Settlement Reached In Muslim Women's Suit Against California Restaurant

A settlement agreement (full text) was reached yesterday in a lawsuit filed in May 2016 (see prior posting) by 7 Muslim women against a Laguna Beach, California restaurant.  The women claimed they were singled out because they were Muslim and were told to leave for overstaying the restaurant's 45-minute rule. The settlement is described in an ACLU press release:

Seven Muslim women ejected from an Urth Caffe restaurant by its management have obtained a settlement agreement requiring the restaurant chain to hold diversity trainings for its employees and update its policies....

Urth Caffe has also agreed, under the settlement, to clarify its seating policy to ensure it is applied consistently to all customers and to include in its employee handbook a requirement that customer diversity be respected.

The restaurant chain also agreed to open its Laguna Beach location all day on June 16 with free drinks and desserts for all customers in a public celebration of Eid al-Fitr, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Muslim Woman Sues Over Forcible Removal of Hijab At California Jail

CAIR-LA announced yesterday that it has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman who had her hijab forcibly removed by Ventura County, California deputy sheriffs.  The incident occurred at the county jail after Jennifer Hyatt was arrested because of her involvement in a domestic dispute.  Even after she had been searched, deputies refused her request to wear her hijab when men were present, and instead violently pulled off the second part of her two-piece hijab.

Pro-Life Supporters Model Protest After Parkland School Walkouts

The pro-life movement has announced plans to piggyback on the student anti-gun violence walkouts that took place in schools around the country after the Parkland, Florida shooting.  Pro-life high school students are planning a similar 17-minute walkout from classes on April 11. As reported by Lifesite News, the idea originated with Rocklin, California high school student Brandon Gillespie after his history teacher was suspended for questioning the anti-gun violence walkout and commenting that the walkout would likely not have been tolerated if it was to protest abortion.  Sponsors of the pro-life march have tied it to the Parkland demonstrations by saying it will "test if there’s a double standard from school administration when it comes to allowing students to protest against destroyers of life and the tools they use."  Yesterday the Thomas More Law Center issued a press release stating that it will provide legal guidance to students planning the walkout, adding:

With the pro-life walk out, Gillespie seeks to answer the question of whether “Not One More” applies to all children, regardless of their age or birth status.

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Today In California FACT Act Challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. In the case, the U.S. 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. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court granted certiorari only on the free speech issues in the case, excluding review of the free exercise question. (See prior posting.)  SCOTUSblog's case page has links to all the briefs filed in the case, as well as to further analysis.

Church's Suit Challenging California Health Insurance Rules Dismissed As Not Ripe

In Skyline Wesleyan Church v. California Department of Managed Health Care, (SD CA, March 9, 2018), a California federal district court dismissed on ripeness and standing grounds a suit by a church challenging California insurance rules on the coverage of abortion services by health policies.  The church objected to providing its employees with policies that covered abortions.  Initially state regulators required all policies to contain such coverage, but subsequently said they would grant exemptions for policies offered exclusively to religious employers.  The court said in part:

At this point in time it cannot be said that the DMHC would deny a health care plan’s request to offer the exemption sought by Plaintiff because no such plan has been submitted. Thus, the existence of a controversy depends on a factual scenario that may or may not materialize, making this case unfit for review.

Injunction Against Serving As Temple Director Upheld

In Sikh Temple Turlock, California v. Chahal, (CA App, Feb 20, 2018), a California state appeals court upheld the trial court's resolution of a governance dispute between two factions in a Sikh Temple.  As described by the court:

Following a bench trial, the [trial] court found the election of the First Board was valid. The court further concluded the April 2013 election did not occur and that appellants took control of the Temple by usurpation. Accordingly, the trial court reinstated the First Board and ordered that a judicially supervised election take place. The court also enjoined five of the appellants from serving as officers or directors of the Temple for five years.

The appeals court rejected challenges to the trial court's decision, including a a free exercise challenge to the 5-year injunction.  The court said in part:

 Appellants submitted evidence that a Sikh has a general obligation to perform selfless service. However, there was no testimony that serving on the board is itself a religious act, constitutes a religious practice, or is required to satisfy the seva obligation. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.... Thus, appellants’ claim that the ban infringes on the free exercise of their religion has no support in the record.

Some Allegations About CAIR Stricken From Complaint

In Citizens for Quality Education San Diego v. San Diego Unified School District, (SD CA, Feb. 12, 2018), a California federal district court granted a motion by defendants to strike from plaintiffs' complaint certain allegations regarding the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  The motion was filed in a suit alleging that the San Diego school district's anti-Islamophobia initiative is a "discriminatory scheme that establishes Muslim students as the privileged religious group within the school community." The court held that seven allegations claiming a relationship between CAIR and terrorism should be stricken as "impertinent, immaterial, and scandalous."  The court however refused to strike claims relating to CAIR’s views on Israel and Judaism.

