Parents' Challenge To School's LGBT Non-Discrimination Rules Dismissed For Lack of Standing

 In Reynolds v. Talberg, (WD MI, Oct 30, 2020), a Michigan federal district court dismissed, primarily for lack of standing, parents' challenge to a school district's policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. The court said in part:

Citing their Christian faith, Plaintiffs contend the Challenged Policies force their children to disregard their sincerely held religious beliefs and to “affirm[] . . . alternative sexual lifestyles” or else face punishment.... The crux of Plaintiffs’ claim is that the Challenged Policies “promote and force the approval of alternate sexual lifestyles and behavior” in a “manner that infringes upon Plaintiffs’ personal identity, autonomy, and their sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions and constitutional right to oppose such policies and freely speak out on such issues in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” ... Though Plaintiffs claim that the Challenged Policies permit Williamston public schools to punish students who refuse to “affirm[] . . . alternative sexual lifestyles”..., and would permit students to use bathroom and shower facilities in accordance with their gender identity..., the complaint does not allege that any student represented by Plaintiffs has been disciplined or otherwise restrained under the Challenged Policies, nor do they allege that any transgender student has used facilities in accordance with their gender identity.

The court also rejected a vagueness challenge to the regulations. 

Pope Francis Endorses LGBT Civil Union Laws

Catholic News Agency reported yesterday that in a newly released documentary titled Francesco, Pope Francis called for the passage of civil union laws covering same-sex couples. This is inconsistent with the positions of prior Popes and with the views of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In a portion of the documentary devoted to pastoral care for LGBT individuals, the Pope said:

Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it....

What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.

Hypothetical Religious Objections On LGBTQ Issues Cannot Disqualify Foster Parents

In Blais v. Hunter, (ED WA, Oct. 8, 2020), a Washington federal district court held that the Washington Department of Children, Youth and Families cannot use its policy to protect LGBTQ+ foster children as the sole determining factor in rejecting a foster family that expresses sincere religious beliefs that would preclude them from supporting gender transition in hypothetical future situation.  Plaintiffs in the case were a Seventh Day Adventist family that wanted to care for their great-granddaughter who might be removed from her home. The court concluded that the Department’s policies “operate as a religious gerrymander and are thus not neutral as applied to the Blaises and others similarly situated.” [Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Recent Virginia Anti-Discrimination Statutes Challenged

 Two lawsuits filed this week challenge two recently enacted Virginia statutes-- SB 868 prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and HB 1429 that prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals in health insurance policies.

The complaint (full text) in Calvary Road Baptist Church v. Herring, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 9/28/2020) was filed by churches, Christian schools and pregnancy centers and alleges that the laws require plaintiffs to hire employees, provide insurance coverage and offer services that violate their religious beliefs on marriage, sexuality and gender.

The complaint (full text) in Updegrove v. Herring, (ED VA, filed 9/28/2020) was filed by a photographer who will "not provide wedding photography that celebrates any marriage not between one man and one woman, such as same-sex, polygamous, or open engagements or marriages, because [he] believes that God created marriage to be an exclusive union between one man and one woman."

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

EEOC Sues On Behalf of Employees Who Refuse To Wear Company Aprons That Contain Rainbow Emblem

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against a Conway, Arkansas Kroger store charging that it violated Title VII when it disciplined and then discharged two women employees who refused to wear Kroger aprons that display a rainbow-colored heart emblem.  The women believe that the apron endorses LGBTQ values and that wearing it violates their religious beliefs. Kroger refused the women's offers to wear other aprons or to cover the emblem.

