Denial of Use Permit Did Not Impose "Substantial Burden" Under RLUIPA

In Livingston Christian Schools v. Genoa Charter Township, (ED MI, June 30, 2016), a Michigan federal district court held that a township's denial of a special use permit did not impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise rights of a Christian school.  The school sought to move to a building currently owned by a church and recently leased to the school. The court said in part:

The term “substantial burden” is not defined in the RLUIPA. The Sixth Circuit in Living Water Church of God v. Charter Twp. of Meridian articulated a standard which requires LCS to show that, “ . . . the government action place[s] substantial pressure on [it] to violate its religious beliefs or effectively bar[s] [it] from using its property in the exercise of its religion[.]” ... While it may be less convenient or more expensive for LCS to operate its school from a different location, the circumstances present here do not constitute a substantial burden.... Because LCS has not “proffered evidence showing that it cannot carry out its church missions and ministries due to the Township’s denial,” it has not established a substantial burden on its free exercise of religion.

The court also rejected the school's 1st and 14th Amendment challenges.

Church Sues Over Misrepresentation of Its Views On Same-Sex Marriage

A Hudsonville, Michigan church this week filed a false-light invasion of privacy lawsuit in Michigan state court against a gay rights activist whom it accuses of falsely representing that the church supports same-sex marriage. The complaint (full text) in Jenison Bible Church, Inc. v. VanderLey, (MI Cir. Ct., filed 5/3/2016), contends that when Bradlee Dean, a controversial Christian speaker opposed to same-sex marriage, was scheduled speak in the area, defendant Daniel VanderLey arranged a demonstration against him and sought to have local churches join it.  VanderLey sent demand letters to local churches, including Jenison Bible Church, telling them that unless they affirmatively opted out, VanderLey would arrange to have a sign saying that the church "stands for love not hate" displayed at the anti-Bradlee Dean rally.  The complaint contends that this public distortion of Jenison Bible Church's views on same-sex marriage and sexual immorality negatively impacts its ability to share the Gospel and damages its reputation in the eyes of other churches, it neighbors, and those potentially interested in joining the church. The suit seeks an injunction, a published retraction and a public apology. [Thanks to Brian D Wassom for the lead.]

Michigan City Restores Cross On Sand Dune-- Sort Of...

As previously reported, in a controversial move last year that was unsuccessfully challenged by citizens, the city of Grand Haven, Michigan agreed to remove a 48 foot cross that had been displayed periodically on a city-owned sand dune for 50 years. The city turned the cross into a Coast Guard anchor. However, according to a report in the Washington Free Beacon, this week the Grand Haven City Council (with one of last year's councilmen having lost re-election) has now voted 3-2 to add a yardarm to a flag pole on the sand dune.  When the side arm is extended, the flag pole will look like a cross. That will happen on several holidays each year.

Suit On Wearing Hijab During Traffic Offense Booking Settled

MLive reported yesterday on the settlement of a lawsuit brought by a Muslim woman against Oceana County, Michigan sheriff's officials for allegedly requiring her to remove her hijab (religious head covering) while being processed at the county jail for a minor traffic violation. (See prior posting.) Sheriff's officials say a number of the woman's allegations were exaggerated or inaccurate.  Under the settlement, no money was paid, but the sheriff's office did agree to create a policy for treatment of inmates wearing religious headwear. The suit was dismissed on April 18.

"Unfit" Parent Loses Right To Assert Religious Objection To Immunization of Her Children

In In re Deng, (MI App, March 22, 2016), a Michigan state appeals court held that a court can order immunizations for children placed in foster care after the children's parents have been found unfit despite the mother's religious objections to vaccination of her children. The court said in part:

We recognize that, were respondent a fit parent entitled to the control and custody of her children, MCL 333.9215(2) would undoubtedly allow her to forego the immunization of her children otherwise required by the Public Health Code on the grounds of a religious objection. However, this provision is inapplicable on the present facts for the simple reason that the children are not being immunized as a result of provisions in the Public Health Code.... [R]ather, ... the court exercised its broad authority to enter dispositional orders for the welfare of a child under its jurisdiction....

MLive reports on the decision.

