Suit Over "In Christ" E-Mail Signature Moves Ahead

In Mial v. Foxhoven, (ND IA, April 4, 2018), an Iowa federal district court refused to dismiss Title VII and state religious discrimination claims brought by Michael Mial who had been fired from his position as a security specialist in the Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO) of the Iowa Department of Human Services.  Mial's dismissal resulted from his insistence on using the valediction "In Christ" on e-mails he sent on his CCUSO e-mail account, in violation of a rule against personal messages in e-mail signatures.  The court found that Mial's signature message was part of his "religious belief that he must proclaim his faith in everything he does." The court rejected CCUSO's claim that  Establishment Clause concerns justified its refusal to offer Mial a reasonable accommodation, saying in part:

there is scant evidence that Mial’s use of “In Christ” at the end of work-related email messages (such as in various requests for shift changes or time off) would lead the public to assume CCUSO was endorsing a religion. 

The court concluded:

[D]efendants have not shown as a matter of law that the Establishment Clause prevented them from offering an accommodation. Nor have they demonstrated, as a matter of law, that Mial’s email valediction caused any disruption in the workplace or violated any neutral, generally applicable rules or procedures. Of course, the jury could decide that Mial’s use of the valediction violated neutral policies about professional conduct and following supervisory directives. If so, then a duty to accommodate may not apply. However, I am not able to reach such a conclusion as a matter of law. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be denied.

Establishment Clause Challenge To Rainbow Flags Is Dismissed

In Sevier v. Lowenthal, (D DC, March 26, 2018), the District of Columbia federal district court dismissed a suit which sought to require four members of the U.S. House of Representatives to remove Gay Pride Rainbow Colored Flags that they have placed in the hallways outside their offices.  The suit, filed by a vocal opponent of the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision, contends that display of these flags violates the Establishment Clause, as well as the equal protection and due process clauses.  As related by the court:

In Sevier’s view ... the gay pride flag “is a ‘religious symbol’ for the homosexual denomination,” ... and its “placement ... amounts to [Defendants’] endorsement of a particular religion.... Sevier’s “sex-based self-asserted identity narrative is that he prefers to be married to an inanimate object.” ... So, according to Sevier, unless Defendants “install a flag that represents people who self-identify as polygamists, machinists, zoophiles, and heterosexuals,”... their actions “treat ... the homosexual denomination of ... the church of moral relativism with disproportionate favor”....

Rejecting plaintiff's assertions, the court said that plaintiff's claims are premised on his argument that homosexuality is a religion, but he has offered "no legal support" for the argument. The court continued:

To be sure, the governing case law does not precisely define the contours of what constitutes “religion.”... But that does not mean there are no easy cases.... Whatever else religion might entail, it at minimum requires adherence to one or more fundamental beliefs.... “Homosexuality,” by contrast, is not a set of beliefs at all. It is a description of a person’s sexual orientation.... The gay rights movement bears no trappings of “religion” as that concept is widely understood, and Sevier has not plausibly alleged that a reasonable person would perceive the display of the rainbow flags as religious in nature.

Long Beach Post reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges City's Forcing of Homeless Into Faith-Based Shelters

In Amarillo, Texas, an advocate for the homeless has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city's attempts to move homeless individuals from a tent city known as Christ Church Camp of New Beginnings to traditional homeless shelters.  The complaint (full text) in Donelson v. City of Amarillo, (ND TX, filed 2/28/ 2018), contends in part that the city has violated the Establishment Clause by forcing people into faith-based shelters.  Texas Observer reports on the lawsuit.

4th Circuit Denies En Banc Review On Bladensburg Cross

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 8-6, has denied an en banc rehearing on the constitutionality of the 40-foot high Bladensburg Cross that has stood for over 90 years at an intersection in Prince Georges County, Maryland. Last October a panel of the 4th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held the Latin Cross, created as a World War I Veterans' Memorial, violates the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Yesterday in American Humanist Association v. Maryland- National Capital Park Planning Commission, (4th Cir., March 1, 2018), the full court's denial of review was accompanied by 4 separate opinions-- one a concurring opinion and 3 dissenting opinions.

