Third Muslim Circumcision Death In Italy

AP reported yesterday on the third death in Italy since December of infant or toddler boys circumcised at home by Muslim families. Apparently Muslim immigrants sometimes have difficulty accessing circumcision services in hospitals either because of the cost or because some Italian doctors refuse to perform the procedure on boys under 4 years of age.

Limits On Rescheduling Hearings That Conflict With Religious Holidays Do Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In Jack Jaffa & Associates v. City of New York, (NY Cty. Sup. St., March 21, 2019), a New York state trial court rejected a claim that rules of New York City's Office of Trials and Hearings violate the First Amendment.  Plaintiff, which represents clients who have been issued administrative summonses by New York City agencies, contended that rules which limit the ability to reschedule hearings that conflict with Jewish and Muslim holidays violate its rights and the rights of its clients.  The court held:

Petitioner has failed to state a claim for violation of its First Amendment right of free exercise of its religion. OATH's rules concerning the rescheduling and adjournment of hearings are neutral in both object and application and therefore "the First Amendment has not been offended."

2nd Circuit Denies En Banc Review In RFRA Damages Case

In Tanvir v. Tanzin, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 7-3 denied en banc review of a panel decision that held RFRA plaintiffs could recover money damages against federal officials sued in their individual capacities. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are three Muslim men who claim that federal officials placed or kept them on the no-fly list because they refused for religious reasons to act as FBI informants.  In denying en banc review, Chief Judge Katzmann and Judge Pooler filed an opinion explaining their reasons for doing so.  Judge Jacobs, joined by Judges Cabranes and Sullivan filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of review.

Curriculum On Muslim World Does Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Wood v, Arnold, (4th Cir., Feb. 11, 2019), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a high school student's Establishment Clause and free speech challenges to portions of classroom unit on The Muslim World.  One challenge was to the teacher's Power Point slide that included the statement that most Muslims' faith is stronger than that of the average Christian.  The other challenge was to the requirement on a work sheet for the student to fill in two words of the shahada.  The court said in part:

The use of both the comparative faith statement and the shahada assignment in Wood’s world history class involved no more than having the class read, discuss, and think about Islam. The comparative faith statement appeared on a slide under the heading “Peaceful Islam v. Radical Fundamental Islam.” The slide itself did not advocate any belief system but instead focused on the development of Islamic fundamentalism as a political force. And the shahada assignment appeared on the student worksheet under the heading “Beliefs and Practices: The Five Pillars.” Thus, the assignment asked the students to identify the tenets of Islam, but did not suggest that a student should adopt those beliefs as her own. 

Rejecting the student's compelled speech argument, the court said in part:

[T]he shahada assignment required Wood to write only two words of the shahada as an academic exercise to demonstrate her understanding of the world history curriculum. On these facts, we conclude that Wood’s First Amendment right against compelled speech was not violated.

[Thanks to Will Esser via Religionlaw for the lead.] 

Supreme Court Vacates Execution Stay of Muslim Inmate Who Wanted Imam At His Side

By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday vacated the the stay of execution that had been granted the day before by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to a Muslim inmate who wanted to have his Imam present in the execution chamber when he was executed by lethal injection. (See prior posting.) In Dunn v. Ray, (US Sup. Ct., Feb. 7, 2019), the majority said it was granting the state's application because the inmate had waited until ten days before his Feb. 7 execution date to seek relief.  Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor dissented, saying in part:

Here, Ray has put forward a powerful claim that his religious rights will be violated at the moment the State puts him to death. The Eleventh Circuit wanted to hear that claim in full. Instead, this Court short-circuits that ordinary process—and itself rejects the claim with little briefing and no argument—just so the State can meet its preferred execution date.

Pro Publica has a lengthy report on Domineque Ray and his murder trial.

