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.]

Muslim Former Employee Sues Bed Bath & Beyond For Discrimination

The New York Daily News reports on a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by a former department manager at a Manhattan Bed Bath & Beyond store. In his state court lawsuit, Jose Alcantara alleges that he was subjected to months of harassment after he grew a beard that reflected his deepening Muslim religious faith. That faith was prompted by watching his mother-in-law dying from cancer.  He says colleagues continually referred to him as "terrorist" and the HR department, pressed by the store manager, ignored his complaints. He was ultimately fired for not showing up for work on 3 days which he says were supposed to be vacation days, but his schedule was altered to make it appear he was to work. The EEOC issued Alcantara a right to sue letter last July.

Muslim Woman Can Move Ahead With Suit Against Bus Driver Who Evicted Her

In Louis v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, (ED NY, Nov. 6, 2015), a New York federal district court held that a Muslim woman, Maria Louis, could proceed to trial with her retaliation and intentional discrimination claims against a bus driver who insisted that Louis-- who was wearing a burqa that covered her face-- move further back in the otherwise empty bus.  When she refused, the driver had Louis removed by the police.  Louis claims she was standing a seat length behind the driver who called her "scary" and who ordered her to leave the bus when she told him she was a Muslim and had a right to practice her religion. The driver insists that Louis was standing illegally on the white line in the front of the bus and became confrontational when he asked her to move. He says he did not know whether he was dealing with a man or woman because of the burqa. The court dismissed claims against the MTA and the city.

6th Circuit En Banc: 1st Amendment Protects Christian Proselytizers At Dearborn's Arab International Festival

In a case that generated six separate opinions spanning some 65 pages, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, yesterday upheld the right of Bible Believers, a Christian group, to engage in provocative and offensive proselytizing of Muslims at the annual Dearborn, Michigan Arab International Festival. In Bible Believers v. Wayne County, Michigan, (6th Cir., Oct. 28, 2015), the majority described the Christian group's messages displayed on banners and T-shirts to a predominately Muslim crowd, many of who were adolescents. Among the slogans were: “Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder”; “Only Jesus Christ Can Save You From Sin and Hell”; and “Turn or Burn”. One member of the group also carried a severed pig's head on a spike, believing that Muslims are "petrified of that animal." After several encounters with hostile crowds, Bible Believers were escorted out of the Festival by police and ticketed.

Judge Clay's opinion of the court, joined in full by 7 other judges, concluded:

Ultimately, we find that Defendants violated the Bible Believers’ First  Amendment rights because there can be no legitimate dispute based on this record that the [Wayne County Sheriff's Office] effectuated a heckler’s veto by cutting off the Bible Believers’ protected speech in response to a hostile crowd’s reaction.

Several of the judges writing separate opinions concluded, contrary to the majority, that defendants at least enjoyed qualified immunity from damages.  Detroit News reports on the decision.

Donald Trump On the Ayatollah and Middle Eastern Muslim Women

CBS News reports that Donald Trump, at a campaign rally on Monday, continued his unconventional rhetoric, this time in connection with the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Muslim women in the Middle East. Focusing on how he would address Khamenei, Trump said:

I'll say, 'Hey baby, how ya doing?' I will never call him the Supreme Leader. And I'll get along with him probably. And maybe not. And if he doesn't get along with me, they got problems. We don't.

He then went on to say that the U.S. should stop intervening to further women's rights in the Middle East because women there do not want freedom, as shown by their desire to wear burqas or niqabs that hide their face. Trump framed his conclusion this way:

With the women over there, they don't have to wear the you-know-what. And then I said, 'Oh well that makes sense. That's nice.' Then, I saw women interviewed. They said, 'We want to wear them. We've worn them for a thousand years. Why would anyone tell us?' They want to. What the hell are we getting involved for? The fact is it's easier. You don't have to put on make-up. Look how beautiful everyone looks. Wouldn't it be easier if "mwah" (kissing sound)? Right? Wouldn't that be easy? I tell you if I was a woman - "mwah" - I'm ready darling. Let's go.

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.

7th Circuit Upholds Muslim Woman's Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Claims

In Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, (7th Cir., Oct. 21, 2015), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the district court, held that a Muslim woman's hostile work environment and retaliation claims should not be dismissed.  Fozyia Huri, a Saudi native employed by a state court as a child care attendant, complained particularly about her treatment by her supervisor, Sylvia McCullum, who is a devout and vocal Christian.  When Huri filed internal complaints about her treatment, she was transferred to the court reporter's office where her supervisors continued to treat her badly in retaliation for her complaints. AP reports on the decision,

Jury Awards Fired Muslim Drivers $240,000 In Damages

According to the Peoria Star Journal , an Illinois federal district court jury this week awarded $240,000 in damages to two Muslim men who were fired by the Illinois-based Star Transport, Inc. when the men refused on religious grounds to deliver alcohol.  In March, a federal judge held that the company's failure to accommodate the drivers' religious practices violated Title VII.  The 2-day jury trial focused on the amount of damages.  However it is unclear whether the judgment is collectible since the company went out of business earlier this year. (See prior related posting.)