Judge Wynn's concurring opinion said in part:

To allow this Court to circumscribe the Bladensburg Cross’s meaning and power, as the Commission and its amici request, would empower this Court to diminish the Latin cross’s many years of accrued religious symbolism, and thereby amount to the state degradation of religion that the Framers feared and sought to proscribe. Indeed, were this Court to accept that the Latin cross’s predominantly sectarian meaning could be overcome by a plaque, a small secular symbol, and four engraved words, as the Commission maintains, we would necessarily grant the government—and the judiciary, in particular—broad latitude to define and shape religious belief and meaning. Surely, the Constitution does not contemplate endowing the government with such extraordinary power to determine and prescribe individual citizens’ religious beliefs and religious communities’ joint understandings, appreciations, and teachings.

Judge Wilkinson's dissent, joined by Chief Judge Gregory and Judge Agee, said in part:

The dead cannot speak for themselves. But may the living hear their silence. We should take care not to traverse too casually the line that separates us from our ancestors and that will soon enough separate us from our descendants. The present has many good ways of imprinting its values and sensibilities upon society. But to roil needlessly the dead with the controversies of the living does not pay their deeds or their time respect.

This memorial and this cross have stood for almost one full century. Life and change flow by the small park in the form of impatient cars and trucks. That is disturbance enough. Veterans Memorial Park may not be Arlington National Cemetery, but it is the next thing to it. I would let the cross remain and let those honored rest in peace.

Washington Post, reporting on the decision, says that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Challenges To Placement On Terrorist Watch List Are Dismissed

In Amiri v. Kelly, (ED MI, Jan. 30, 2018), a Michigan federal district court dismissed claims challenging denial of a visa to a British national and placement of him and his wife (a permanent U.S. resident who is an Iranian national and a British citizen) on a terrorist watch list.  Plaintiffs claim that the data bases used by the government in making these decisions contain unsubstantiated information based on plaintiffs' imputed Muslim religious beliefs.  In rejecting plaintiffs' 1st Amendment challenge, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, as they have identified no government action with a non-secular purpose that has a principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or that results in excessive government entanglement with religion..... Plaintiffs also fail to state a claim under the free exercise clause. They do not allege that they have been compelled to engage in a practice that violates their religious convictions, refrain from doing an act required by their religious convictions, or affirm or deny a belief contrary to their religious convictions. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not claim to be Muslim, but rather accuse Defendants of presuming they are Muslim.... 

Plaintiffs also fail to state an equal protection claim as they fail to allege that they have been treated differently than similarly situated individuals of a different nationality....  Nor do they allege that they are treated differently based on their religion, as they do not claim to be Muslim.

Advocacy Groups Say Military Is Imposing Religious Participation On Cadets

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists announced this week that they have sent a joint letter (full text) to Secretary of Defense James Mattis complaining about an increased incidence of military members and their families being forced to participate in religious observances at military training facilities. The letter says in part:

By scheduling prayer in graduation ceremonies, and by leading cadets in prayer prior to examinations, our military training facilities are violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. By assigning menial or labor-intensive tasks to cadets who elect not to participate in worship services, these facilities are violating the equal protection principles enshrined in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Friendly Atheist Blog reports on the letter.

Court May Not Automatically Defer To Religious Objections Of One Parent In Deciding Child's Best Interest

In Arcella v. Arcella, (NV Sup. Ct., Dec. 26, 2017), the Nevada Supreme Court held that a trial court was wrong in the manner it resolved a dispute between divorced parents over the middle school their child should attend. the father wanted the child to attend a private Lutheran school, but the mother objected to the child's receiving a religious education.  The court, relying solely on the mother's religious objections, decided that the child should attend a public school.  In reversing, the state Supreme Court said in part:

When a district court decides a child's best interest, "[t]he First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." ... The district court violates this principle of neutrality when it treats one parent's religious objection as dispositive when deciding between a religious school and a nonreligious school....

In sum, a district court does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments by ordering a child to attend a religious school over a parent's religious objection. Indeed, the district court must order a child to attend the religious school if attendance at that school accords with the child's best interests.

Las Vegas Review Journal reports on the decision.

8th Circuit Rejects Trooper's Challenge to Required Ride-Along With Chaplain

In Steckelberg v. Rice, (8th Cir., Dec. 26, 2017), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of a suit by a Nebraska State Trooper alleging various complaints about his treatment in connection with his application for a promotion and for a transfer and in handling grievances he filed. One of plaintiff's complaints, focused on during oral argument in the 8th Circuit, was that as part of his required performance improvement plan, he was required to ride along with the State Patrol chaplain, a Catholic priest, for a shift.  The 8th Circuit apparently agreed with the district court's rejection of the argument that this amounted to government coerced proselytization. The Lincoln Journal Star, reporting on the decision, says that a petition for en banc review is likely to be filed.