Court Enjoins Two Portions of Trump Administration's New Health Care Anti-Discrimination Rules

 In Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D DC, Sept. 2, 2020), the D.C. federal district court, in a 101-page opinion, issued a nationwide injunction barring enforcement of two of the changes to health care anti-discrimination rules made by the Trump Administration earlier this year.  (See prior posting.)  The court summarized its holding:

The Court ultimately concludes that Plaintiffs have standing to level challenges to certain provisions of the 2020 Rule, but not others, and that they are likely to succeed (and will suffer irreparable harm) on two central claims: first, that the 2020 Rule arbitrarily and capriciously eliminated “sex stereotyping” from the prior Rule’s definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex”; and second, that it improperly incorporated Title IX’s exemption of certain religious organizations from the statute’s nondiscrimination mandate. 

Supreme Court: Title VII Bans LGBT Discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court today in a 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, (Sup. Ct., June 15, 2020), held that the provisions of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibit discrimination in employment "because of sex" protect gay, lesbian and transgender individuals.  In an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, the court said in part:

Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.  When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest.  Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

Justice Alito filed a dissent, joined by Justice Thomas, saying in part:

The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of “sex” is different from discrimination because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”  And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 16 (2012) (emphasis added)…. 

The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should “update” old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.

Justice Kavanaugh also filed a dissent, saying in part:

Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.

The Court's opinion covered three cases, Bostock, Altitude Express, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes. Religion News Service reports on the decision.

Settlement In Suit Against Georgia City By Anti-Gay Preacher

In Georgia, the Athens-Clarke County Commission has agreed to pay $25,000 in settlement of a lawsuit brought by an anti-LGBT street preacher who was escorted out of the 2019 Athens Pride Festival by police officers. City Dope reported  yesterday on the settlement.  Preacher Adam Bishop was evicted from the festival when he shouted anti-gay rhetoric through a megaphone. The settlement of  Bishop's free exercise and free speech claims also includes a commitment to train police officers on how to treat expressive activity.

6th Circuit Permits Same-Sex Couple To Intervene In Lawsuit By Catholic Adoption Agency

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals this week issued an opinion on a procedural issue in the continuing battle between the state of Michigan and Catholic adoption and foster care agencies.  In settling a case brought by a same-sex couple, the state agreed to impose sexual-orientation non discrimination requirements on child-placement agencies that contract with the state. Then the district court issued a preliminary injunction protecting the Catholic agency.  Now in Buck v. Gordon, (6th Cir., May 11, 2020), the Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have allowed permissive intervention in the case by a same-sex couple whose earlier lawsuit triggered Michigan's imposition of the non-discrimination requirements. Meanwhile the underlying case is on hold awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on a similar issue in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.

Waiver For Foster Care Agencies To Select Parents Using Religious Criteria Violates Establishment Clause

In Rogers v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D SC, May 8, 2020), a South Carolina federal district court refused to dismiss Establishment Clause and sexual orientation discrimination claims by a lesbian couple who challenged waivers granted by the state and federal government allowing religious child placement agencies (CPA's) receiving government funds to select foster parents on the basis of religion. (See prior posting.) The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege that their inability to become foster parents through Miracle Hill was directly caused by the actions of the State Defendants and Federal Defendants because they have affirmatively enabled the discrimination against Plaintiffs by authorizing Miracle Hill and other religiously-affiliated CPAs to use religious criteria to reject prospective foster parents....

[T]he court finds that a reasonable, informed observer could conclude that the Defendants’ actions were taken in an effort to protect a specific CPA, Miracle Hill, and permit discrimination within South Carolina’s foster care program on the basis of Miracle Hill’s religious criteria. Other courts have similarly held that where, as Plaintiffs allege occurred in this case, a state’s authorization for faith-based CPAs to use religious criteria to exclude prospective foster parents “objectively endorses the religious views of those agencies[,] . . . sending a message . . . that [those prospective foster parents who are rejected] are outsiders, not full members of the community.”... Accordingly, taking all facts set forth in the Complaint as true, Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient allegations that Defendants’ actions had the primary effect of advancing and endorsing religion and, thereby, violate the Lemon test and the requirements of the Establishment Clause. ....

