Cert. Filed In Suit By Parolee Against Christian Homeless Shelter Director

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Carmack v. Janny, (cert. filed 12/3/2021). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parolee, who is an atheist, should be able to move ahead with his Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims against his parole officer and the director of a Christian homeless shelter. To stay out of jail, plaintiff was required to stay at the shelter and participate in its religious programming. (See prior posting.) The petition for review frames the question presented as:

Whether the employee of a private, religious nonprofit may be held liable, as a state actor, for making pro bono housing and social services at the nonprofit’s facility contingent on participation in religious programming.

ADF issued a press release discussing the case.

4th Circuit: Denial Of Church's Application For Water and Sewer Plan Amendment Violated RLUIPA

In Redeemed Christian Church of God (Victory Temple) Bowie, Maryland v. Prince George's County, Maryland, (4th Cir., Nov. 3, 2021), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the legislative amendment to the County’s Water and Sewer Plan which Victory Temple sought to recategorize its property constitutes a "land use regulation" subject to RLUIPA. It also concluded that the denial of Victory Temple's application for a recategorization imposed a substantial burden on its exercise of religion. The court concluded in part:

[T]he County never sought to show at trial that it considered alternatives — such as roadway improvements or additional road signs — before denying the Application. At bottom, we agree with the district court that the County’s denial of the Application fails strict scrutiny review. In these circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting Victory Temple the injunctive relief that is appealed from.

Christian Parents Challenge Virginia Ban On Religious Discrimination In Hiring Babysitter

Suit was filed last week in a Virginia state trial court by Christian parents of a developmentally disabled child who sought to employ a regular babysitter who is Christian to help raise their daughter in the Christian tradition. The Virginia Human Rights Act was amended in July 2021 to bars use of religion as a motivating factor in hiring domestic workers, including babysitters, and to bar expressing religious preferences in employment ads. The complaint (full text) in Woodruff v. Herring, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 10/28/2021) contends that application of this law to plaintiffs burdens their free exercise of religion in violation of the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Foundation for Parental Rights issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Supreme Court Review Sought By Christian Wedding Website Designer

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (Sup. Ct., filed 9/24/2021). In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the application of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act to a wedding website design company whose owner for Christian religious reasons refuses to create websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Christian Adoption Agency Sues To Retain Policy Of Placements Only With Married Heterosexual Families

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by a Christian faith-based family services agency seeking to prevent enforcement against it of New York's anti-discrimination laws insofar as they interfere with the agency's policy of refusing to place children for adoption with unmarried or same-sex couples. The complaint (full text) in New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. James, (ND NY, filed 9/17/2021) alleges in part:

In currently ongoing litigation between New Hope and an agency of the State of New York, two federal courts have already found that efforts by the State to force New Hope to change this choice, in violation of its religious beliefs, likely violate both New Hope’s Free Speech rights and its Free Exercise rights, and the district court has already entered a preliminary injunction protecting New Hope’s right and ability to continue to operate and speak in a manner consistent with its beliefs....

[T[he pendency of a governmental investigation and allegations of violations of law quickly damage New Hope’s reputation that was built up over many decades of faithful service, and discourages hospitals, pregnancy resource centers, and social service agencies from referring birthmothers to New Hope to receive adoption services.

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

EEOC Suit Protecting Religious Objector To Fingerprinting Is Settled

The EEOC announced last week that Minnesota- based AscensionPoint Recovery Services has settled an EEOC religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it by agreeing to pay $65,000 in damages and implementing changes to its policies. According to the EEOC, the company fired a Christian employee who objected to being fingerprinted:

The fingerprinting requirement was prompted by a background check procedure requested by of one of the company’s clients. Shortly after the Christian employee informed APRS that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his religious practices, APRS fired him. APRS did so without asking the client whether an exemption was available as a religious accommodation, and despite the fact that alternatives to fingerprinting were available.

Court Enjoins Requirement That Christian Doctors Perform Gender Transition Procedures And Abortions

In Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Becerra, (ND TX, Aug. 9, 2021), on remand from the 5th Circuit, a Texas federal district court permanently enjoined enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act or implementing regulations against Christian health care providers and health plans in a manner that would require them to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures or abortions. The court said in part:

No party disputes that the current [Affordable Care Act] Section 1557 regulatory scheme threatens to burden Christian Plaintiffs’ religious exercise ... by placing substantial pressure on Christian Plaintiffs, in the form of fines and civil liability, to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures and abortions....

