CAIR Files Suit Against Gun Store That Declared Itself a "Muslim-Free Zone"

CAIR Florida announced yesterday that it has filed suit in federal district court against a Florida gun store that earlier this month declared itself a "Muslim-free zone." The complaint (full text) in CAIR Florida, Inc. v. Teotwawki Investments, LLC (SD FL, filed 7/29/2015), alleges that the store, Florida Gun Supply, is a place of entertainment and of exhibition and is thus covered by the public accommodation provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  42 U.S.C. § 2000a bars discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin in places of public accommodation. According to USA Today, the gun store's attorney says that no Muslim is being discriminated against because of religion, and if anyone is being turned away it is because of public safety.

Meanwhile, as reported by ABC News, on Tuesday an honorably discharged Desert Storm veteran who later became a Muslim traveled from California to Florida to test the gun store's policy by signing up for one of its gun training classes. However he was told by ATF agents that the gun store was closed for the day.

Court Refuses To Dismiss EEOC's Suit Against Meat Plant Alleging Failure To Accommodate Muslim Employees

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. JBS USA, LLC, (D CO, July 17, 2015), a Colorado federal district court refused to dismiss a suit brought by the EEOC charging that a Swift & Co. beef processing plant in Colorado failed to reasonably accommodate Muslim employees' need to leave the production line to pray at or near sundown. A large number of Muslim employees were terminated in 2008 after they and the company could not reach agreement for accommodations during Ramadan. The suit also charged a pattern of retaliation, discriminatory discipline and discharge.The EEOC previously lost a similar suit involving the same company's processing plant in Nebraska. The court held that the EEOC is not collaterally estopped by that case. Moving to the substantive issues, the court concluded that genuine issues of material fact remain both as to the reasonableness of the company's and the EEOC's proposed accommodations and as to whether the EEOC's proposal imposes an undue hardship on the company. Similarly disputes of fact remain as to the EEOC's discrimination and retaliation claims-- including issues of whether a one-time layoff of numerous employees amounts to a pattern or practice of discrimination. An EEOC press release summarizes the decision which is discussed at greater length at Workplace Class Action Blog.

6th Circuit: School Had Non-Retaliatory Reason To Fire Imam From Instructional Assistant Job

In Haji v. Columbus City Schools, (6th Cir., July 16, 2015), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that while a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation was made out by a Somali Muslim imam who was fired from his position as an instructional assistant in the Columbus, Ohio public schools, his suit should be dismissed because the school system showed a non-retaliatory reason for his termination. Plaintiff Abdurahman Haji claims that he was dismissed because of remarks he made at his mosque-- captured on a YouTube video-- criticizing the school system for exposing Muslim students to the polytheistic belief system of Greek mythology.  However the court found that the dismissal was justified because of Haji's leaving early on Friday's to attend mosque services, in violation of the school's attendance policy which was enforced against Haji after the controversial video was discovered.  The court also rejected Haji's Title VII religious discrimination claim growing out of his termination and earlier disciplinary action taken against him for his criticism of actions by students that he considered inconsistent with Islam. Middle East Forum blog discussed the decision.

Film Producer Says Its Ads For Comedy About U.S. Muslims Is Permitted Under New York MTA Revised Guidelines

As previously reported, in late April the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority changed its policy on display advertising to exclude all ads of a political nature. Yesterday a lawsuit was filed on behalf of a movie production company that claims ads for its movie "The Muslims Are Coming!" was wrongfully rejected under that policy.  The complaint (full text) in Vaguely Qualified Productions LLC v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, (SD NY, filed 6/25/2015), alleges that acceptance of ads for the film-- created by two American Muslim comedians-- was unconstitutionally delayed before the policy change, and then wrongfully rejected under the new policy because the ads are not political.  The complaint alleges in part:

55. With its Revised Policy, Defendants seeks to convert the MTA’s property from a designated public forum into a limited public forum....

57. In a limited public forum, strict scrutiny is accorded to restrictions on speech that fall within the designated category for which the forum has been opened. Restrictions on speech that fall outside that designated category must only be viewpoint neutral and reasonable.

58. VQP’s Advertisements fall within a designated category for which Defendants have opened the forum. Specifically, VQP’s Advertisements are “commercial advertising,”... because, in a manner consistent with VQP’s brand, the Advertisements “promote” and “solicit the sale” of VQP’s product, “The Muslims Are Coming!,” by promoting the underlying message of the film—that American Muslims are ordinary people.