Contrary to Defendants’ argument, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the Constitution does not permit “a system of government in which important, discretionary governmental powers would be delegated to or shared with religious institutions.”... Therefore, to the extent Defendants’ assert that their actions are immune from challenge under the Establishment Clause as “religious accommodation,” such argument is directly contrary to the well-pled allegations in the Complaint and long-established federal jurisprudence and must be rejected at this stage of the proceedings.

Lambda Legal issued a press release announcing the decision.

Israeli Court Awards Damages To LGBT Group that Was Refused Service

In a case reminiscent of many pending in the United States, a Magistrate's Court in the Israeli city of Beersheba has awarded damages equivalent to $14,000 plus attorneys' fees in a suit against Rainbow Color, a shop that refused to print posters for a gay rights organization at Ben Gurion University. Times of Israel yesterday reported in part:

“We do not deal with abomination materials. We are Jews!” the shop had said in response to the chapter’s request for an estimate on the posters.

Aguda argued that Rainbow Color had violated the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law Act passed by the Knesset in 2000.

Rainbow Color claimed that its owners, who are religious, are barred from providing assistance to offenders of religious law. In its defense, the owners added the rulings of two Orthodox rabbis who wrote that according to Jewish law the publication of such posters is prohibited.

However the judge ruled:

When their beliefs conflict with a necessity of providing service to all in a public space, the last value holds superior.

Litigation Delay Refused In Suit Over Christian School's Compliance With Nondiscrimination Requirements

In Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon, (D MD, April 15, 2020), a Maryland federal district court refused to stay discover in a suit by a Christian school challenging its disqualification from Maryland's scholarship program for non-public schools.  Bethel Christian Academy was denied funds because of its failure to comply with non-discrimination requirements which include a ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Maryland school officials had sought a stay because of the U.S. Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In refusing a stay, the district court said in part:

[T]he Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton might provide useful guidance for this Court’s resolution of Bethel’s claims. Even so, this Court is disinclined to stay proceedings because of a theoretical possibility....

By the nature of the claims presented in this case, a delay of more than a year would have a significant effect on Bethel’s enrollment, and its ability to budget for the academic year. Irrespective of the ultimate result of this matter, Bethel and Defendants would be better served by entering the 2020-2021 school year with this litigation moving closer to a definitive conclusion.

HHS Sued Over Non-Enforcement of LGBTQ Anti-Discrimination Rules

As previously reported, last November the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced actions that effectively allow agencies receiving HHS grants to refuse to serve gay, lesbian and transgender individuals and families on religious grounds. First, HHS issued a Notice of Non-Enforcement of  rules adopted in 2016 that prohibit such discrimination. HHS then issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would repromulgate the rules with narrower anti-discrimination protections. Yesterday, a lawsuit was filed in a New York federal district court challenging the legality of the Notice of Non-Enforcement.

The complaint (full text) in Family Equality v. Azar, (SD NY, filed 3/19/2020) contends that the Notice of Non-Enforcement violates the Administrative Procedure Actin three ways. It was promulgated without notice-and-comment rule making. It was based on a mistaken determination that the 2016 original non-discrimination rule did not comply with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. HHS failed to consider alternative remedies, the costs and benefits of their decision, and the public interest.  Lambda Legal issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit, saying in part:

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread rapidly throughout the U.S., LGBTQ individuals of all ages are left vulnerable by the Trump administration’s illegal action, which implicitly permits discrimination when providing critical services.

DOJ Gives Its Lawyers A Training Week On Religious Liberty

The New York Times reports today:

The Justice Department this week hosted training for its lawyers on religious liberty laws as part of Attorney General William P. Barr’s push to prioritize religious freedom cases, but the workshops prompted concern among some career lawyers that they were being educated on ways to blunt civil rights protections for gay and transgender people....

The training week was part of an ongoing campaign at the department to bolster ​its work to​ protect religious freedom, which is regularly described by top leaders as the first right protected by the First Amendment​, a department official said in response to a request for comment. ...

