Court Enjoins Part Of School's Policy On Transgender Students' Preferred Names

Ricard v. USD 475 Geary County, KS School Board, (D KS, May 9, 2022), is a suit brought by a Christian middle school math teacher who objects on religious grounds the school's policy of requiring teachers to refer to transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns, and requiring teachers not to disclose those names and pronouns to parents without the student's consent. A Kansas federal district court enjoined the school district from from disciplining the teacher for referring to a student by the student’s preferred name and pronouns in communications with the student’s parents in the regular course of the teacher's duties. The parties reached an agreement on the other aspect of the school's policy. The teacher would use students' preferred names, but not their preferred pronouns.

Unanimous Supreme Court Says Boston Violated Free Speech Clause In Barring Christian Flag Outside City Hall

In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, (Sup.Ct., May 2, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that Boston violated the free speech rights of Camp Constitution when it refused to allow it to briefly fly a Christian flag on a third flagpole outside city hall which private groups have used to fly flags of their choice for ceremonies. In the past, the city had approved some 50 different flags and had never before refused a request. Boston contended that the flag was government speech and cited Establishment Clause concerns in barring the Christian flag. The Court rejected that contention, saying in part:

We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint “abridg[ed]” their “freedom of speech.”

Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring only in the judgment, saying in part:

...I cannot go along with the Court’s decision to analyze this case in terms of the triad of factors—history, the public’s perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has exercised control over speech.... [T]reating those factors as a test obscures the real question in government-speech cases: whether the government is speaking instead of regulating private expression.

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, filed a concurring opinion saying in part:

Not a single Member of the Court seeks to defend Boston’s view that a municipal policy allowing all groups to fly their flags, secular and religious alike, would offend the Establishment Clause.

How did the city get it so wrong? To be fair, at least some of the blame belongs here and traces back to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971)....

To justify a policy that discriminated against religion, Boston sought to drag Lemon once more from its grave. It was a strategy as risky as it was unsound. Lemon ignored the original meaning of the Establishment Clause, it disregarded mountains of precedent, and it substituted a serious constitutional inquiry with a guessing game. This Court long ago interred Lemon, and it is past time for local officials and lower courts to let it lie.

European Court Says Switzerland Wrongly Denied Asylum To Pakistani Convert To Christianity

In M.A.M. v. Suisse, (ECHR, April 26, 2022) [decision in French], the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of a Pakistani asylee in Switzerland.  The Court's English language press release summarizes the case and its holding:

M.A.M. is a Pakistani national who had converted from Islam to Christianity while in Switzerland, where he had arrived in 2015 and where his asylum request had been rejected.

[T]he ... Court ... held, unanimously, that if the decision to expel the applicant to Pakistan were to be executed there would be a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the absence of an assessment of the risk to which the applicant was exposed on account of the overall situation of Christian converts in Pakistan and of his own personal situation. The Court ruled that the assessment by the Swiss authorities of the risk facing the applicant on account of his conversion to Christianity if he were expelled to Pakistan had been insufficient to uphold the rejection of his asylum request....

[Thanks to @sacrareleges for the lead.]

$400,000 Settlement In Favor Of Prof Who Refused To Recognize Student's Gender Transition

After the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021 held that Shawnee State University violated the free speech and free exercise rights of a philosophy professor when the school insisted that Professor Nick Meriwether address a transgender student by her preferred gender pronoun, a settlement has been reached in the case. According to a press release from ADF, the university agreed to pay $400,000 in damages plus attorneys' fees. Also, according to the press release:

As part of the settlement, the university has agreed that Meriwether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students. Significantly, the university agreed Meriwether will never be mandated to use pronouns, including if a student requests pronouns that conflict with his or her biological sex.

A stipulation of voluntary dismissal was filed yesterday in Meriwether v. Trustees of Shawnee State University, (SD OH filed 4/14/2022).