A Muslim Advocates press release announced the filing of the lawsuit. Newsweek reports on the lawsuit.

Taxi Commission Rule Requiring Black Pants Violates Muslim Driver's Religious Freedom

In Naeem v. Metropolitan Taxicab Commission, (MO Cir. Ct., June 22, 2015), a Missouri trial court reversed a license suspension (which had previously been stayed by the court pending litigation) and fines that the St.Louis area taxicab commission had imposed on Muslim taxicab driver Raja Naeem who violated the commission's regulation requiring drivers to wear white shirts and black pants.  Naeem believes that his religion requires him to wear certain clothing, including white pants. The court held that the commission rule violates Naeem's religious liberty. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Taxicab Commission had granted Naeem a compromise. He could wear a loose-fitting kurta instead of a shirt, if it was white and did not go below his thighs. However his pants or shalwar had to be black. The court held:

In the case at bar, Mr. Naeem's right to express his religious beliefs by his mode of dress is directly infringed by the Commission's dress code. The Missouri Constitution clearly prohibits such infringement. Further commentary would be superfluous.

The court also held that the regulation, even though a generally applicable rule, violates Naeem's First Amendment rights:

No interest other than esthetics is served by the uniform code....  Even under the reasoning of Smith... the regulation must fail. Wearing particular clothing as part of the practice of one's religion also implicates the First Amendment guaranty of freedom of speech. When both speech and religion are affected by a regulation, there must be a compelling justification. 

2nd Circuit: Post-9-11 Muslim-Arab Alien Detainees Have Due Process-Equal Protection Claims

In Turkmen v. Hasty, (2d Cir., June 17, 2015), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a group of "out-of-status" aliens rounded up on immigration charges and detained after the 9/11 attacks have substantive due process and equal protection claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents against various defendants including former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former FBI Director Robert Mueller and former INS Commissioner James Ziglar.  The court however held that a Bivens remedy is not available  for plaintiffs' free exercise claims.  The majority concluded that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that they were being held in punitive conditions only because they were, or were perceived to be, Arab or Muslim.  According to the majority, that policy was "built on a perception of a race and faith that has no basis in fact." AP and FDL report further on the 109-page majority opinion and 91-page dissent.

Muslim Employee Not Constructively Discharged For Refusing Friday Work

In Shah v. IMI's MN, Inc, (MN App, June 15, 2015), a Minnesota appeals court, in a 2-1 decision, agreed with an unemployment law judge that a Muslim employee of an optical store was not forced to resign because of failure to accommodate her need for religious reasons not to work on Fridays. While she was scheduled two different times to work on Fridays, on both times this was changed when she complained.  The majority concluded that her resignation did not result from requiring her to choose between violating her religious beliefs or losing her job. Thus she was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.

Judge Minge dissented, arguing that the case should be remanded for the unemployment law judge to determine whether the employer had made a commitment to accommodate the employee's religious beliefs in the future and whether the difficulties experienced by the employee over accommodation were a material cause of the health problems that led her to resign.

French Court Fines Salafist For Disturbing Mosque

AP reported yesterday that a court in France has handed a victory to a small mosque in Lyon that filed a complaint with authorities about a Salafist member of the mosque who has been disruptive.  The mosque invoked a provision in France's 1905 law on secularism that provides legal recourse against a person who interferes with the ability to express freedom of conscience.  It filed a complaint against Faouzi Saidi who in 2014 criticized the imam, held parallel prayer services and preached his ultraconservative Salafi views to Muslim converts. The court fined Saidi 1500 Euros, with 500 Euros suspended.

9th Circuit En Banc Reverses Injunction Agaianst "Innocence of Muslims" On YouTube

In an en banc opinion in Garcia v. Google, Inc., (9th Cir., May 18, 2015), an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit dissolved a 3-judge panel's preliminary injunction (see prior posting) that had required Google to take down from YouTube all versions of the controversial video Innocence of Muslims that included the performance of misled actress Cindy Lee Garcia.  The injunction was sought by Garcia after she received death threats because her dubbed-over performance appeared to be criticizing the Prophet Muhammad.  Garcia claimed a copyright interest in the performance. The en banc majority held that the law and facts do not clearly favor her claim to a copyright in her acting performance, saying in part:

As Garcia characterizes it, “the main issue in this case involves the vicious frenzy against Ms. Garcia that the Film caused among certain radical elements of the Muslim community.” We are sympathetic to her plight. Nonetheless, the claim against Google is grounded in copyright law, not privacy, emotional distress, or tort law, and Garcia seeks to impose speech restrictions under copyright laws meant to foster rather than repress free expression. Garcia’s theory can be likened to “copyright cherry picking,” which would enable any contributor from a costume designer down to an extra or best boy to claim copyright in random bits and pieces of a unitary motion picture without satisfying the requirements of the Copyright Act

Judge Watford issued a concurring opinion and Judge Kozinski dissented. Electronic Frontier Foundation has further analysis of the decision.