10th Circuit: ERISA "Church Plan" Exemption Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives, (10th Cir., Dec. 19, 2017), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Catholic Health Initiatives retirement plan for employees of 92 hospitals qualifies as a "church plan" under ERISA. One of the issues in the case was resolved by the Supreme Court while this appeal was pending.  Resolving the other issues, the 10th Circuit held that CHI's internal benefits committee qualifies as the statutorily required organization associated with a church that maintains a retirement plan.  The Court went on to conclude that the "church plan" exemption does not violate the Establishment Clause.  It held that the exemption meets all three prongs of the Lemon test.  Rejecting the argument that the exemption has the effect of favoring religion, the Court said in part:

Any law of general applicability that exempts religious organizations from its requirements could be said to convey a message that religion is favored. Religion is, after all, being exempted from a rule everyone else has to follow. Such an approach would mean that Congress could never exempt religious organizations from laws that might burden them—even when burdening religious organizations would itself run afoul of the Constitution. But this is common practice. A number of statutes regulate wide swathes of the American economy. And many of these statutes expressly exempt religious organizations from various requirements. 

Dismissal of Claims Against Church For Sex Abuse by Youth Director Is Upheld

In B.B. v. Methodist Church of Shelbina, Missouri, (MO App., Dec. 19, 2017), a Missouri appellate court upheld the dismissal of a suit for damages against a church growing out of the sexual molestation of appellant by the church's youth director.  The molestation occurred in 2006 when appellant was 12 years old.  The court summarized its holding in part as follows in an accompanying Opinion Summary:

(1) The Establishment Clause ... bars Appellant’s negligence-based claims and his claim for breach of fiduciary/confidential relationship against Respondents because we cannot resolve these claims without interfering with and interpreting the doctrine, policy, polity, practice, and administration of the Respondents.

(2) Appellant has not and will not be able to present sufficient evidence to prove an element of his claim for intentional failure to supervise.... Specifically, Appellant failed to establish the sexual abuse he suffered occurred on property possessed by the Church.

(3) Appellant’s claims for child sexual abuse and battery against the Church fail ... because: a. [The youth director's] misconduct was completely outside the course and scope of his employment with the Church; b. Appellant’s argument the trial court erred in not imposing liability on the Church based on its employee’s failure to act on information given to her ... is nothing more than a reconstituted claim of negligence against the Church, which is not cognizable pursuant to precedent from Missouri courts....

School Graduation In Christian Chapel Violates Establishment Clause

In American Humanist Association v. Greenville County School District, (D SC, Dec. 12, 2017), in a case on remand from the 4th Circuit (see prior posting), a South Carolina federal district court held that a South Carolina school district's practice of holding elementary school graduation ceremonies in the Christian Chapel of a local university violates the Establishment Clause. The court awarded plaintiffs $1 in nominal damages. The court said in part:

... [T]his ruling is limited to the specific facts of this case and should not be construed as a bright line rule regarding a school district’s use of a church-owned facility.... The fact that the district chose to hold the ceremony (which included school-endorsed Christian prayers) in a clearly Christian place of worship in the presence of religious iconography, including, among other things, a cross on the podium and eight stained glass windows depicting Christian imagery, only further created a likelihood that observers would perceive the district as endorsing a particular set of religious beliefs. There has been no showing that the chapel was the only available venue for the graduation ceremony, and in view of the overall circumstances of the event, there can be no doubt that the setting in which the ceremony occurred conveyed a message of religious endorsement and created a likelihood that the school-aged children would perceive a link between church and state.

 In a prior opinion in the case, the court had concluded student-led prayer at the school's past graduation ceremonies was unconstitutional.  In this case, the court held that the organizational plaintiff has standing to challenge the school's revised prayer policy as it is being applied.  Plaintiffs claim that as implemented, the revised policy merely continues past practices.  The court ordered the parties to attempt mediation before proceeding further. American Humanist Association issued a press release announcing the opinion.

9th Circuit: Protection of Sacred Land From Mining Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

In National Mining Association v. Zinke, (9th Cir., Dec. 12, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama administration's withdrawal for up to 20 years of over 1 million acres of land near Grand Canyon National Park from new uranium mining claims.  Among other things, the court rejected a claim that the Interior Department violated the Establishment Clause when it precluded new mining claims in order to protect land that has sacred meaning to Indian tribes. The court reasoned in part:

preservation of areas of cultural or historic value ... may constitute a “secular purpose” justifying state action even if the area’s significance has, in part, a religious connection.