California Baker May Refuse To Create Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

A California state trial court has held that a bakery owner has the right to refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple when the owner has religious objections to same-sex marriage. The court pointed out:

The Unruh Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, as well as sexual orientation.

The bakery had arranged to refer orders from same-sex couples to a competing bakery that has no objections. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Miller, (CA Super., Feb. 5, 2018), the court said in part:

The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most profound protest is silence....

No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.

The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.

The Bakersfield Californian reports on the decision.

Denial of Spousal Health Benefits Because of Religious-Only Ceremony May Violate Equal Protection Clause

In Ali v. Cooper, (ND CA, Jan. 30, 2018), a California federal district court refused to dismiss an equal protection claim by an employee of the Alameda Housing Authority (AHA) after her husband's health insurance coverage was terminated.  The action was taken by the Executive Director (Cooper) and Director of Human Resources (Basta) because the couple were married in a Muslim solemnization ceremony without a civil marriage certificate. Plaintiff claims that the two defendants were motivated by religious animus in singling her out and invoking a rarely used obscure policy to deny coverage. The court said in part:

Plaintiff adequately states a claim for intentional discrimination on the basis of her religion under the Equal Protection Clause against Defendants Cooper and Basta. This claim, however, is inadequately pled against the AHA ... because Plaintiff does not allege that the official marriage-certificate policy itself was motivated by animus, but rather, that the Individual Defendants’ enforcement of the policy against her was motivated by animus....

There may be an argument that Defendant’s marriage-certificate policy might not be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest if it fails to recognize a marriage that lacks a civil certificate but is nevertheless legally valid. At this time, however, Plaintiff has not alleged that her marriage was legally-valid.... Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged that the marriage-certificate policy burdens a sincerely held religious belief. Thus, at this time, this First Amendment theory is inadequately pled.

Repeal of California's Belief Exemption To Vaccination Is Upheld

In Middleton v. Pan, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13254 (CD CA, Jan. 25, 2018), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216203, Dec. 18, 2017) and dismissed a suit brought by a large number of parents of unvaccinated or partly vaccinated children objecting to California's Senate Bill 277, which repealed the state's personal belief exemption from immunization requirements for children entering public and private schools. (See prior posting.) The magistrate concluded that "Mandatory vaccination laws are within the scope of a state's police power."

Parents Challenge Teacher's Distribution of Material Disparaging Muslims

According to yesterday's Pasedena Star-News, the parents of a 7th grade boy have filed an appeal with the California Department of Education over the Mesa Union School District's clearing of a teacher's who distributed material disparaging Muslims.  The boy is being bullied by other students because of his religion. The paper reports:

The material the teacher distributed contained information taken from the website billionbibles.org, which makes “inaccurate and disparaging” statements about Islam and Muslims,” said Masih Fouladi, CAIR-LA’s advocacy manager.

The sheet of paper distributed by the teacher states Sharia Law, or Islamic religious law, gives Muslim men sexual rights over any woman or girl not wearing the hijab or head scarf; allows a man to marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9; and requires Muslims to lie to non-Muslims to advance their faith.

“The main issue at hand with this incident of bullying is that the material was drawn from a website that is clearly intended to promote one religion at the expense of another,” Fouladi said. “This has no place in our public school system and is a clear violation of the First Amendment.”

Injunction Denied Again In Church Founder's Suit Over Marijuana Cutivation

In Harris v. City of Clearlake, (ND CA, Dec. 12, 2017), a California federal district court for the second time (see prior posting) denied a preliminary injunction, and dismissed with leave to amend, a religious discrimination suit brought by the founder of the Church of the Greater Faith & Redemption. The Church cultivates cannabis for sacramental purposes.  Plaintiff claims that his free exercise rights were infringed by the issuance against him of an administrative citation for violating a city ordinance regulating the growing of marijuana, and threats to close down the church's activities if plaintiff did not comply.  The court held that plaintiff had not shown how his exercise of religion was burdened.  Moreover, the ordinance at issue is a neutral law of general applicability.

UPDATE: A second amended complaint was dismissed in 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17742 (Feb. 2, 2018) for containing no new allegations.

Settlement Reached In Suit Over Sale of Fetal Tissue

The Orange County, California District Attorney announced last week that it has obtained a settlement in an unlawful business practice lawsuit against two related companies that violated California and federal law provisions against sale for profit of fetal tissue.  The suit, California v. DV Biologics, LLC, was filed in California state court in October 2016. (Full text of complaint.) It asserts that the companies "obtained aborted fetus donations from Planned Parenthood and turned those donations into a profit-driven business." Under the settlement,  DV Biologics and DaVinci Biosciences will disgorge $7.78 million in profits which they will donate to  a non-profit academic and scientific teaching institution affiliated with a major U.S. medical school.  The companies also will pay civil penalties of $195,000 and will cease doing business in California.  Los Angeles Times reports on the settlement.