Deputy Sheriff May Be Liable For Failing To Stop Fellow Officer From Carrying Out Coercive Baptism

In Riley v. Hamilton County Government, (ED TN, April 7, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court refused to dismiss an Establishment Clause, as well as a 4th Amendment, claim against Deputy Sheriff Jacob Goforth for his role in Deputy Sheriff Daniel Wilkey's baptism of Shandle Riley. Wilkey had pulled Riley over for a traffic stop and discovered that she had marijuana in her car. After searching Riley and her car, Wilkey began to talk with Riley about religion, asking her if she had been baptized. According to the court:

Wilkey told her “God [was] talking to him” and assured her that, if she got baptized, he would only write her a citation and she would be free to go about her business.... According to Riley, Wilkey also indicated that he would speak at court on her behalf if she agreed.... Riley decided to go along with this plan because she“[did not] want to go to jail.” ... She also “thought [Wilkey] was a God-fearing, church-like man who saw something . . . in [her], that God talked to him,” and testified that “it felt good to believe that for a minute.”

Wilkey asked another deputy on duty, Jacob Goforth, to witness his baptism of Riley. According to the court: 

any reasonable officer would have recognized that coerced participation in a Christian baptism—an overtly religious act with no secular purpose—was unlawful.... There are genuine disputes of material fact concerning whether Riley was coerced into the baptism, whether she would have faced harsher penalties had she refused to be baptized, and whether Goforth should have known that Riley was being coerced. This is enough to preclude summary judgment on this issue....

Goforth had fair warning that he had a duty to intervene to stop constitutional violations of this nature. And a reasonable jury could conclude that Goforth had both notice of the violation and an opportunity to stop the baptism. Accordingly, Goforth is not entitled to summary judgment on Riley’s First Amendment claim....

The court also held that that Goforth was not entitled to qualified immunity on Riley's claim of an unreasonable seizure.

Trial Court's Resolution Of Church Factional Dispute Is Upheld

In Chung v. Kim, (CA App., April 1, 2022), a California state appellate court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in dealing with a dispute between two factions in a Korean American church.  The court expalined:

Appellant Jang Geun Chung is an “Active Elder” at OMC and the leader of one faction, and OMC’s Senior Pastor, respondent Chi Hoon Kim, is the leader of the other faction. Prior to the initiation of the trial court proceedings, these individuals were the only two members of OMC’s “Session,” or board of directors. Chung and the Senior Pastor do not agree on whom to nominate as another Active Elder on the Session. Had Chung and the Senior Pastor concurred on the selection of one or more nominees, then any candidate receiving a vote of two-thirds or more of OMC’s congregation would have been elected to the Active Elder position and ultimately would have joined the Session.

Chung and the other members of his faction ... filed suit against the Senior Pastor and the two other members of his faction....  The trial court granted appellants’ motion, reasoning that the Senior Pastor had acted improperly in unilaterally selecting the candidates and scheduling the election. The court then ... ordered that a new election be held....  Appellants contest the trial court’s order adopting respondents’ proposed procedures for the new election....

The court rejected the argument that the trial court's order violated the Establishment Clause, saying in part:

Even assuming the eligibility determination for the Active Elder position calls for the resolution of an ecclesiastical matter, the trial court could not defer to a decision from the relevant authoritative ecclesiastical body—i.e., the Session. Specifically, the parties concede that because the Senior Pastor and Chung were unable to agree on nominees for this position (i.e., no candidate could “receive[ ] a vote of 2/3 or more” of the Session, as required by Art. 51(3)), the Session is “deadlocked” on this issue....  Appellants do not cite authority for the proposition that the Establishment Clause barred the trial court from resolving this impasse by allowing each member of the deadlocked authoritative ecclesiastical body to select his own candidate for the election.

Mandatory LGBTQ Anti-Discrimination Training Did Not Violate Title VII

In Zdunski v. Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES, (WD NY, Feb. 16, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed Title VII and state law religious discrimination claims brought by Raymond Zdunski, an account clerk at the Board of Cooperative Educational Services.  BOCES required all of its employees to attend LGBTQ anti-discrimination training after one of its employees requested accommodation for gender transition.  Zdunski refused, contending that the training was aimed at changing his religious beliefs on gender and sexuality and that attending would violate his religious beliefs. He was fired for insubordination. The court said in part:

Mr. Zdunski has not presented any evidence that the trainings were directed toward him or other Christian employees in a discriminatory manner....