 A department spokesman said that the trainings were in no way meant to marginalize gay, lesbian and transgender people or to promote discrimination in any way, and that nothing in the materials presented did so.

Vanita Gupta, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the former head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, accused Mr. Barr of using the Justice Department to promote his religious beliefs.

“In speeches and statements, he says that civil society is being undermined by a move away from religiosity,” she said. “He wants to use civil rights statutes and the D.O.J. to redeem what he views as the corrupted soul of America.”

Suit Challenges South Carolina's Anti-LGBTQ Curriculum Law

Three advocacy organizations filed suit yesterday in a South Carolina federal district court challenging the constitutionality of S.C. Code §59-32-30(A)(5) which prohibits public school sex education programs from discussing "alternate sexual lifestyles from heterosexual relationships including, but not limited to, homosexual relationships except in the context of ... sexually transmitted diseases." The complaint (full text) in Gender and Sexuality Alliance v. Spearman, (D SC, filed 2/26/2020)contends that the law violates the equal protection clause, saying in part:

The Anti-LGBTQ Curriculum Law harms LGBTQ students. It stigmatizes them by creating a state-sanctioned climate of discrimination in schools and denies LGBTQ students health education opportunities equal to those of their heterosexual peers.

WCSC reports on the lawsuit.

Christian School Denied Injunction Against Anti-Discrimination Provisions In Aid Programs

In Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon, (D MD, Jan. 21, 2020), a Maryland federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction requested by a Christian elementary school. Bethel Christian Academy sought to enjoin enforcement of a provision requiring non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in order to participate in state-sponsored scholarship and school aid programs.  The court concluded that the school had not shown that the state targeted, was hostile to, or expressly discriminated against the school because of its religious beliefs. Nor had the school shown a likelihood of success on its claim that its free speech rights were infringed.

No Action Under Color of Law In Refusing To Rent Meeting Space To Speaker

In Pasadena Republican Club v. Western Justice Center, (CD CA, Dec. 30, 2019), a California federal district court dismissed a suit claiming viewpoint discrimination and religious belief discrimination by the Western Justice Center (WJC) that was leasing the historic Maxwell House from the city of Pasedena.  WJC refused to rent space to the Republican Club for a speech by the president of the National Organization for Marriage because NOM's position on same-sex marriage, gay adoption, and transgender rights are antithetical to the values of WJC. In rejecting the Republican Club's civil rights claims, the court said in part:

The court will grant the Center’s and [its former executive director] Chirlin’s motion to dismiss because the complaint does not plausibly allege that the Center and Chirlin were acting under color of state law, as § 1983 requires, or that the City was involved in the alleged conspiracy, as § 1985(3) requires. Although a symbiotic relationship existed to some degree between the Center and the City, this case is distinguishable from Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961), upon which the Club relies....

British Court Enjoins Protests Against School's LGBT Curriculum

In Birmingham City Council v. Afsar, (EWHC, Nov. 26, 2019), a trial judge in the High Court in the British city of Birmingham held that an injunction should be issued limiting the manner in which demonstrators can protest an elementary school's curriculum on LGBT issues. According to the court:

The case has been pleaded and argued in various ways, but at its heart is the argument that the School’s teaching policy – described by the defendants as “the teaching of LGBT issues (ie teaching equalities)” – represents or involves unlawful discrimination against British Pakistani Muslim children at the School, and those with parental responsibility for them ... on grounds of race and/or religion. It is submitted that the core religious, philosophical and cultural values of this group “are centred on heterosexual relationships in marriage; this state of belief does not encompass same sex relationships”. ....

The court held that the Equality Act 2010 excludes from its coverage anything done in connection with the content of curriculum. In any event, the court concluded:

The teaching has been misunderstood and misinterpreted by the defendants, and misrepresented, sometimes grossly misrepresented, in the course of the protests. The matters that have actually been taught are limited, and lawful. 