In a related opinion in Havasupai Tribe v. Provencio, (9th Cir., Dec. 12, 2017), the 9th Circuit upheld the right of a two companies with a pre-existing approval to operate a uranium mine near Red Butte within the Grand Canyon withdrawal area.  Red Butte is a site of religious and cultural significance to the Havasupai Tribe.  Washington Post reports on the decisions.

Court Dismisses Establishment Clause Challenge To Tax Code

In Hinds v. United States Government, (ED MO, Dec. 11, 2017), a Missouri federal district court dismissed on various jurisdictional and procedural grounds a claim by by plaintiff that:

by virtue of the Tax Code, the Government has established an institutionalized faith and religion of taxism ...[and] that this institutionalized religion has the effect of endorsing, favoring, and promoting organized religions, which Plaintiff believes violates the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution.

Settlement Reached In Correctional Employee's Suit Over Religious Curriculum for Inmates

The state of Tennessee last month agreed to a settlement of $45,948, plus up to $35,000 in attorneys' fees, in a suit that was brought by an employee of a state corrections agency who complained that the program he was required to teach to inmates was heavily religious. The program was based on the book This Ain’t No Practice Life by Michael Burt  Also under the agreement, the employee will leave the agency next June. (Full text of settlement agreement).  The agreement followed a federal district court's entering of a preliminary injunction in favor of the employee last February.  In Baker v. State of Tennessee, (MD TN, Feb. 17, 2017), the court, finding a strong likelihood of an Establishment Clause violation, said:

The fact that the Coaching Program as a whole may have a secular purpose of rehabilitating TDOC inmates and preparing them for release and reentry does not mitigate the fact that there is likely no secular purpose to the inclusion of religious-based content in the Coaching Program’s materials.

Reporting on the settlement, WSMV News adds that the challenged program, which has now been canceled, cost the state $300,000 to implement.

Suit Challenging Indiana Charter School Law Mostly Survives Motion To Dismiss

In Indiana Coalition for Public Education v. McCormick, (SD IN, Nov. 29, 2017), an Indiana federal district court refused to dismiss standing and Establishment Clause challenges by an education advocacy group to the provision in Indiana's Charter School Act that gives religious institutions the power to authorize charter schools.  The court said in part:

Authorizers make important decisions about who may establish charter schools and under what circumstances a charter school may be established, which includes details such as the educational methodology the school will employ. Additionally, charter schools are publicly funded and, insofar as they draw students from public school corporations, their funding may result in a shift of public funds away from other schools. These decisions, when made by a religious institution, may raise Establishment Clause concerns....

The court however dismissed federal and state constitutional challenges to a provision that allows religious authorizers’ to receive an administrative fee of 3% of state funding.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Constitutional Challenges To City's Civil Rights Law

In Country Mill Farms v. City of East Lansing, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191658 (WD MI, Nov. 16, 2017), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss a number of plaintiff's constitutional challenges to a city's civil rights ordinance. Vendor Guidelines for East Lansing's Farmers' Market required vendors to comply with the civil rights ordinance as a general business practice. Country Mill Farms was denied a vendor permit because, while it hosts weddings at its orchard, it refuses on religious grounds to host same-sex weddings.  It announced its policy in a Facebook post.

The court allowed Country Mill to move ahead with an overbreadth challenge to a portion of the ordinance, saying in part:

The City is wrong that the Ordinance regulates only conduct. The Ordinance also regulates speech. Section 22-32 of the Code defines "harass" as including "communication which refers to an individual protected under this article." Section 22-31 prohibits harassment of any person based on a list of characteristics. And, Section 22-35(b)(2) prohibits the printing and publishing of certain statements and signs based on their content.

The court also refused to dismiss plaintiff's Free Exercise and Establishment Clause challenges (as well as an unconstitutional conditions challenge), saying in part:

Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for a violation of their rights under the Free Exercise Clause. Plaintiffs have pleaded facts to support a claim that the City enacted a generally applicable and neutral policy, which was then used to target Plaintiffs' religiously-motivated conduct. The Ordinance did not apply to Plaintiffs in 2016. After the City learned that Plaintiffs would not hold same-sex weddings on their farms because of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs, the City amended the Vendor Guidelines to incorporate the neutral and generally applicable law and applied it to Plaintiffs. As pled, the City's action is a "veiled cover for targeting belief or a faith-based practice." ...

Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to state a plausible claim under the Establishment Clause. The facts in the complaint allow the Court to infer that the predominant purpose of the changes to the Vendor Guidelines was motivated by the disapproval of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs.

Various other challenges to the ordinance were dismissed. (See prior related posting.)

Public Shelter's "Blessing of the Animals" Challenged In Court

An Atheist group last week filed suit in a New Jersey federal district court challenging a county-run animal shelter's hosting for the second year in a row of a Blessing of the Animals event.  The complaint (full text) in American Atheists, Inc. v. Bergen County, (D NJ, filed 11/13/2017), objects to the use of public resources and employee time to promote and host a ritual that is performed by Franciscan clergy annually in honor of St. Francis of Assissi. Plaintiffs claim that the county has violated the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and several provisions of the New Jersey Constitution.  American Atheists issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges Tennessee's Therapist Bill

A suit was filed last week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging the constitutionality of  Tennessee's "Therapist Bill" (TN Code 63-22-302) that provides:

No counselor or therapist providing counseling or therapy services shall be required to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with the sincerely held principles of the counselor or therapist; provided, that the counselor or therapist coordinates a referral of the client to another counselor or therapist who will provide the counseling or therapy.

The complaint (full text) in Copas v. Haslam, (MD TN, filed 11/13/2017) contends that, despite the broad wording of the section:

The Tennessee Legislature intended for the Bill solely to allow religious counselors to discriminate against the LGBT community.

It asserts that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Establishment Clause.  JURIST reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit Dismisses Challenge To Michigan Procedures For Vaccination Exemption

In Nikolao v. Lyon, (6th Cir., Nov. 7, 2017), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered dismissal of a challenge to Michigan's procedures for granting school children a religious exemption from vaccination requirements. In order to obtain an exemption, a parent is required to visit the local health department and explain the basis for the objection.  A health worker must certify that the parent has received education on the benefits of immunizations and the risks involved in not receiving them.  Also the state has published a series of "Waiver Notes" containing responses to parental objections, including religious objections.  The court held that plaintiff, a mother who asserted her Catholic religious beliefs as the basis for the request, lacked standing to raise a free exercise claim, saying in part:

While Nikolao has presented facts suggesting that she was exposed to religious information with which she did not agree, she has given no indication that the information coerced her into doing or not doing anything. Nikolao went to the WCDH to receive a vaccination exemption and left with one.

The court found that plaintiff did have standing to assert an Establishment Clause claim, but concluded that no Establishment Clause violation was shown, saying in part:

The Certification Rule only requires local health workers to have a conversation with objecting parents.... As part of that conversation, the state may offer its own take on a parent’s objections. But the Certification Rule does not allow state officials to withhold an exemption based on the legitimacy of those objections. Were that the case, the outcome here may very well be different....

Similarly, the Religious Waiver Note does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Note outlines a health department worker’s available responses to religious objections concerning vaccination. To be sure, this document contains information about specific religions.... But, again, the purpose of providing this information is secular.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Citizenship Applicant Challenges "So Help Me God" In Naturalization Oath

Represented by activist Michael Newdow, a French citizen who is a permanent U.S. resident living in Massachusetts filed suit last week challenging the inclusion of the phrase "so held me God" in the Naturalization Oath. The complaint (full text) in Perrier-Bilbo v. Congress of the United States, (D MA, filed 11/2/2017), contends that the presence of these words in the oath violates the Establishment Clause, free exercise clause, RFRA, as well as plaitiff's due process and equal protection rights.  The citizenship application by Plaintiff, who is an atheist, was approved in 2009.  When she objected to the form of the oath at that time, was told that she could either participate in the oath ceremony and omit the “so help me God” language, or schedule a private oath ceremony where the government would not use that phrase. Neither of those alternatives are acceptable to her.  Her complaint contends in part:

By its very nature, an oath that concludes “so help me God” is asserting that God exists..... Moreover, even if the current oath were constitutional, the government of the United States has rendered Plaintiff, on the basis of her sincerely held religious beliefs, unable to take the oath that all others take. This is unfair, demeaning and improper. Plaintiff is unwilling to start her new life as an American citizen in some second-class status solely because she chooses to follow her religious precepts. Under the principles of equal protection, she demands the right to experience the elation, the pride, the sense of camaraderie, and the sense of belonging, which comes from joining her fellow new citizens as an equal participant in the naturalization oath ceremony.

Sacramento Bee reports on the lawsuit.