Muslim Technician Sues Charging Employment Discrimination

CAIR-Michigan this week announced the filing of a religious discrimination lawsuit in federal district court against an Indiana-based healthcare technology management organization (with an office in Troy, Michigan) on behalf of an American Muslim Egyptian biomedical technician. The complaint (full text) in Hassane v. Trimedx, (ED MI, filed 2/15/2016) says that plaintiff was hired as a technician in a program that included extensive training. However, after he requested the use of two-weeks earned vacation time to travel to Egypt to celebrate Eid-al-Fitr with his family, he was removed from the training program, placed on probation and denied a promotion and salary increase that all others received. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.

Challenge To Ban On Marriage Ceremonies Without License Dismissed For Lack of Standing

In Carrick v. Snyder, (ED MI, Feb. 10, 2016), a Michigan federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a minister's First Amendment challenge to Michigan statutes that impose civil and criminal sanctions on anyone authorized to perform a marriage ceremony who does so for a couple who have not obtained a marriage license. (See prior related posting.) The court held that plaintiff had not alleged any actual intent to perform marriage ceremonies for couples without licenses.  According to the court:

plaintiff asserts an entirely hypothetical injury where he or unspecified others will not marry unspecified couples or groups because they might face hypothetical penalties from the state of Michigan.

Jehovah's Witness Teacher Sues Over Valentine's Day Party Requirement

As reported on Friday by MLive, in Michigan a former teacher has sued the Southfield school system because her principal ordered her to plan a Valentine's party for her 4th grade class despite her objection that her Jehovah's Witness beliefs preclude her from celebrating St. Valentine's Day.  The complaint in Lemmons v. Southfield Public Schools, (ED MI, filed 1/4/2016), says that the teacher, Yvonne Lemmons, did not show up the day of the party, and soon afterwards the district laid her off.  Lemmons says it was retaliation.  Lemmons initially filed a complaint with the EEOC, and it found reasonable cause.

Suit Challenges Requirement of Marriage License For Religious Ceremony

While it might seem that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision last June mooted the many pending cases seeking to make inroads into now invalid bans on same-sex marriage, the Detroit News reported yesterday on a lawsuit that shows this is not universally so.  A year ago, Detroit minister Neil Patrick Carrick filed a lawsuit in Michigan federal district court challenging two Michigan statutes which at that time effectively fined clergy for performing same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) MCL Sec. 551.14  imposes a $500 penalty on any member of the clergy or other person who "knowingly joins any persons in marriage" in violation of Michigan law. MCL Sec. 551.106 provides that : "Any clergyman or magistrate who shall join together in marriage parties who have not delivered to him a properly issued license ... shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor" and fined $100 or sentenced to 90 days in jail.

The complaint (full text) in Carrick v. Snyder, (ED MI, filed 1/12/2015). alleged that these provisions violate the 1st Amendment free exercise and expressive association rights of clergy whose faith and religious beliefs allow them to perform marriages that are not authorized by civil law.  In May 2015, the district court entered an order holding the case in abeyance as the Supreme Court considered the issue of same-sex marriage.  In September, after the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision, the district court reactivated the case (Order lifting stay).  While the challenged statutory provisions no longer totally bar same-sex marriages, they still threaten clergy with fines if they "join in marriage" a couple that has not obtained a marriage license.  On December 8, the district court, seeking to avoid the constitutional question, issued an Order (full text) calling for additional briefing on whether these penalties under state law apply to "purely private ceremonies that are not intended to give legal effect to a marriage."

Plaintiff's attorney pointed out the importance of the issue to "elderly or widowed couples who want to marry, but are afraid they will lose their Social Security benefits if they are legally wed."

Cosmetologist Sues After Company Insists That In Training Class He Wear Women's Cosmetics

The Detroit Free Press reported yesterday on an unusual Title VII religious accommodation lawsuit filed Monday in a Michigan federal district court.  Barry Jones is an ordained elder in the Church of God in Christ where he has been preaching for 19 years. He is also trained in cosmetology and licensed by the Michigan Department of Licensing as an esthetician. In 2014 he took a position with an M.A.C. Cosmetics store in a now-closed Detroit area mall and began its training to become a full-time makeup artist.  As part of the training the company insisted that students apply makeup to each other, including blush, eye-shadow, lipstick and false eyelashes, so that they would know how those products feel when they apply them to customers.  Jones refused on religious grounds, quoting Deuteronomy 22:5 that prohibits a man from wearing women's clothing. He said that doing anything that makes him look like a woman would undermine his integrity as a preacher.  The company demoted Jones to be a freelance makeup artist, and he could not find work.  After obtaining a right to sue letter from the EEOC, Jones filed suit.