11th Circuit Grants Stay of Execution To Muslim Inmate Whose Imam Would Be Excluded From Execution Chamber

In Ray v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, (11th Cir., Feb. 6. 2019), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay of execution to a Muslim inmate on death row whose request to have his Imam with him during his execution by lethal injection was denied by prison authorities.  Prison rules call for the prison chaplain-- a Christian-- to be in the execution chamber, but allow his Imam to be only in the adjoining witness room. The prison was willing to waive the requirement for the Christian chaplain to be present, but was not willing to allow his Imam to be in the chamber.  The appeals court concluded that this amounts to an Establishment Clause violation, saying in part:

The central constitutional problem here is that the state has regularly placed a Christian cleric in the execution room to minister to the needs of Christian inmates, but has refused to provide the same benefit to a devout Muslim and all other non-Christians.

Alabama appears to have set up “precisely the sort of denominational preference that the Framers of the First Amendment forbade.”

The court went on:

We acknowledge again that we owe deference to the state’s assessment of its security requirements, and we are reluctant to substitute our judgment for the Commissioner’s.... But we cannot simply rely on the unexplained ipse dixit of the state that there are no less restrictive means in the face of Alabama’s obvious denominational preference. To do so would ignore our constitutional obligations and the unambiguous command of the First Amendment that forbids the state from putting its power, prestige, and support behind one religious belief to the exclusion of all others. It remains the state’s burden to demonstrate that there are no other less restrictive means by which to protect its interests....

The court added:

Ray’s claim may well fit under the rubric of RLUIPA as well, though it seems to us more naturally framed by the Establishment Clause.

AP reports on the decison. [Thanks to Doug Velardo for the lead.] 

Muslim Inmate Seeks Right To Have Imam In Execution Chamber With Him

AP reports that a Muslim inmate on death row in Alabama has filed suit challenging the practice of only allowing a correctional officer and the Christian prison chaplain to be inside the death chamber where lethal executions are carried out.  Dominique Ray is scheduled to be executed Feb. 7. He is seeking a stay while he litigates his right to have a Muslim imam stand in the execution chamber with him. Current practice only allows him to consult with his own spiritual adviser before the execution, with that adviser witnessing the execution from an adjoining room.  Ray argues that the required presence of the prison chaplain in the execution chamber only serves the impermissible purpose of safeguarding the soul of the condemned inmate in accord with the Christian belief system.

Two Muslim Women To Be Sworn In As Members of Congress Today

As the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives today, they will pass a new rules package that includes a provision allowing religious headgear to be worn on the floor of the House.  As reported by ABC radio, this will overturn a nearly 200-year old ban on wearing hats on the House floor. The rule change will allow newly-elected Rep. Ilhan Omar from Minnesota, a Muslim woman, to wear her hijab. Meanwhile, CNN reports more broadly in a piece by Rafia Zakaria:

On January 3, 2019, not one but two Muslim American women will be sworn into Congress. Taking the oath on a Quran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib will become the first Muslim-American women to serve in the House of Representatives.

Their swearing in will be a historic milestone for the country, but it will be so much more than that for me. A black Somali-American woman who wears a headscarf and pokes fun at Islamophobes on Twitter, Omar crushes stereotypes of what a Muslim woman in a headscarf represents. As an unveiled Muslim American woman, Rashida Tlaib -- who will wear a Palestinian gown to her swearing in -- also dismantles the myth that all "real" Muslim women wear the headscarf.

Free Exercise Claim Over Search Warrant Execution Fails

In Brown v. Scanlon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194049 (MD PA, Nov. 13, 2018), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a free exercise claim growing out of the execution of a search warrant at the residence of Shannon Brown.  Brown claims that her 1st Amendment rights were infringed when police forced her to lie on the floor handcuffed in her underwear during the search.  She says that as a Muslim woman, being in a state of undress around men caused her to feel defiled and embarrassed. She also complained that she was forced to remove her head scarf for her mugshot at the courthouse.

