Falun Gong Is A Religion Under FACE Act

In Zhang v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, (ED NY, April 23, 2018), a New York federal district court in an 84-page opinion ruled that a group of Falun Gong adherents may proceed on certain of its causes of action against individuals who have engaged in verbal and physical confrontations with plaintiffs.  The court explains:

Adherents of Falun Gong live in the United States. Some are citizens of this country. It is contended by them as plaintiffs that the Chinese Government has conspired with individuals to harm followers and suppress Falun Gong in the United States by organizing and encouraging the Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance (“CACWA”) and individuals to inflict injuries on those who follow Falun Gong.

Defendants oppose Falun Gong in Flushing, Queens, New York, and elsewhere. They deny that Falun Gong is a religion. Following the position of the Chinese Government, their opposition is based upon characterizing Falun Gong as a “cult” indoctrinating its followers with beliefs that are dangerous, unscientific, and offensive.

One of plaintiffs' claims was brought under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 which allows a civil action by any person who has suffered physical interference with the exercise of the right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship. The court held that for purposes of this statute, Falun Gong is a "religion":

Expert testimony showed that Falun Gong is at its center concerned with ultimate questions of life and the universe. Dr. Waldron explained his view that Falun Gong is derived from Buddhism and other ancient Chinese religions. There is no genuine dispute for purposes of this case: Falun Gong “occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God.” Int’l Soc. For Krishna Consciousness, 650 F.2d at 440 (2d Cir. 1981). Falun Gong is a religion for purposes of the instant litigation. The jury will be so instructed.

Plaintiffs were also allowed to proceed with claims of assault and battery, and bias related intimidation under the New York Civil Rights Act.  Defendants were allowed to move ahead on civil rights and assault and battery counter-claims growing out of the same incidents. New York Law Journal reports on the decision.

New York Budget Bill Passed With Special Curriculum Criteria For Yeshivas

On Monday, the New York legislature sent to Governor Andrew Cuomo for his signature the state Budget for the 2018-2019 fiscal year (S07059) (full text).  As described in detail by New York Jewish Week, the bill contains provisions (at pp. 194-195 of bill) designed to lower the secular curriculum requirements for  Orthodox Jewish yeshivas whose long school days emphasize religious study.  The New York Times explains the politics behind inclusion of the provision, and the varied interpretations of its impact on curriculum standards for such schools.

Hospital Can Assert Ministerial Exception Defense To Suit By Chaplain

In Penn v. New York Methodist Hospital, (2d Cir., March 7, 2018), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a hospital "only historically connected to the United Methodist Church but still providing religious services through its pastoral care department" may invoke the ministerial exception doctrine.  The court summarized its majority opinion:

Mr. Penn—a former duty chaplain at New York Methodist Hospital—brought a lawsuit alleging that New York Methodist Hospital and Peter Poulos discriminated against him on the basis of his race and religion, and retaliated against him after he filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the New York City Commission on Human Rights. New York Methodist Hospital, because of its history and continuing purpose, through its Department of Pastoral Care, is a “religious group.” Mr. Penn’s role within the Department of Pastoral Care was to provide religious care to the hospital’s patients and religious care only. Therefore, the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses warrant the application of the ministerial exception doctrine and the dismissal of this lawsuit.

Judge Droney dissented, saying in part:

The presence of a non‐sectarian chaplaincy department cannot transform an otherwise secular hospital into a religious institution for purposes of the ministerial exception.  If it could, most hospitals would be exempt from anti‐discrimination laws, as most—even clearly secular hospitals—have chaplaincy departments.... Moreover, the interfaith nature of the Department means that it is not run according to the tenets of any particular religion, thereby reducing the likelihood that evaluating the reasons for the termination of an employee such as Penn would “plunge [a court] into a maelstrom of Church policy, administration, and governance.”