Michigan City Elects First Majority-Muslim City Council

Christian Science Monitor reports that Hamtramck, Michigan last week became the first U.S. city to elect a majority-Muslim city council.  Half of the 6-person city-council was up for election last Tuesday, and all 3 candidates who won were Muslim.  They join one other Muslim whose term was not up, giving Muslims four of the six council seats.  Hamtramck, a city of 22,000 in metropolitan Detroit, was historically Polish.  However now the city has a large population from Yemen (around 24%) and Bangladesh (15%) and is only 12% Polish.  It is 19% African American.  It is estimated that half of the city's population is Muslim, and it may be the first U.S. city to have a Muslim majority population. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

DOJ Sues Michigan Township Over Denial of Zoning Approval for Muslim School

The U.S. Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed a civil suit under RLUIPA against a township just south of Ann Arbor, Michigan challenging the refusal to rezone a vacant parcel of land to allow construction of a Muslim pre-K through 12 school. The complaint (full text) in United States v. Pittsfield Charter Township, (ED MI, filed 10/26/2015), contends that various findings by the township Planning Commission were unjustified and that the rezoning denial makes it impossible for Michigan Islamic Academy to carry out its religious mission. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.

Church Sues Seeking Use of Public Housing Community Rooms For Worship Services

Last week, a Christian church in Lansing, Michigan filed a federal lawsuit challenging the policy of the Lansing Housing Commission on use of community rooms in public housing developments. The Commission bars use of the rooms for religious worship services, while allowing them to be used by religious and non-religious groups for other activities.  The complaint (full text) in His Healing Hands Church v. Lansing Housing Commission, (WD MI, filed 10/14/2015), says that it will shortly be too cold in Michigan for the church to hold services outside as it is now doing.  The lawsuit contends that the city has violated the Establishment Clause as well as the  church's free speech, free exercise, and equal protection rights. An ADF press release announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Says Lutheran Synod Dispute Panel's Decision Was Only Advisory

In Hillenbrand v. Christ Lutheran Church of Birch Run, (MI App., Sept. 15, 2015), a Lutheran pastor who was fired by his congregation filed suit after the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod (LCMS) Dispute Resolution Panel concluded that the decision to terminate the pastor should be revised, and he should be paid his salary and benefits until he takes another position. The court held that LCMS is congregational and not hierarchical, and that the Dispute Resolution Panel's decision was merely advisory, even if the congregation wrongfully attempted to withdraw from the Synod in order to avoid the dispute resolution process.  The court added:

plaintiff is asking this Court to do exactly what the United States Supreme Court [in Hosanna-Tabor] said courts should not, i.e., impose an unwanted minister on a church.

Court Upholds City's Decision To End Display of Christian Cross

On Tuesday, an Ottawa County, Michigan trial court judge dismissed a lawsuit seeking to force the city of Grand Haven to resume displaying a 48-foot Christian cross on Dewey Hill, a city-owned sand dune. Plaintiffs object to City Council's decision to turn the cross into a Coast Guard anchor. (See prior posting.) As reported by MLive, a group of seven residents sued the city alleging that the city's decision amounted to unconstitutional regulation of  speech in a traditional public forum and discriminated on the basis of religion. However the court held that the display is governmental speech and "the City has the right to determine what messages it sends through the use of its own governmental property." (See prior related posting.)

Michigan Supreme Court: Wrong Oath For Jurors In Murder Case Does Not Require New Trial

An interesting decision from the Michigan Supreme Court last week illustrates the distance we have moved from the original conception of oaths as invocations of Divine retribution for straying from that which was promised.  In People v. Cain, (MI Sup. Ct., July 23, 2015), the jury in defendant's murder trial were sworn in with the wrong oath, though no one noticed at the time.  The Clerk swore them in using the oath given at voir dire -- to truly answer questions relating to their qualifications to serve as jurors-- instead of the oath to return a true and just verdict based only on the evidence and the judge's instructions. In a 5-2 decision, the majority held that:

the jurors were conscious of the gravity of the task before them and the manner in which that task was to be carried out, the two primary purposes served by the juror’s oath. Thus, we cannot say that the error here of failing to properly swear the jury seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

Justice Viviano (joined by Justice McCormack) dissented, saying in part:

the oath was, and has always been, a defining criterion of “jury.” In light of this deep etymological pedigree, it seems quite implausible that the Framers, who lived in a time in which society placed great emphasis on oaths, intended anything other than a sworn jury when they drafted the Sixth Amendment. 