Science Faculty Charge University With Discrimination Against Muslims

According to yesterday's New Orleans Times-Picayune, a faculty member in the Department of Natural Sciences at Southern University at New Orleans has filed a complaint with the EEOC charging that the University discriminated against Muslim faculty and job applicants.  Professor Ibrahim Ekaidi and a Muslim colleague, Bashir Atteia, were removed from a hiring committee because they collaborated on the ratings they gave to certain candidates. They rated two Muslim candidates for positions in department among the three highest; however other members of the hiring committee also ranked them high.  The chairman of the department removed the names of the two applicants from the list of those being considered and denied them interviews. When Ekaidi and his colleague protested their removal from the committee, the department chair recommended that they resign from the faculty.

New York Subways Must Run Satiric Ads For Film Portraying Muslim Comedians

In Vaguely Qualified Productions LLC v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, (SD NY, Oct. 7, 2015), a New York federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to display plaintiff's advertising campaign for its film The Muslims Are Coming! in the New York City subway system. The film is the story of a group of American Muslim comedians who travel across the country performing stand-up comedy.  The advertising posters use comedic satire to attract the reader's attention and refer the reader to the film's website.  For example, one ad reads: "The Ugly Truth About Muslims: Muslims have great frittata recipes."

After initially accepting the ads, the MTA later refused them under a revised policy that barred ads which are political in nature.  The policy change came in response to a court order requiring the MTA to accept an anti-Muslim ad from the American Freedom Defense Initiative. (See prior posting.) In yesterday's decision, the district court held that VQP's proposed ads are commercial, and not political in nature:

...[T]o "prominently or predominately" advocate or express a political viewpoint, an advertisement must do far more than refer to a subject about which there is a lack of national consensus.

The court went on to hold that the MTA's determination that VQP's ads were political is not a viewpoint neutral decision:

To suggest, as the MTA's actions do, that an advertisement for the Republican presidential debate with photographs and quotes from candidates is somehow less "political" than humorous statements about the Muslim population's dislike of both terrorism and insufficient bagel schmear is, quite clearly, not viewpoint neutral.

Wall Street Journal reports on the decision. Muslim Advocates' press release on the decision also includes a link to the original complaint in the case.

Carson Want IRS To Penalize CAIR Over Its Call For Him To Leave Presidential Race

As previously reported, last month the Council on American-Islamic Relations called for Dr. Ben Carson to withdraw from the Republican Presidential contest after Carson told an interviewer that a Muslim should not be made President and that Islam is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.  Now, as reported by today's Washington Times, Dr. Carson is urging the Internal Revenue Service to immediately revoke CAIR's tax-exempt status.  Carson has posted a petition on his campaign website saying in part:

The Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim group, recently demanded that I withdraw as candidate for the 2016 presidential race. By doing so, the organization has brazenly violated IRS rules prohibiting tax-exempt nonprofits like CAIR to intervene in a political campaign on behalf of—or in opposition to—a candidate. 

DOJ Files RLUIPA Suit Against Illinois City Over Mosque Rezoning

The U.S. Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed suit against the city of Des Plaines, Illinois alleging that the city violated RLUIPA when it refused to rezone a vacant office building to allow the American Islamic Center to operate a place of worship there. The complaint (full text) in United States v. City of Des Plaines, Illinois, (ND IL, filed 9/30/2015) alleges the city violated the substantial burden, equal terms and discrimination provisions of RLUIPA. As summarized in the press release:

The complaint alleges that the city imposed parking standards and other zoning criteria that were not supported under its zoning ordinance and that it had never imposed on non-Muslim places of worship.

Chicago Tribune reports on the lawsuit.

Mosque Can Proceed With RLUIPA Challenge To Denial of Use Variance

Bensalem Masjid, Inc. v. Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania, (ED PA, Sept. 22, 2015), is a suit by an Islamic religious organization that was denied a use variance to allow it to build a mosque on a split-zoned parcel of property.  Plaintiff alleges that its application was scrutinized much more harshly than those from other groups. Here a Pennsylvania federal district court held that plaintiff can proceed on its substantial burden, non-discrimination, unreasonable limitation and equal terms claims under RLUIPA, its free exercise and equal protection claims, and its state Religious Freedom Protection Act claim.