Here, Mr. Zdunski's proposed accommodation—that he be excused from the mandatory LGBTQ anti-discrimination training—amounts to more than a de minimis cost to his employer's business operations. BOCES is bound by New York State law to provide annual anti-discrimination trainings for all employees and to maintain "an environment free of discrimination and harassment." See N.Y. Educ. Law Tit. 1 Art. 2 §§ 10, 13. Allowing Mr. Zdunski's requested accommodation to forego anti-discrimination trainings would have put his employer in the position of violating the training requirements set forth in DASA. An accommodation that would require an employer to run afoul of state law constitutes a substantial hardship and would be more than a de minimis cost to the employer.

Christian Student Sues His High School For Bullying and Harassment

 Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Christian high school student against his public charter school alleging bullying and harassment by students, reinforced by the school, because he regularly brought a Bible to school and read it during his free time.  The complaint (full text) in Ortiz v. Mater Academy, Inc., (SD FL, filed 2/28/2022) summarizes the allegations as follows:

Nicholas Ortiz, a 14-year-old freshman, was discriminated and retaliated against by his high school, Mater Academy, because he is a Christian. Nicholas repeatedly made the school aware of a pattern of pervasive bullying by his fellow students, bullying that was reinforced by the words and actions of the school. Yet the school did not just sweep Nicholas's bullying claims under the rug-- failing to report them as required under the law-- they retaliated against Nicholas for reporting the harassment.... The school validated the despicable false rumors about Nicholas being broadcast on social media, [and] denied Nicholas due process....

The 57-page complaint sets out in detail the instances of bullying and harassment, including fellow-students ripping pages from his Bible. Numerous social media postings are reproduced in the complaint. The complaint alleges 1st and 14th Amendment violations as well as various state law claims. Christian Headlines reports on the lawsuit.

Cert. Denied In Ministerial Exception Case, With 4 Justices Expressing Concerns

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Gordon College v. DeWeese-Boyd, (Docket No. 21-145, certiorari denied 2/28/2022) (Order List).  In the case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the ministerial exception does not apply in a suit by an associate professor of social work at a private Christian liberal arts college who claims her promotion to full professor was denied because of her vocal opposition to the school's policies on LGBTQ individuals. (See prior posting.) Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett, filed an opinion (full text) concurring in the denial of certiorari, but expressing concern with the lower court's decision, saying in part:

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that this “ministerial exception” did not apply to a professor at a religious college who “did not teach religion or religious texts,” but who was still expected to “integrate her Christian faith into her teaching and scholarship.” ...  Although the state court’s understanding of religious education is troubling, I concur in the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari because the preliminary posture of the litigation would complicate our review. But in an appropriate future case, this Court may be required to resolve this important question of religious liberty....

What many faiths conceive of as “religious education” includes much more than instruction in explicitly religious doctrine or theology.... [M]any religious schools ask their teachers to “show students how to view the world through a faith-based lens,” even when teaching nominally secular subjects.

Christian Doctors Challenge California Assisted Suicide Provisions

An organization of Christian healthcare professionals and one of its members filed suit yesterday in a California federal district court challenging the current version of California's End of Life Options Act (EOLA) on free exercise, free speech, due process and equal protection grounds. The complaint (full text) in Christian Medical & Dental Associations v. Bonta, (CDCA, filed 2/22/2022), alleges that changes made to EOLA last year by SB 380 remove previous protections and now require doctors to participate in assisted suicide in violation of their religious beliefs. It contends that SB 380 requires objecting physicians to:

a. Document the date of a patient’s initial assisted-suicide request, which counts as the first of two required oral requests;
b. Transfer the records ... to a subsequent physician who may complete the assisted suicide;
c. Diagnose whether a patient has a terminal disease, inform the patient of the medical prognosis, and determine whether a patient has the capacity to make decisions, all of which are statutorily required steps toward assisted suicide;
d. Provide information to a patient about the End of Life Options Act;
e. Provide a requesting patient with a referral to another provider who may complete the assisted suicide.

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

Report On Role Of Christian Nationalism In January 6 Insurrection Released

Yesterday, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation released a report titled Christian Nationalism and the January 6, 2021 Insurrection (full text).  The Introduction to the Report says in part:

This report describes Christian nationalism and recounts its impact on the day itself as well as in the weeks leading up to the insurrection. Drawing on reporting, videos, statements, and images from the attack and its precursor events, this report contains the most comprehensive account to date of Christian nationalism and its role in the January 6 insurrection.