Religious Discrimination Suit Filed After Engineer Fired For Anti-Gay Comment on Company's Intranet

In a federal lawsuit filed last week, a fired Ford Motor Co. engineer, claiming religious discrimination and retaliation, sued for violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The complaint (full text) in Banks v. Rapid Global Business Solutions Inc., (ED MI, filed 7/10/2015) alleges that Banks, a Christian, who was working on assignment from Ford to RGBSI, Inc., was fired because of a critical comment he posted to an article on Ford's Intranet. The Intranet article celebrated an organization of Ford's LGBT employees. The offending comment said:

For this Ford Motor Company should be thoroughly ashamed.  Endorsing and promoting sodomy is of benefit of no one.  This topic is disruptive to the workplace and is an assault on Christians and morality, as well as antithetical to our design and survival. Immoral sexual conduct should not be a topic for an automotive manufacturer to endorse or promote.  And yes-- this is historic-- but not in a good way.  Never in the history of mankind has a culture survived that promotes sodomy.  Heterosexual behavior creates life-- homosexual behavior leads to death.

Huffington Post reports on the lawsuit.

Religious Discrimination Claim Moves Ahead Against Loan Company Denying Entry To Woman Wearing Hijab

In Ali v. Advance America Cash Advance Centers Inc., (ED MI, June 24, 2015), a Muslim woman brought a discrimination lawsuit against an Inkster, Michigan financial services outlet that refused her entry under its policy that customers must remove sunglasses and hats before entering.  Plaintiff, who wanted to purchase a money order, was wearing a hijab.  A Michigan federal district court held that plaintiff's complaint did not allege racial discrimination under 42 USC 1981, nor did it allege national origin discrimination under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.  However it did allege religious discrimination under the Michigan statute. The court refused to grant defendants summary judgment on this claim, holding that there remains a factual question regarding reasons for the policy.  Defendants claimed that it is a safety policy designed to deter criminal behavior and advance employee safety.  The policy only applies in the company's branches that lack bullet-resistant glass. Plaintiff claims that this reason is pretextual.

Muslim Woman Sues Over Required Removal of Hijab During Traffic Offense Booking

WZZM reported yesterday on a federal lawsuit filed last month in Grand Rapids, Michigan by a Muslim woman who was forced by Oceana County Sheriff's officials to remove her hijab (religious head covering) while being processed at the county jail for a minor traffic violation.  On May 17, Fatme Dakroub was falsely arrested for driving with an expired license while vacationing with her family at Lake Michigan sand dunes.  Her request to have a female officer handle her booking was denied, and she was forced to sit for 3 hours bare headed in a holding cell in front of male officers and inmates.

Michigan Governor Signs Bills Protecting Faith-Based Adoption Agencies; ACLU Vows Challenge

On Thursday, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed (press release) three companion bills assuring that faith-based agencies providing foster care and adoption services are protected in refusing to place children under circumstances that conflict with the agency's sincerely held religious beliefs contained in a written policy, statement or faith, or other document adhered to by the agency. Under the bills, the state may not refuse funds for services to agencies that refuse such placements.  If an agency refuses to provide services on religious grounds, it must either refer the applicant to another agency or to a website listing other child placement agencies.  In signing HB 4188, 4189 and 4190, the governor said that the bills "do not change current practices in Michigan, but prevent faith-based agencies from having policies forced on them that violate their religious beliefs, which have resulted in agencies closing in Massachusetts, Illinois, California, and Washington, D.C."

Responding to the Governor's action, the ACLU on Thursday issued a statement (full text) reading in part:

We’re deeply disappointed that Governor Snyder signed this dangerous legislation. We are developing a lawsuit with our Muslim, Jewish, Christian and LGBTQ partners. We encourage any family looking to adopt or foster children who believe they will be adversely affected by this law to contact us immediately.

MLive reporting on developments says that together Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services together provide 25% to 30% of foster care adoptions in the state.