Muslim School's Zoning Challenge Dismissed Without Reaching Merits

In Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor v. Pittsfield Charter Township, (ED MI, March 20, 2015), the Michigan Islamic Academy claimed that Pittsfield Township violated the substantial burden, anti-discrimination and equal terms provisions of RLUIPA, as well as the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, in denying it zoning authorization so it could build a Muslim school. The court dismissed the RLUIPA claims on the basis that plaintiff had no legally cognizable interest in the property.  It merely had a promise from the owner to donate 5 acres for the school if zoning approval was obtained. The court went on to hold that plaintiff's RLUIPA and constitutional claims are not ripe because plaintiff never went beyond the Planning Commission and Township Board to the Zoning Administrator and Zoning Board of Appeals. The court held that plaintiff could continue or refile the suit if these defects are cured. (See prior related posting.).

6th Circuit En Banc Hears Arguments In Arab Festival Proselytization Case

Yesterday the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments in Bible Believers vs Wayne County. (Audio of full oral arguments.)  In the case, a 3-judge panel last year, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the district court's dismissal of civil rights claims by Christian evangelists who engaged in aggressive preaching at the 2012 Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. Police insisted that they leave when the crowd turned hostile. (See prior posting.) The Grosse Point Patch has more background on the case.

New York City Schools Will Close On Two Muslim Holidays

NBC News reports that yesterday New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, fulfilling a campaign promise, announced that two Muslim holidays would be recognized on the city's school calendar.  Schools will be closed on Eid al-Adha and Eid al-Fitr.  It is estimated that 10% of the students in the New York City public schools are Muslim.  City schools are already closed on major Christian and Jewish holidays. (School year calendar.)  [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Military Judge Lifts Order Accommodating Religious Concern of GITMO Detainee

The Miami Herald reported yesterday that a military judge, Navy Capt. J.K. Waits, has lifted his prior restraining order that had barred women guards from being used at Guantanamo Bay to transfer former al Quaida commander Abd al Hadi al Iraqi to and from meetings with his lawyers. Hadi had objected on religious grounds to the physical contact with female guards that necessarily occurs during the transfers. However, female guards then filed complaints with the Defense Department's Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity claiming that the orders amount to gender discrimination. (See prior posting.) While the Feb. 24 decision lifting the restraining order is still under seal for security review, lawyers who have seen it say it is not based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but instead on a strict line of case law.  When released, the opinion will be available at the Office of Military Commissions website.

In response to the decision lifting the restraining order, al Hadi's lawyer issued a statement saying:

We respect the decision by the Commission, but believe that Judge Waits and JTF GTMO misunderstand how important Hadi al-Iraqi's religion is to him. Again, we are asking for a very simple accommodation so a devout Muslim, pending trial, can continue to practice his religion without restriction and being subjected to a violent force cell extraction before attending mandatory medical appointments, legal meetings, court sessions and all other essential visits.

European Court Says Bulgaria Violated Religious Rights of Muslims By Inadequate Response To Mosque Demonstration

The European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment yesterday held that Bulgarian authorites violated Muslim worshipers' right to practice their religion by the inadequate response to a demonstration in front of a mosque in the center of Sofia in 2011.  In the demonstration, leaders, members and supporters of the Bulgarian political party Ataka clashed with Muslim worshippers who had gathered for Friday prayer. In Karaahmed v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Feb. 24, 2015), the court said:

the outcome of the police’s response that day was that a large number of demonstrators were able to stand within touching distance of Banya Bashi mosque, to shout insults at praying worshippers, to engage in threating and provocative gestures and actions, and ultimately to gain access to the mosque. They enjoyed a virtually unfettered right to protest at the mosque that day, while the applicant and the other worshippers had their prayers entirely disrupted. It is plain, therefore, the police’s actions were confined simply to limiting the violence which broke out that day and that no proper consideration was given to how to strike the appropriate balance in ensuring respect for the effective exercise of the rights of the demonstrators and the applicant and the other worshippers.

Novinite reports on the decision.