In reaching its conclusion, the court rejected mootness and other justiciability arguments that stemmed from shifting regulations while the case wound its way through the courts. 

10th Circuit: Parolee May Move Ahead In Suit Challenging His Placement In Christian Housing

In Janny v. Gamez, (10th Cir., Aug. 6, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parolee, who is an atheist, should be able to move ahead with his Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims growing out of a requirement that in order to stay out of jail he stay at a Christian homeless shelter and participate in its religious programming.  The court said in part:

[W]hile the Lemon test remains a central framework for Establishment Clause challenges, it is certainly not the exclusive one.... And claims of religious coercion, like the one presented here, are among those that Lemon is ill suited to resolve. Lee [v. Weisman] teaches that a simpler, common-sense test should apply to such allegations: whether the government “coerce[d] anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.” ...

Mr. Janny argues that Officer Gamez’s written parole directive to abide by the Mission’s “house rules as established,”... shows the State required him to participate in the Mission’s religious programming.... These facts establish a genuine dispute as to whether the State, through Officer Gamez, acted not just to place Mr. Janny in the Mission, but to place him specifically into the Christian-based Program....

The record [also] allows Mr. Janny to reach the jury on his claim that Officer Gamez burdened his right to free exercise by allegedly presenting him with the coercive choice of obeying the Program’s religious rules or returning to jail.

The court also rejected defendants' qualified immunity defenses. 

Judge Carson dissented in part, contending that the director of the Mission should not be liable as a state actor.

ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Food Ordinance Does Not Violate Rights Of Christians Distributing Sandwiches

In Redlich v. City of St. Louis, (ED MO, July 22, 2021), a Missouri federal magistrate judge dismissed a suit by two officers of the New Life Evangelical Center who, as part of their religious obligation, conduct outreach to the homeless.  They seek an injunction to prevent enforcement of a city ordinance that bans the distribution of “potentially hazardous foods” to the public without a temporary food permit. Plaintiffs were cited for distributing bologna sandwiches without a permit. The court rejected free exercise, free speech, freedom of association, equal protection and other challenges by plaintiffs, saying in part:

Plaintiffs have not established that the Ordinance constitutes a substantial burden on their free exercise rights. Assuming that food sharing is a central tenet of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, the evidence does not show that enforcement of the Ordinance prohibits Plaintiffs’ meaningful ability to adhere to their faith or denies Plaintiffs reasonable opportunities to engage in fundamental religious activities....

Plaintiffs show that the Ordinance certainly limits their ability to express their message in distributing sandwiches, but admit there is nothing about bologna sandwiches specifically that inherently expresses their religion. The facts show that in the alternative to obtaining a charitable feeding permit, Plaintiffs can and have distributed other types of food, bottled water, clothes, literature, and offered community and prayer without providing food subject to the Ordinance...

The record supports that the City enacted the Ordinance to adopt the National Food Code for public health and safety reasons, not to curtail a religious message. Thus, the Ordinance and its Amendment are content neutral and generally applicable....

Teacher Who Refused To Address Transgender Students By Preferred Names Loses Title VII Suit

In Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, (SD IN, July 12, 2021), an Indiana federal district court dismissed a suit by a former teacher who resigned rather than comply with a school policy requiring him to address transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns. Plaintiff contended that it violated his Christian religious beliefs to comply with this policy. He sued under Title VII, claiming failure to accommodate his religious beliefs and retaliation. The court said in part:

[A]  name carries with it enough importance to overcome a public school corporation's duty to accommodate a teacher's sincerely held religious beliefs against a policy that requires staff to use transgender students' preferred names when supported by a parent and health care provider. Because BCSC ... could not accommodate Mr. Kluge's religious beliefs without sustaining undue hardship, and because Mr. Kluge has failed to make a meaningful argument or adduce evidence in support of a claim for retaliation, BCSC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED....

Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

Firefighter Loses Suit Over Refusal To Be Photographed

In Swartz v. Sylvester, (D MA, June 28, 2021), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed a damage action brought by a firefighter who was disciplined after he refused, based on his personal Christian religious beliefs, to sit for an in -uniform photograph because it might be used for promotional purposes, and not just for ID tags and cards. The court said in part:

[T]he order was both facially neutral (and neutral in light of the totality of the circumstances) and generally applicable. Therefore, Sylvester must show only a “rational basis” for the policy....

The court also found qualified immunity:

even assuming that Swartz’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause were in fact violated, the legal contours of those rights were not sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated them. 

Cert. Filed In "Christian Flag" Case

Yesterday a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Shurtleff v. City of Boston. In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Boston's refusal to allow an organization to raise its "Christian flag" on one of the City Hall Plaza flag poles at an event that would also feature short speeches by local clergy. (See prior posting.) Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

EEOC Sues Over Employer's Failure To Accommodate Religious Objection To Finger Printing

 The EEOC announced last week that it has filed suit in a Minnesota federal district court against AscensionPoint Recovery Services alleging religious discrimination:

APRS had requested that its employees be finger-printed as a result of a background check requirement of one of its clients. Shortly after the Christian employee informed APRS that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his religious practices, APRS fired him.... APRS did so without asking the client whether an exemption was available as a religious accommodation, and despite the fact that alternatives to fingerprinting are available.

Christian Organization Appeals IRS Denial of Non-Profit Status

In a determination letter (full text) issued May 18, 2021, the Internal Revenue Service preliminarily concluded that it should deny a Section 501(c)(3) non-profit exemption to Christians Engaged because the religious organization "plans to participate ... in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office." The letter continues:

You instruct individuals on issues that are prominent in political campaigns and instruct them in what the Bible says about the issue and how they should vote. These issues include the sanctity of life, the definition of marriage, and biblical justice. These issues generally distinguish candidates and are associated with political platforms. These facts preclude you from exemption under IRC Section 501(c)(3).

... While you educate voters on what the bible says about issues, your educational activities are not neutral. The topics typically are affiliated with distinct candidates and specific political platforms.

First Liberty, on behalf of Christians Engaged, has filed an appeal with the IRS. (Full text of letter dated June 16, 2021). It contends:

... [B]y finding that Christians Engaged does not meet the operational test, Director Martin errs in three ways: 1) he invents a nonexistent requirement that exempt organizations be neutral on public policy issues; 2) he incorrectly concludes that Christians Engaged primarily serves private, nonexempt purposes rather than public, exempt purposes because he thinks its beliefs overlap with the Republican Party’s policy positions; and 3) he violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech, and Free Exercise, and Establishment clauses by engaging in both viewpoint discrimination and religious discrimination.

UPDATE: On July 7, First Liberty announced that the IRS had granted Christians Engaged tax exempt status.

 

Suit Challenges County's Limiting Jail Chaplain Position to Those With Christian Beliefs

Suit was filed last week in a Maryland federal district court by a Muslim volunteer jail chaplain challenging the requirements imposed by Prince Georges County, Maryland on applicants for a paid jail chaplain position. The complaint (full text) in Bridges v. Prince Georges County, Maryland, (D MD, filed 5/27/2021), alleges that provisions of the county's agreement with Prison Ministry of America violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses:

Defendant PG County illegally required all applicants to sign a so-called “Statement of Applicant’s Christian Faith.”

... [The Statement] requires applicants to affirm that they “believe in one God, Creator and Lord of the Universe, the co-eternal Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” that “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, [and] died a substitutionary atoning death on the cross,” and that “the Bible is God’s authoritative and inspired Word…without error in all its teachings, including creation, history, its own origins, and salvation.”

CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP has additional background on the lawsuit.

Christian Student Group Wins Suit Seeking To Limit Its Leadership To Believers

In Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/USA v. Board of Governors of Wayne State University, (ED MI, April 5, 2021), a Michigan federal district court held that Wayne State University violated the free exercise, free speech, association and assembly rights of a Christian student organization (IVCF) when the University suspended the group's status as a Recognized Student Organization.  The University took this action because IVCF violated the school's non-discrimination policy by insisting that its leaders agree with IVCF's  “Doctrine and Purpose Statements,” “exemplify Christ-like character, conduct and leadership,” and describe their Christian beliefs. In an 83-page opinion, the court said in part:

The First Amendment provides religious organizations the right to select their own ministers, and, under the First Amendment and §1983, organizations can sue the government for violating that right....