Christian nationalism is a political ideology and cultural framework that seeks to merge American and Christian identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism relies on the mythological founding of the United States as a “Christian nation,” singled out for God’s providence in order to fulfill God’s purposes on earth.

Health Care Company Will Pay $75,000 To Settle Christian Nurse's Religious Accommodation Claim

The EEOC announced yesterday that Wellpath, a provider of health services in correctional institutions, has agreed to settle a religious discrimination claim brought by the EEOC on behalf an Apostolic Pentecostal Christian nurse who was hired for a Texas jail.  According to the EEOC:

Before reporting to work, the nurse told a Wellpath human resources employee that her religious beliefs require her to dress modestly and to wear a scrub skirt instead of scrub pants while at work. In response, Wellpath denied the request for her religion-based accommodation and rescinded the nurse’s job offer.

Under the settlement agreement, Wellpath will pay the nurse $75,000 in back pay and damages, and will provide anti-discrimination training and notice of rights to employees.

High Schooler Sues Over Suspension For Religiously Motivated Anti-Gay Remarks

 A Michigan high school student sued this week for injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages contending that his 3-day suspension violated his free speech rights as well as various other rights under state law and the Michigan and U.S. constitutions.  The school contended that the student had violated the school's Bullying/ Cyberbullying/ Harassment policy.  The complaint (full text) in Stout v. Plainwell Community Schools, (WD MI, filed 1/27/2022), alleges that:

Plaintiff is a Christian, who adheres to the historic and traditional Christian doctrine contained in the Bible regarding all life issues, including homosexual conduct....

According to the complaint, school officials told plaintiff's parents that their student:

was accused of “laughing” at some racial and homophobic “jokes” that other kids had told during the summer band camp months ago; that he had participated in an off campus, private group chat/text session during which he texted that God would not accept homosexual conduct because it is a sin; and that he had private, on campus conversations regarding religious beliefs with friends in the band that, while not directed towards any particular person, was overheard by another student.

MLive reports on the lawsuit.

Court Will Hear Arguments Today In "Christian Flag" Case

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in Shurtleff v. City of Boston. In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, applying the "government speech" doctrine, 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.) (The flag features a red Latin Cross on a blue background in the upper left portion of an otherwise blank white flag.)  The SCOTUSblog case page has links to amicus briefs, briefs of the parties and other filings in the case. The oral arguments, which begin at 10:00 am EST, will be broadcast live at this link.  When the transcript and recording of the arguments become available later today, I will update this post to link to them.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of today's arguments.

NY City Council Member Loses Claim This His Expulsion Was Because Of Hostility To His Christian Anti-LGBT Views

In King v. City of New York, (SD NY, Jan. 14, 2022), a New York federal district court rejected a group of 1st and 14th Amendment, as well as state law, challenges by former New York City Council member Andy King to his expulsion from City Council.  He was removed from Council because of alleged ethical misconduct. However King claims that the true motivation of the Council members who voted to expel him was their dissatisfaction with his routine opposition to pro-LGBT issues stemming from his Christian beliefs that sex between members of the same sex is a sin. The court rejected both his free speech and free exercise claims.  Discussing King's free exercise claims, the court said in part:

In support of his Free Exercise claim, King relies on the same factual allegations as those that buttress his Free Speech claim-- namely, Defendants' hostility toward his political views on LGBT issues. But these allegations do not raise the plausible inference that Defendants acted out of hostility against King on the basis of his Christian faith.

European Court Dismisses Challenge To Baker's Refusal To Supply Cake With Pro-Gay Marriage Inscription

In a much-awaited decision, the European Court of Human Rights managed to avoid dealing directly with the central question in a case pitting LGBTQ rights against religious freedom rights of owners of commercial establishments. In Lee v. United Kingdom, (ECHR, Jan. 6, 2022), Gareth Lee, a gay man, ordered a cake from a bakery in Belfast. He asked for the cake to be decorated with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage."  He planned to take it to a private event being held to mark the end of Northern Ireland Anti-Homophobia and Transphobia Week and being held to gather political support for pending legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. The bakery, Ashers Baking Company, rejected the order because the company owners' Christian religious beliefs were opposed to same-sex marriage.