Presidential Hopeful Ben Carson Says Islam Is Not Consistent With U.S. Constitution

In an interview today on Meet the Press (video excerpt), Dr. Ben Carson-- currently one of the leading contenders (latest CNN poll) for the Republican Presidential nomination-- asserted that Islam is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. Politico reports on Carson's responses to a series of questions from moderator Chuck Todd triggered by Donald Trump's silence last week on an audience member's assertions about Islam and President Obama:

Asked whether his faith or the faith of a president should matter, Carson said, "It depends on what that faith is."

"If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem," he explained, according to a transcript.

Todd then asked Carson, whose rise in the polls has been powered in large part by Christian conservatives, if he believed that "Islam is consistent with the Constitution."

"No, I don't, I do not," he responded, adding, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

Carson said he would not necessarily have the same view about voting for a Muslim for Congress.

Canadian Appeals Court Invalidates Niqab Ban At Citizenship Ceremonies

In Canada yesterday the Federal Court of Appeal in a rapid ruling from the bench following a half-day hearing held that the government's guideline banning the wearing of the niqab when taking the citizenship oath at naturalization ceremonies is invalid. According to the National Post, the judges moved quickly so that Zunera Ishaq could obtain her citizenship in time to vote in the October 19 federal election. The appeals court affirmed a lower court's ruling (see prior posting) that the policy against face coverings violates the government's own citizenship regulations. At the appeals court hearing, a Justice Department lawyer conceded that the face covering policy is not mandatory because a mandatory policy cannot be imposed through a mere guideline.

No Damage Remedy Available To Muslims Placed On No-Fly List For Retaliatory Reasons

In Tanvir v. Lynch, (SD NY, Sept. 3, 2015), Muslim plaintiffs sued claiming that when they refused to become FBI informants, partly because doing so would violate their religious beliefs, the government retaliated by placing them on the No-Fly List.  Subsequently they were removed from the list, but continued to pursue claims for damages.  The court held that it will not extend a Bivens  damage remedy to this new context, and that RFRA does not provide for money damages against federal officers in their personal capacities. The Center for Constitutional Rights issued a press release reacting to the decision.

Factional Disputes In Houses of Worship Are Increasingly Ending Up In Court

An article posted Monday by Reveal reports that increasingly factional disputes over control of mosques in the United States are ending up in civil courts.  The lengthy article discusses several such cases, saying in part:

Historically, the Muslim American community has kept its disputes private, sometimes turning to faith-based mediation. But as the number of mosques increases and Muslims integrate with mainstream America, conflicts involving clerics, congregations and mosques are seeping into secular courts from California to Texas and Florida.

Intergenerational friction offers significant fodder for legal actions. U.S. mosques are evolving from traditional institutions run by the eldest community members to democratized nonprofits with bylaws and elections, even women in positions of power. Oral traditions have become written.

However it is not just Muslims that are turning to civil courts.  Last Sunday in San Jose, California, over 5,000  members of a Sikh gurdwara cast ballots in a court-ordered election of officers.  The San Jose Mercury News reports that all 21 incumbents were re-elected, ending extensive litigation between a reformist faction and existing leaders who raised millions of dollars in the 1980's to build the gurdwara. Insurgents say that merely having an election was a victory.

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Prison Worship Case

On Monday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Brown v. Livingston. (Audio of full arguments.) In the case, a Texas federal district court held that requiring staff or volunteers for group religious services violates RLUIPA rights of Muslim inmates. (See prior posting.)

Muslim Leaders Issue Declaration On Global Climate Change

As reported by the Washington Post, last week Muslim leaders and scholars from 20 countries issued an Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change. Issued in anticipation of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol taking place in Paris this December, 2015, it urges well-off nations and oil-producing states to lead the way in phasing out greenhouse gas emissions.  It calls on governments and business to commit themselves to 100 % renewable energy and/or a zero emissions strategy as early as possible.

Slovakia Will Reject Muslim Migrants In EU Redistribution Plan

Last month, the European Union ministers agreed to a plan to redistribute some 32,000 of the 150,000 migrants from war-torn Syria, Iraq, Eritrea and Somalia that have found their way across the Mediterranean to Greece and Italy.  As reported by TRT World, the EU hopes to reach agreement by the end of the year on redistribution of an additional 8,000.  Meanwhile, The Telegraph reported yesterday that while Slovakia has agreed to accept 200 of the migrants, it says it will not accept any Muslims.  An Interior Ministry spokesman said:

[W]e don't have any mosques in Slovakia so how can Muslims be integrated if they are not going to like it here?

EU sources say that while it would be legal to prioritize Christians because they are at extra risk of persecution, rejecting Muslims would be impermissible discrimination. But the Slovakian government says it plans to ask arriving migrants their religion.