Plaintiffs also provide uncontradicted evidence that student leaders, called “Christian leaders,” qualify as ministers under the First Amendment....  In essence, Plaintiffs’ student leaders participate in proselytizing efforts and are Plaintiffs’ chosen spiritual resource for students at Wayne State....

No religious group can constitutionally be made an outsider, excluded from equal access to public or university life, simply because it insists on religious leaders who believe in its cause...

Defendants have barred Plaintiffs from selecting leaders that share its Christian views while allowing other groups to engage in similar form of leadership selection. This divergent treatment cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny....

The court awarded an injunction and nominal damages. Detroit News reports on the decision.

6th Circuit: Prof Has 1st Amendment Right To Refuse To Call Transgender Student By Preferred Pronoun

In Meriwether v. Hartop, (6th Cir., March 26, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Shawnee State University violated the free speech and free exercise rights of a philosophy professor when the school insisted that the Professor address a transgender student by her preferred gender pronoun. The professor objected because of his Christian religious beliefs that God created human beings as either male or female at the time of conception and this cannot be changed. Upholding plaintiff's free speech rights, the court said in part:

Never before have titles and pronouns been scrutinized as closely as they are today for their power to validate—or invalidate—someone’s perceived sex or gender identity. Meriwether took a side in that debate. Through his continued refusal to address Doe as a woman, he advanced a viewpoint on gender identity. …  In short, when Meriwether waded into the pronoun debate, he waded into a matter of public concern….

We begin with “the robust tradition of academic freedom in our nation’s post-secondary schools.” … That tradition alone offers a strong reason to protect Professor Meriwether’s speech. After all, academic freedom is “a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”

The court also reversed the trial court's dismissal of Prof. Meriwether's free exercise claim:

Meriwether has plausibly alleged that Shawnee State’s application of its gender-identity policy was not neutral for at least two reasons. First, officials at Shawnee State exhibited hostility to his religious beliefs. And second, irregularities in the university’s adjudication and investigation processes permit a plausible inference of non-neutrality.

Inside Higher Ed reports on the decision.

Malaysian Court Says Christian Publications Can Use the Word "Allah"

Bernama reports that in Malaysia, the Kuala Lumpur High Court has ruled that Christians may use the word "Allah" and three other Arabic words in their religious publications for educational purposes. The court held that a 1986 Home Ministry ban on use of the words was unconstitutional. Publications using the terms must also carry a disclaimer saying that the publication is only for Christians, and must also carry a symbol of a Cross. Litigation on the issue began in 2008. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: Daily Express (March 15) reports that the government has filed an appeal in the case.

President Biden Issues Statement On Ash Wednesday

Yesterday President Joe Biden issued a Statement on Ash Wednesday (full text), saying in part:

As we enter into the season of Lent, we know this moment of repentance, reflection, and renewal comes in the midst of a painful winter for our nation and the world.....

We pray for all those who have fallen on hard times and are worried about what morning will bring. Let us find strength in each other and faith that provides us purpose. And let us look with hope and anticipation toward Easter and brighter days ahead.

1st Circuit Again Upholds Boston's Refusal To Fly Christian Flag From City Hall Flagpole

In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (1st Cir., Jan. 22, 2021), the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case coming before it for a second time, again upheld the city of Boston's refusal to allow an organization to raise its "Christian flag" on one of the City Hall Plaza flag poles at an event that would also feature short speeches by local clergy. The court said in part:

Because the City engages in government speech when it raises a third-party flag on the third flagpole at City Hall, that speech is not circumscribed by the Free Speech Clause....  The City is therefore "entitled" to "select the views that it wants to express."...

The court also rejected plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim, saying in part:

The exclusion of religious entities from a public  program, without more, does not violate the Establishment Clause. See Carson ex rel. O.C. v. Makin, 979 F.3d 21, 49 (1st Cir. 2020). Nor is proof of such exclusion evidence of hostility towards religion....

We add, moreover, that while the Establishment Clause may not require a secular-flag policy, the City "may act upon [its] legitimate concerns about excessive entanglement with religion" in administering its flag-raising program....

Our government-speech finding bolsters the conclusion that the City would be perceived to endorse the messages conveyed by the flags that it flies.