Suit Against Gym Alleges Religious Discrimination Against Muslim Athlete

A suit alleging religious discrimination in a place of public accommodation was brought in an Ohio federal district court yesterday against an LA Fitness facility in Cincinnati.  The complaint (full text) in Fall v. LA Fitness, (SD OH, filed 2/23/2015), filed by Mohamed Fall, a 28-year old former college basketball star and a practicing Muslim who regularly works out at LA Fitness, alleges that for over a year, after exercising, Fall "customarily retreats to an empty, obscure corner of the men's locker room, next to an empty coat rack, faces the wall and conducts Salat, or prayer, quietly to himself for approximately 5 to 10 minutes." On January 29, while in the middle of prayer, Fall, an immigrant from Senegal, was surrounded by three LA Fitness employees and told management had decided that he could no longer pray anywhere at the gym.  Fall claims he was singled out because he is a Muslim, saying that he has seen non-Muslims at the gym engage in religious prayer and related activities such as making the sign of the cross. WCPO News reports on the lawsuit.

Chicago Muslim School Head Charged With Sexual Abuse of Female Staffer and Students

AP reported yesterday that 75-year old Mohammad Abdullah Saleem, founder and long-time head of the suburban Chicago Institute of Islamic Education, has been criminally charged with sexually abusing a female school employee beginning in 2012. Saleem denies the allegations.  Saleem has also been sued civilly by the female victim and three female former-students who also allege sexual abuse dating back as early as the 1980's. Saleem is considered a leading Islamic scholar in the U.S. The civil suit charges the school with failure to protect students and asks for over $1.5 million in damages.

Canadian Court Invalidates No-Veil Policy In Taking Citizenship Oath

According to yesterday's Regina Leader-Post, a Canadian Federal Court has struck down the Canadian government's policy of requiring women who wear a face veil for religious reasons to remove it when they take the oath of Canadian citizenship. In a suit brought by a Sunni Muslim woman who immigrated to Canada from Pakistan, the court held that the policy violates the government's own citizenship regulations.  Those regulations require "the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization" in taking the oath. (See prior related posting.)

India Supreme Court Upholds State Work Rule Barring Polygamy

In Khan v. State of U.P., (India Sup. Ct., Feb.9, 2015), a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of a rule of the government of the state of Uttar Pradesh barring employees from having more than one wife.  The court held that while Muslim personal law may permit up to four wives, the rule does not violate the provision of Art. 25 of India's Constitution that protects the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. Quoting from an earlier decision, the Court said:

What is permitted or not prohibited by a religion does not become a religious practice or a positive tenet of a religion.... Assuming the practice of having more wives than one... is a practice followed by any community or group of people, the same can be regulated or prohibited by legislation in the interest of public order, morality and health or by any law providing for social welfare and reform which the impugned legislation clearly does.

The Economic Times reports on the decision.

Muslim Texans Face Hostile Reception At State Capitol

Yesterday CAIR Texas sponsored its annual Texas Muslim Capitol Day, featuring sessions on political activism and meetings with state representatives.  According to the Texas Tribune, participants visiting freshman representative Molly White's office received an unusual greeting.  White was back in her district, but she left an Israeli flag on the reception desk in her office and instructed her staff to ask representatives from the Muslim community "to renounce Islamic terrorist groups and publicly announce allegiance to America and our laws." In her Facebook posting announcing this, she added: "We will see how long they stay in my office."

CAIR responded by sending a letter (full text) raising ethics questions to House Speaker Joe Straus, in part asking:

Has Rep. White violated any House rules in creating such an internal office policy that is selectively being enforced to discriminate against certain religious minorities trying to meet with her or her staff? Are House members prohibited from making constituents take oaths before meeting with their elected representatives or house staff?

Yesterday afternoon White issued a statement backing off somewhat from her earlier comments.

Protesters also interrupted the Muslim group's press conference at the Capitol yesterday. One grabbed the microphone and screamed: "Islam will never dominate the United States and by the grace of God, it will never dominate Texas."  More than 420,000 Muslims live in Texas. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Facebook Complies With Turkish Court Order To Block Pages Insulting To Prophet

Jurist reports that on Sunday, a court in Turkey ordered a ban on Facebook pages containing material insulting to the Prophet Muhammad. The Golbasi Duty Magistrate Court sent to the Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication and to the Access Provider Association its order calling for Facebook to be totally blocked in the country if the offending pages are not removed. The New York Times reported yesterday that Facebook has complied with the court order and blocked Turkish users' access to the pages authorities specified as offensive.