Judge Says Suit Charging Campus Anti-Semitism Should be Refiled With Focus On Current Situation

Jewish News of Northern California reports that after a 57-minute pretrial hearing in Mandel v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, federal district court Judge William Orrick said he would dismiss the case with leave to amend. The suit alleges that  "a consistent pattern of anti-Jewish animus has emerged" at San Francisco State University since 1968. (See prior posting.)  The judge instructed that an amended complaint should focus on the current situation at SFSU, not on a 50-year history of anti-Semitism there.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In School Board Invocation Case

Yesterday the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Freedom From Religion foundation v. Chino Unified School District. In the case, a California federal district court held that invocations at school board meetings are governed by case law relating to school prayer, not by the line of cases on legislative prayer.  Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments.

California Pregnancy Clinic Requirement Violates State Constitution

In Scharpen Foundation, Inc. v. Harris, (CA Super. Ct., Oct 30, 2017), a California state trial court held that the state's Reproductive FACT Act violates the free speech protections of Art. I, Sec. 2 of the California Constitution. The challenged statute requires licensed pregnancy counseling clinics to post or provide to patients a notice on the existence of publicly-funded family planning services, including contraception and abortion. Applying strict scrutiny, the court said in part:

There is no question that the State has a legitimate regulatory interest in the practice of the healing arts.  In the midst of this contentious political dispute the State commands that specific State authored words be mouthed by the clinic at the very beginning of its relationship with those who come to it for guidance.... The statute interferes with both the right of the clinician to speak and with the right of the patient to hear what the clinician would say in the absence of State censorship....

It is entirely proper for the State to take its position supporting access to abortion.... But its ability to impress free citizens into State service in this political dispute cannot be absolute....

Last year the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the California statute against free speech and free exercise challenges raised under the U.S. Constitution. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing this week's state court decision.

California Governor Vetoes Expanded Labor Protections For Employees of Religious Organizations

On Oct. 15, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed AB-569 (full text of bill) that would have expanded the employees who are protected against dismissal for their reproductive health choices.  The bill provides in part:

The Legislature finds that employees of religiously affiliated institutions are entitled to the same protections as any other employee under the California Labor Code, unless the employee is the functional equivalent of minister, and therefore subject to a “ministerial exception” as developed in First Amendment case law.

California's current Fair Employment and Housing Act does not cover any employees of non-profit religious associations or corporations (Sec. 12940(j)(4)).  Governor Brown's veto message said:

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act has long banned such adverse actions, except for religious institutions. I believe these types of claims should remain within the jurisdiction of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

In a press release on the governor's veto, ADF described the vetoed bill as one that "would have prohibited churches, religious colleges, religious non-profit organizations, and pro-life pregnancy care centers from having faith-based codes of conduct with regard to abortion and sexual behavior."

New California Law Bars State Role In Any Future "Muslim Registry"

On Sunday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 31, the California Religious Freedom Act (full text).  As reported by Law Newz, the bill prevents any participation by local or state agencies in any federal "Muslim Registry" that might be developed.  As summarized in part by the Legislative Counsel's office:

The bill would prohibit a state or local agency or a public employee ... from providing or disclosing to the federal government personal information regarding a person’s religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation ... when the information is sought for compiling a database of individuals based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, national origin, or ethnicity for law enforcement or immigration purposes. The bill would also prohibit a state agency from using agency resources to assist with any government program compiling such a database ... [and] would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies ... from collecting personal information on the religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation of any individual, except as part of a targeted investigation ... or where necessary to provide religious accommodations.

Court Will Not Enjoin Medical Marijuana Limits In Suit By Minister

In Harris v. City of Clearlake, (ND CA, Oct. 10, 2017), a California federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the city of Clearlake, California from enforcing its regulations on growing  of medical marijuana against a church that cultivated cannabis for sacramental purposes. The court denied the claim by the church itself because it was not represented by an attorney, and the church's minister who filed the case pro se cannot represent the church since he is not a member of the bar.  As to the claim by the church's minister on his own behalf, the court concluded that the city's regulations are a neutral law of general applicability, and that the minister failed to show that enforcement infringes on his right to use marijuana as a religious sacrament:

[T]he ordinance permits Harris to cultivate six living marijuana plants subject to permitting, enclosure and spatial restrictions. Harris has not shown that six plants are insufficient to meet his personal religious needs, or that he cannot obtain marijuana plants to satisfy his religious needs through other means.

EEOC Files Two Religious Accommodation Suits

On Wednesday the EEOC announced the filing of two separate religious discrimination lawsuits.  One suit (press release) was brought against the Sacramento, California-based supermarket chain Raley's for refusing to continue accommodating the religious needs of a Jehovah's Witness employee. The employee was fired after insisting that she needed to attend religious meetings on Wednesday evenings and Sunday afternoons.

In a second suit (press release), the EEOC sued  the Florida-based Publix Supermarket chain for refusing to accommodate a Ratafarian new hire's religious need to wear his hair in dreadlocks.