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

No Free Exercise Defense To Charge of Attending Cockfight

In United States v. Cruz, (SD NY, Feb. 15, 2018), a New York federal magistrate judge rejected a Free Exercise defense to a charge of knowingly attending a cockfight in violation of 7 USC §2156.  The court said in part:

Here, Cruz has failed to make a showing that the act of engaging in animal fighting ventures stems from sincerely held beliefs that are religious in nature. Although Cruz continually refers to the “God given” dominion of man over animals, he does not identify any specific religious tenets or practices that are burdened by the statute. Nor does he identify any religion or denomination from which his beliefs derive. Indeed, in “attest[ing] to the importance of the God given rights of the American farmer,” Cruz cites quotations in which the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin, exalted agriculture.... This suggests that Cruz’s beliefs are philosophical or political in nature.

NY Governor Issues Executive Order Barring State Contracts With Entities That Fail To Address Discrimination

Earlier this month (Feb. 3), New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an Executive Order (full text)  directing all state agencies and departments to amend their procurement procedures to prevent entering into contracts "with entities that have institutional policies or practices that fail to address the harassment and discrimination of individuals on the basis of their age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, sex, marital status, disability, or other protected basis."  State departments and agencies must include non-discrimination provisions in all contracts for goods, services, technology or construction.  In a press release announcing the Executive Order, the governor's office said in part:

The Trump administration has banned transgender people from serving in the U.S. Military, removed guidance nationwide that helped protect young transgender students at school, and completely removed the LGBTQ community from the National Survey of Older Americans. Additionally, in October 2017, the federal government rescinded a contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Car Act. This action has permitted employers and organizations to claim broad exemptions from nondiscrimination laws, which has increased the vulnerability of LGBTQ rights.

Following these actions, which perpetuate and tolerate discrimination and taken this nation in the wrong direction, New York is once again stepping up to ensure the rights of individuals across the state are protected.

The Director of Public Policy of the Archdiocese of New York strongly criticized the new Executive Order, saying in part:

the target of this new action is the very existence of religious agencies, and the intent is to suppress any deviation from the new orthodoxy of gender and sexual ideology.

LifeSite News reports further on these developments.

New Hearing Ordered On Moving Bishop Fulton J. Sheen's Remains

In a 3-2 decision in Matter of Cunningham v Trustees of St. Patrick's Cathedral, (NY App., Feb. 6, 2018), New York state's Appellate Division sent back to the trial court for further proceedings the dispute over whether the body of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who died in 1979, should be moved from New York City to Illinois.  Sheen was buried in St. Patrick's Cathedral. However Sheen's niece has now petitioned the court to have Sheen's remains moved to Peoria, Illinois where Sheen's family resides and where a shrine to him is being built in anticipation of Sheen's Beatification by The Vatican. (See prior posting.)  The trial court concluded (full text of opinion) that no factual disputes existed, and granted the request to allow removal of Sheen's remains. However, on appeal the majority held that the trial court must hold a hearing to determine Sheen's wishes as to his place of burial, in light of conflicting evidence on the issue. New York Times reports on the decision.

Rabbinical College Wins Challenge To Zoning and Environmental Laws

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, NY, (SD NY, Dec. 7, 2017), a New York federal district court in a 112-page opinion held that various zoning and environmental regulations enacted by the Village of Pomona violate the rights of plaintiff which is seeking to build a rabbinical college, on-campus housing and related religious facilities on a 100-acre piece of land which it owns.  The court held that plaintiff had proven that the challenged laws were enacted with a discriminatory purpose to "thwart the expansion of the orthodox/ Hasidic community.  The challenged laws were found to violate the Equal Protection Clause, the state and federal Free Exercise Clauses, RLUIPA's non-discrimination provisions, and the Fair Housing Act.  the court also concluded that the challenged laws imposed a substantial burden on plaintiff's religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA.  Lohud reports on the decision.