The court went on:

The evidence – including but not limited to the expert evidence - persuades me that the levels of noise generated by this way of protesting is clearly excessive, amounting to an intrusion into the lives of those at the School and its neighbours that goes well beyond anything that could be justified as proportionate to the aims of persuasion. 

The court held, however, that an earlier injunction banning the use of social media by protesters should be lifted, saying in part:

The speech with which I am here concerned has been expressed in the context of a private, or limited, WhatsApp group. It was not aimed at the teachers, in the sense that they were intended to read it. It has come to their attention only as a result of disclosures made by one or more members of that group. The scale, frequency, nature and impact of the abuse to date, given its context, do not give rise to a sufficiently compelling case for interference.

The court also issued a summary of the decision. The British publication Conservative Women published an article highly critical of the decision.

California Denied Preliminary Injunction In License Dispute Over Faith Based Teen Rescue Facility

In a Tentative Ruling (full text [scroll down]) in Leary v. Teen Rescue,(Shasta Cty. Calif. Super. Ct., Nov. 18, 2019), a California state trial court judge refused to enter a preliminary injunction that would shut down a residential facility for abused and neglected children.  The state claims that the facility should be regulated under state law as a "community care facility." The court agrees that the state has a reasonable probability of prevailing at trial on this claim, but says that there remains a significant religious free exercise question:

Defendants argue that they choose to address behavior through faith-based practices. Compliance with the Act and licensure would impact Defendants’ rights to free exercise of religion, in that 22 CCR § 80072 mandates that students be “free to attend religious services or activities of his/her choice and have visits from the spiritual advisor of his/her choice.” Further, “Attendance at religious services, in or outside of the facility, shall be on a completely voluntary basis” (“the spiritual exploration provisions”). Additionally, the Act provides students the right “[t]o be free from acts that seek to change his or her sexual orientation . . .” (“the SOCE prohibit”). The Act requires staff be trained in “[c]ultural competency and sensitivity in issues relating to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities” (“the LGBT cultural competency requirement”)....

The State advances the argument that requiring community care facilities to train staff in sensitivity to LGBTQ issues is neutral and does not infringe on or restrict religious practices. Defendants hold beliefs that are in direct opposition to this requirement. ....

There is no question that the protection of children – especially the particularly sensitive population of children Defendants seek out for their facility – is of great importance. However, the Court must also consider the foreseeable harm to the defendants in granting this injunction. “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns (1976) 427 US 347, 373. The Court is concerned about the potential impact of the preliminary injunction on Plaintiff’s First Amendment freedoms, and the attendant presumption of irreparable injury to Defendants if this injunction were to be granted prior to a full determination of the facts of the case. 

Pacific Justice Institute issued a press release announcing the decision.

School's Challenge To Disqualification From Voucher Program Moves Ahead

In Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon, (D MD, Nov. 14, 2019), a Maryland federal district court refused to dismiss a suit brought by a Christian school against state authorities claiming that the school was discriminated against on religious grounds when its eligibility to participate in the state's school voucher program (known as "BOOST") was removed. In order to participate, a school has to have a non-discrimination policy that include bans on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  As explained by the court:

Bethel does not include sexual orientation or gender identity in its statement of nondiscrimination.... In the next paragraph, the handbook says, It should be noted, however, that Bethel Christian Academy supports the biblical view of marriage defined as a covenant between one man and one woman, and that God immutably bestows gender upon each person at birth as male or female to reflect his image … faculty, staff, and student conduct is expected to align with this view....

Irrespective of any language in the handbook, however, Bethel does not consider sexual orientation in the admissions process. The court reasoned:

If, as it alleges, Bethel has not discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in admissions, then it has plausibly alleged that Defendants infringed upon several of its constitutional rights. Namely, Bethel has presented a plausible case that the Advisory Board’s determination of ineligibility was motivated by the school’s religious affiliation.