs contended that the discussion of Hinduism only from a secular perspective, over-emphasis on the caste system, adoption of the Aryan Invasion Theory and the description of Hinduism's treatment of women all denigrate Hinduism. They also object to the input of SAFG, a group of academics who they describe as anti-Hindu. The court concluded however:

[E]ven if there is some evidence by which a reasonable person could infer a disapproval of Hindu religious beliefs—an excessive discussion of caste, for example, or a failure to be fully transparent about coordination with SAFG—that is not enough to conclude that the primary message of the Standards and Framework is disparagement.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Immunization Order Did Not Violate Mother's Free Exercise Rights

In In re Julie C.and Anthony Price, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 935 (CA App., Feb. 6, 2019), a California state appellate court held that a wife's free exercise rights were not violated by a court order in a divorce proceeding requiring immunization of her children.  In 2016, California repealed the personal belief exemption from immunization requirements for school children. The court ordered the immunizations on motion of the husband, finding that immunization was in the best interest of the children. (Corrected. Earlier version referred to wrong court).