Lee filed suit in a county court in Northern Ireland claiming a violation of Northern Ireland's Equality Act and its Fair Employment and Treatment Order, which, among other things, bar sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of goods or services and discrimination on the basis of religious belief or political opinion. The case wound its way up to the U.K.'s Supreme Court which concluded that there was no sexual orientation discrimination because the bakery would have refused to supply the cake with that inscription to anyone. It also rejected the political opinion discrimination claim.

Lee appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. In yesterday's decision, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that Lee "did not invoke his Convention rights expressly at any point in the domestic proceedings.  Instead he formulated his claim by reference to [Northern Ireland's domestic law]." By failing to assert his rights under the European Convention in the courts of Northern Ireland, Lee failed to exhaust his domestic remedies.  The court said in part:

75.  ... As the Supreme Court of the United States pointed out in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd, these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.... This is particularly so in Northern Ireland, where there is a large and strong faith community, where the LGBTIQ community has endured a history of considerable discrimination and intimidation, and where conflict between the rights of these two communities has long been a feature of public debate....

Reuters reports on the decision. [Thanks to several readers for alerting me to the decision.]

India Refuses To Allow Mother Theresa's Charity To Receive Further Funds From Abroad

The Guardian reports that on Christmas Day, India's Ministry of Home Affairs refused to renew the license allowing Missionaries of Charity to continue to receive financial support from abroad.  Missionaries of Charity, which runs a network of charities across India, was founded by Mother Theresa in 1950. Accusations, denied by the Charity, are that it lures poor young Hindu women into becoming Christians by forcing them to read the Bible, recite Christian prayers and wear a cross around their neck. Hardline Hindus say that the Charity is intentionally hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus.

Exclusion Of Christian School From Scholarship Program Violated Its Free Speech Rights

In Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon,(D MD, Dec. 10, 2021), a Maryland federal district court held that the free speech rights of a Christian elementary school were violated when the state disqualified it from participating in a scholarship program for disadvantaged students attending private schools. The school lost its eligibility because its handbook set out a policy inconsistent with sexual orientation non-discrimination provisions. The court held that this amounted to an unconstitutional viewpoint-based condition on the school's ability to receive government funding. The court said in part:

Defendants have failed to put forth any evidence that Bethel’s policy has deterred a single prospective applicant from applying for admission at Bethel, let alone any evidence that Bethel has ever denied admission, expelled, or disciplined a student on the basis of sexual orientation.... Instead ... the record reflects that Defendants focused exclusively on the text of Bethel’s handbook....

The text of Bethel’s policy alone is not evidence of discriminatory conduct; the text of the policy is speech.... [E]xcluding Bethel ... based on the text of its admissions policy alone ... is a regulation of speech, not a regulation of conduct....

Not only was Defendants’ decision to exclude Bethel from BOOST eligibility based on Bethel’s speech, but it was based on the specific viewpoints Bethel chose to express in its admissions policy...

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Indian Court Says Religious Conversion Does Not Change Person's Caste

In Raj v. The Tahsildar, (Madras High Ct., Nov. 17, 2021), the High Court in the Indian city of Madras (Chennai) held that "conversion from one religion to another religion will not change the caste of a person which he belongs." The case involved a petition from a couple seeking an "inter-caste marriage certificate" in order to obtain the priority in public employment that is available to inter-caste couples.  The claim was based on petitioner's possession of a Backward Class certificate which he was issued when he converted to Christianity. However, according to the court:

by birth, the petitioner belongs to 'Adi-Dravidar' community and change of religion will not change the community.

Thus the court upheld the denial of the certificate. Normally this would still allow petitioner to claim the benefits reserved for Scheduled Classes. However, under a 1950 Presidential Order, members of Scheduled Classes that convert to Islam or Christianity are denied these benefits.

Insurance Brokerage Firm Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

EEOC announced yesterday that Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., an insurance brokerage firm, has agreed to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit by paying $40,000 in damages to an underwriting associate it fired, explaining:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, filed last year, Gallagher knew of Yu Rex Noda’s Christian religious practices, including fasting in conjunction with Lent. As set out in the EEOC’s complaint, a “Termination Memo” Gallagher issued cited “fasting” and “meditating” among reasons for firing Noda.

The company will also provide anti-discrimination training to Midwest regional managers.