NY Voters Approve Kiryas Joel Becoming Separate Town

JTA reports on Tuesday's election results in the town of Monroe, New York where voters by over an 80% majority approved a proposal that will allow the Village of Kiryas Joel to secede and become its own separate Yiddish speaking town. The vote resolves tensions growing out of Kiryas Joel's annexation of land from Monroe. (See prior posting.)  Kiryas Joel was founded by Satmar Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum. The new town will be named Town of Palm Tree, an English translation of "Teitelbaum".  It will be New York's first new town in 35 years.

Muslim Woman's Suit Over Search By Male Officer Is Dismissed

In Montgomery v. Town of Colonie, (ND NY, Oct. 30, 2017), a New York federal district court granted qualified immunity to a male police officer who conducted a pat-down search of a Muslim woman when she was arrested.  Dismissing this portion of plaintiff's claim for damages, the court said in part:

Montgomery does not cite a single authority holding that a police officer violates the First Amendment by performing a cross-gender pat-frisk of an observant Muslim.

The court however allowed plaintiff to move ahead with her Fourth Amendment and false imprisonment claims.

Court Resolves Factional Religious Split Using "Neutral Principles" Approach

In Kelley v. Garuda, (Nassau Cty. NY Sup. Ct., Oct. 2, 2017), a New York trial court, deferring to resolutions passed by the Governing Body Commission of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness ("GBC") and applying neutral principles of law, resolved a factional theological split within the Freeport, New York ISKCON Temple. The court upheld a default judgment against defendants who had taken control of the Temple, saying in part:

Plaintiffs' purchased the property well before the Defendants' arrival and interference with the Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the property. Prior to the 2005 "election" where Gupta and his adherents purportedly changed the leadership of the Freeport Temple, the Plaintiffs sufficiently established that all financial and ecclesiastical issues regarding the Freeport Temple were decided and/or approved by the GBC or its chosen delegates....

Further evidence of the Plaintiffs' ownership and control over the Freeport Temple is their constitution, the ISKCON Law Book, which creates an express trust in favor of the Society at large under the control of the GBC....

The Founder also established a Trust in the second Article of his Will which declared that each ISKCON temple would be held for the benefit of the ISKCON Society at large. The language of the Trust provision specifies that the GBC would continue to manage the ISKCON Society in perpetuity.

Court Rejects Objections To Refusal To Reschedule Trial Dates For Alleged Religious Reasons

In People v. Alliance Warburg Capital Management, (NY Cty. Sup. Ct., Oct. 17, 2017), a New York trial court rejected religious free exercise arguments by defendant who had been convicted of defrauding investors out of over $4 million.  Defendant objected to the court's refusal during trial to agree to hold no sessions on Fridays-- though only one session was in fact held on a Friday.  The state did not object to defendant's request.  The court found defendant's religious claims to insincere.  Defendant claimed to be Jewish and contended that "he was an adherent of Kabbalah Judaism and that the tenets of that faith required an observance with respect to "sundown in Israel, not just sundown here in the U.S...."

The court observed that defendant had repeatedly used religion to perpetrate his frauds.  It concluded:

The right to the free exercise of religion is one of our most precious liberties. The use of religion to perpetrate fraud, on the other hand, is abhorrent. This Court, as others, obviously does not make every decision to vindicate a principle. Often, efficiency and the agreement of the parties are controlling. In this case, however, the principle was also important. It was important that Mr. Canady not use religion to defraud the court — as he had done on multiple prior occasions to defraud his victims.

Church's Objections To Zoning Conditions Dismissed On Ripeness Grounds

In Life Covenant Church, Inc. v. Town of Colonie, (ND NY, Sept. 13, 2017), a New York federal district court dismissed on ripeness grounds a church's objections to conditions placed in the zoning approval for its construction of a new building. The church contended that conditions limiting the starting time for religious services and the number of daily services violated its rights under the state and federal constitutions as well as RLUIPA.  The court held that the judicial challenge is not ripe because the church has not received a final decision on its request to the city that it amend its prior approval to eliminate the objectionable conditions.