Jury Awards $3.2M To Muslim Employee For Religious Discrimination

According to the Press-Enterprise, last week a jury in a San Bernardino, California trial court awarded $3.2 million in damages for religious discrimination to a former warehouse employee at Loma Linda University Medical Center.  Muslim former employee Hugo Lizzaraga claimed that he was harassed for four years and ultimately was dismissed because of his Muslim religious beliefs.  Lizzaraga claimed that the harassment began after he converted to Islam and also broke his thumb and was placed on modified duty by his physician. A month before he was fired, he was suspended-- accused of telling a co-worker what he would have done differently in the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist shooting.

China Is Engaged In Mass Detention of Muslims

A New York Times story posted Saturday reports that the Chinese government is engaged in mass detention of Muslims:

In a campaign that has drawn condemnation around the world, hundreds of thousands of Uighurs and other Muslim minorities have been held in “transformation” camps across Xinjiang for weeks, months or years at a time, according to former inmates and their relatives.

Beijing says the facilities provide job training and legal education for Uighurs and has denied carrying out mass detentions.

But speeches, reports and other documents online offer a clearer account than previously reported of how China’s top leaders set in motion and escalated the indoctrination campaign, which aims to eradicate all but the mildest expressions of Islamic faith and any yearning for an independent Uighur homeland.

Court Rejects EEOC's "Pattern or Practice" Claims Against Meat Packer

In EEOC v. JBS USAA, LLC, (D CO, Sept. 24, 2018), a Colorado federal district court in a 95-page opinion issued after a 16-day trial dismissed the EEOC's claims that JBS Swift & Co. meat packers engaged in pattern and practice of discrimination against Muslim employees. The suit claimed that the company had refused to reasonably accommodate Muslim employees' needs during Ramadan to pray and break their fast; that employees were disciplined on the basis of religion, national origin and race; and that JBS retaliated against a group of black, Muslim, Somali employees for opposing discrimination during Ramadan. In rejecting the reasonable accommodation claim, the court said in part:

The EEOC presented numerous instances of employees given verbal or written warnings for “unauthorized breaks” that other evidence indicated may have been in relation to prayer.... But, in spite of JBS’s progressive discipline policy, there was no evidence that any such reprimanded employees were ultimately suspended or terminated as a result of such verbal or written warnings.

Therefore, lacking evidence that any employee suffered a detriment to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . religion” in relation to discipline imposed for unscheduled prayer breaks, the Court concludes that the EEOC has failed to prove its claim that JBS’s policy constituted an unlawful pattern or practice of discrimination.

The discriminatory discipline and retaliation claims were rejected on other grounds.

Muslim Inmate Wins $25,000 Damages Against Correctional Officer

In an unusual success for a prisoner case, a Nevada judge has awarded $15,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages against a prison correctional officer in a suit by a Muslim inmate.  In Howard v. Foster, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151629 (D NV, Sept. 6, 2018), the court described the correctional officer's conduct:

On the morning of August 19, 2012, somewhere between 40 and 60 Muslim inmates were holding Eid prayer services in the SDCC gymnasium....  The room was quiet enough for the individual leading the prayer to be heard by the other prayer participants.

During the prayer service, however, [correctional officer] Dicus began talking loudly enough for Howard and other prayer participants to hear. At first, Dicus asked the other officers why the inmates were in the gymnasium for prayer services. Then, Dicus began cursing and disparaging Muslims.... Dicus stated that he hoped Muslims would die....

Howard heard Diggle warn Dicus that the Muslim inmates would file grievances regarding his statements. Dicus responded, "Mother fucker grievance. . . . . I kill[ ] Muslims, you know. . . . They need to get their ass up out of here. What the hell we allowing them to be down there doing whatever they doing?"...

Dicus' outburst began very early on in the Eid prayer service and made the service unbearable to the participants. Because Dicus' comments were so disruptive, the Muslim inmates were not able to complete the  Eid prayer service, and they did not have the Eid feast that they had planned to share in after prayer.