NY Court Invalidates Service of Process on Sabbath, Focusing On Competing Sabbath Times

New York General Business Law Sec. 13 provides:

Whoever maliciously procures any process in a civil action to be served on Saturday, upon any person who keeps Saturday as holy time, and does not labor on that day, or serves upon him any process returnable on that day, or maliciously procures any civil action to which such person is a party to be adjourned to that day for trial, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

In Signature Bank NA v. Koschitzki, (NY Kings Cty. Sup. Ct., July 27, 2017), a New York state trial court vacated a default judgment against Sabbath observant Jews who were served before the end of the Sabbath on a Saturday afternoon.  Defendants were served at 5:30 pm on November 26, 2016. There are two methods used by Jews to determine when the Sabbath ends.  One method would have resulted in Sabbath ending at 5:15. The other method, relied upon by defendants, would have ended the Sabbath at 5:43. The court said:

The Court understands that there is disagreement as to the time at which Sabbath ends among different groups of observant Jews. This Court does not believe it would be appropriate for it to determine the manner in which religious custom should be observed by any individual group or require that one particular group's traditions be adhered to uniformly. The time asserted by defendants is not unreasonable given the conflicting opinions contained in different religious sources.

Arutz Sheva reporting on the decision has more details on the two computational methods.

Further Evidence Needed To Rule On Ministerial Exception Defense

In Stabler v. Congregation Emanu-El of the City of New York, (SD NY, July 28, 2017), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss a suit alleging gender, age and disability discrimination brought by the Librarian of a New York synagogue who says that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  Defendants asserted the "ministerial exception" doctrine as a defense. The court held, however, that development of a further factual record is necessary to determine whether plaintiff performed sufficient religious functions to be considered a ministerial employee.

2nd Circuit: Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal of Sex Discrimination Claim By Catholic School Principal

In Fratello v. Archdiocese of New York, (2d Cir., July 14, 2017), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the principal of a Catholic elementary school is barred by the "ministerial exception" doctrine from pursuing her claim that gender discrimination accounted for the school's refusal to renew her contract. The court said in part:

... [T]he plaintiffʹs claims are barred because she is a minister within the meaning of the exception.  Although her formal title was not inherently religious, the record reflects that, as part of her job responsibilities, she held herself out as a spiritual leader of the school and performed many religious functions to advance its religious mission.

The court noted some of the tensions inherent in the doctrine:

The irony is striking.  We rely in part on Fratelloʹs supervisorsʹ and faculty officialsʹ prior praise of her performance of her religious responsibilities as proof that she could be fired for the wrong reason or without any reason at all.... This case thus lies at the center of the tension between an employerʹs right to freedom of religion and an employeeʹs right not to be unlawfully discriminated against. The ministerial exception, as we understand it to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, resolves that tension in this case against Fratello and in favor of the Archdiocese, the Church, and the School.

New York Law Journal, reporting on the decision, says plaintiff will seek en banc review.

Court Issues Detailed Instructions For Church Board Election

In Rock Church, Inc. v. Bristulf, (NY Cty. Sup. Ct., June 28, 2017), a New York trial court ordered a special meeting for an election of a church board of trustees, setting out detailed instructions for conducting the election.  The order came after three earlier court orders, each of which ordered a special meeting to elect a board, failed to result in a successful election. Part of the detailed instructions provided:

As the meeting is not the Annual Business Meeting, Section 5.7 of the By-laws (allowing all members the "right to express their opinion on any matter relating to the Church at the Annual Business Meeting") shall not apply. The only business to be conducted at the meeting shall be the voting to elect the Board of Trustees and such vote shall be conducted without prior discussion.