Muslim School Sues City Over Harassment At City Pool

A Muslim school in Wilmington, Delaware has filed suit against the city alleging religious discrimination against students in the school's summer day camp by personnel at the city's swimming pool.  According to yesterday's Delaware Public Media, pool workers harassed pre-school students in the summer program of Darul Amaanah Academy because of the students' religious attire. Pool workers say they were enforcing a no-cotton policy, but parents say that children were traumatized.

Switzerland Denies Citizenship To Muslim Couple For Their Rejection of Gender Equality

BBC News reported last week that Swiss authorities have denied the citizenship application of a Muslim couple who refused to shake hands with individuals of the opposite sex during their citizenship interview. To obtain citizenship, an applicant must be well integrated into the Swiss community and demonstrate an attachment to the country, its institutions and a respect for its legal order. According to the report:

Officials stressed they were not rejected based on their religion but for their lack of respect for gender equality.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Temporary Injunction Issued Against Quebec's Anti-Niqab Law

In the Canadian province of Quebec yesterday, a trial court again blocked the province's anti-niqab law from taking effect.  The law bans the both those furnishing government services, and those receiving them, from doing so with their face covered. (See prior posting.) According to Reuters:

A judge in December suspended the ban until the provincial government crafted regulations. The completed regulations, which included arrangements for individuals to obtain religious exemptions, were poised to take effect on Sunday.

But another judge on Thursday deemed the new rules confusing and ambiguous and suspended implementation again while the court challenge goes ahead.

Quebec Superior Court Judge Marc-Andre Blanchard wrote in his ruling that the law appeared on its face to violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adding it could cause Muslim women “irreparable harm.”

2nd Circuit: Muslim Plaintiffs Can Seek Money Damages Under RFRA For No-Fly List Abuse

In Tanvir v. Tanzin, (2d Cir., June 25, 2018), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs asserting a claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may recover money damages against federal officials sued in their individual capacities.  At issue in the case were assertions by three Muslim men who are residents of New York or Connecticut that federal law enforcement officials placed or retained them on the No Fly List because they refused, in part for religious reasons, to act as FBI informants. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues New Mexico Diner For Failing To Accommodate Muslim Employee

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit against a diner in Farmington, New Mexico. The lawsuit charges that the Blue Moon Diner refused to accommodate a female Muslim employee who requested to work wearing a hijab. The suit also claims that the diner constructively discharged the employee because of her religion.

Settlement Reached In Muslim Women's Suit Against California Restaurant

A settlement agreement (full text) was reached yesterday in a lawsuit filed in May 2016 (see prior posting) by 7 Muslim women against a Laguna Beach, California restaurant.  The women claimed they were singled out because they were Muslim and were told to leave for overstaying the restaurant's 45-minute rule. The settlement is described in an ACLU press release:

Seven Muslim women ejected from an Urth Caffe restaurant by its management have obtained a settlement agreement requiring the restaurant chain to hold diversity trainings for its employees and update its policies....

Urth Caffe has also agreed, under the settlement, to clarify its seating policy to ensure it is applied consistently to all customers and to include in its employee handbook a requirement that customer diversity be respected.

The restaurant chain also agreed to open its Laguna Beach location all day on June 16 with free drinks and desserts for all customers in a public celebration of Eid al-Fitr, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

President Hosts Iftar Dinner At White House

The White House on Wednesday hosted an Iftar dinner at which President Trump delivered remarks (full text).  The President said in part:

At tonight’s dinner, we especially are pleased to welcome members of the diplomatic corps, representing our friends and partners across the globe.  And a very warm welcome to all of the ambassadors here tonight representing Muslim-majority nations....  To each of you and to the Muslims around the world: Ramadan Mubarak.

... Iftars mark the coming together of families and friends to celebrate a timeless message of peace, clarity, and love.  There is great love.  It’s a moment to call upon our highest ideals, and to give thanks for the many blessings we enjoy.  Thank you very much.

AP reports on the event, contrasting the President's welcoming remarks with anti-Muslim rhetoric used during his campaign.  Some Muslim groups, in protest, organized a "NOT Trump’s Iftar" across from the White House.