New York Governor Signs Legislation To End Child Marriage

On June 20, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed A05524 raising the minimum age at which a person may marry to 17. (Full text and vote history).  Under the bill, parental consent and court approval is required to issue a marriage license to a person between 17 and 18 years of age. Prior to enactment of this legislation, with court approval an individual as young as 14 years could marry. In a press release on signing the bill, Governor Cuomo said: "This is a major step forward in our efforts to protect children and prevent forced marriages, and I am proud to sign this legislation that puts an end to child marriage in New York once and for all." PIX 11 reports on the new legislation.

New York Appeals Court Dismisses Suit Opposing Kaporos Ritual

In a 3-2 decision, a New York state appellate court has dismissed a mandamus action seeking to require the New York Police Department and the New York City Health Department to enforce various Health Code, animal cruelty and other laws to stop the Orthodox Jewish ritual of kaporos.  The pre-Yom Kippur ritual involves using live chickens (which are later slaughtered) in an atonement ceremony.  In Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v New York City Police Department, (App. Div. June 6, 2017), the majority held that mandamus is available only to enforce a non-discretionary duty on the part of government officials.  Here the laws that plaintiffs seek to require defendants to enforce involve judgment and discretion of law enforcement officials.  Justice Gesmer (joined by Presiding Justice Andrias) dissented.

One Pleads Guilty To Voter Fraud In Attempt To Get Approval For Townhouses For Hasidic Jews

As previously reported, the village of Bloomingburg, New York has been embroiled in a battle over whether an ultra-Orthodox Jewish community would expand into the town.  Real estate developer Kenneth Nakdimen and his associates sought to build a  396-unit townhouse development there to be marketed to Hasidic Jews.  They faced local opposition which the developers said was fueled by anti-Semitism.  As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the developers were ultimately indicted by the federal government for their voting fraud tactics in seeking to obtain approval for their project.  Yesterday the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York announced that Nakdimen has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to corrupt the electoral process. The announcement describes the basis for the charges:

[B]y late 2013, the first of their real estate developments had met local opposition, and still remained under construction and uninhabitable.  When met with resistance, rather than seek to advance their real estate development project through legitimate means, NAKDIMEN and others instead decided to corrupt the democratic electoral process in Bloomingburg by falsely registering voters and paying bribes for voters who would help elect public officials favorable to their project.

....   NAKDIMEN and others took steps to cover up their scheme to register voters who did not actually live in Bloomingburg by, among other things, creating and back-dating false leases and placing items like toothbrushes and toothpaste in unoccupied apartments to make it seem as if the falsely registered voters lived there.

UPDATE: On June 6, the U.S. Attorney's office announced that a second defendant, Shalom Lamm, has now also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to corrupt the electoral process.

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Long Skirts, Title II vs. Title VII

In Jalal v. Lucille Roberts Health Clubs, Inc., (SD NY, May 22, 2017), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a Jewish woman against a health club which refused to allow her to wear a long skirt while using gym equipment.  In the suit, plaintiff Yosefa Jalal alleged that by refusing to allow her to dress as required by her religious beliefs, the health club violated the public accommodation provisions (Title II) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court disagreed, saying in part:

Here, plaintiff fails to allege facts plausibly supporting a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation. Although plaintiff contends that she was treated differently than other Lucille Roberts members on the basis of her religion, the factual allegations only suggest that she was treated differently because she insisted on wearing an article of clothing that, according to defendant, was inappropriate gym attire.... Nowhere does the complaint allege that defendant selectively enforced its dress code against Jewish women.... There is no indication ... that claims grounded solely in disparate impact—and lacking any allegation of discriminatory intent—are cognizable under Title II.

Consumerist reports on the decision.

Meanwhile, JTA reported yesterday on a religious discrimination in employment lawsuit filed in New York state court.  Plaintiff Hadas Goldfarb, an Orthodox Jewish woman who was hired by New York Presbyterian Hospital as a paramedic, was dismissed when when she insisted on wearing a skirt instead of pants as required by the hospital's dress code.  Unlike the public accommodation section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the employment discrimination provisions (Title VII) require employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious exercise. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]