Buffalo Catholic Diocese Reaches Settlement With New York AG In Suit Over Handling of Sex Abuse Claims

The Catholic Diocese of Buffalo announced yesterday in a press release and a Letter to the Faithful that it has reached a settlement with the New York Attorney General in the suit brought against it and two of its former bishops alleging that they mishandled complaints of sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults. (See prior posting.) The provisions of the Stipulated Final Order (full text) in People of the State of New York v. Diocese of Buffalo, (SD NY, Oct. 24, 2022) were described by Bishop Michael Fisher in part as follows:

The settlement that the Diocese and the New York Attorney General have agreed to confirms that the rigorous policies and protocols the Diocese has put in place over the past several years are the right ones to ensure that all young people and other vulnerable persons are safe and never at risk of abuse of any kind by a member of the clergy, diocesan employee, volunteer, or member of a religious order serving in the Diocese of Buffalo.  At the same time, we have strengthened our Safe Environment policies with the Priest Supervision Program which I implemented in June of last year to account for priests removed from active ministry, and with the additional appointment of a new Child Protection Policy Coordinator. We hope that these initiatives, along with our commitment to producing an additional detailed annual compliance audit by an independent auditor, will provide further evidence of our commitment to the level of accountability and transparency that all Catholic faithful and the broader public rightly deserve and require.

NY Gun Ban at Places of Worship Violates 2nd Amendment

In Hardaway v. Nigrelli, (WD NY, Oct. 20, 2022), a New York federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the provision in New York law that prohibits possession of firearms at "any place of worship or religious observation." The suit was filed by two clergy who allege that as leaders of their churches they want to carry firearms on church premises to keep the peace. The court concluded that the state restriction violates the Second Amendment, saying in part:

Here, the state cites to a handful of enactments in an attempt to meet its "burden" to demonstrate a tradition of accepted prohibitions of firearms in places of worship or religious observation.... The notion of a "tradition" is the opposite of one-offs, outliers, or novel enactments....

[T]he Nation's history does not countenance such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all places of worship across the state. The right to self-defense is no less important and no less recognized at these places.

Volokh Conspiracy has more on the decision. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Vaccine Objector Loses Challenge

In Marte v. Montefiore Medical Center, (SD NY, Oct. 12, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed claims by a former Medical Center employee who sued after the Medical Center refused to provide her a reasonable accommodation when she refused to receive a COVID-19 vaccine which was required for all employees.  The court rejected her Title VII claim saying in part:

Plaintiff does not allege that she informed Defendant that she had a religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccination, or even that Defendant was aware that she has a religious objection to the vaccine; she pleads only that she told her employer she did not want the vaccine and asked for "a reasonable accommodation as defined by law." ... Defendant could not have discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her religious beliefs if Defendant was unaware of those beliefs....

Even if Plaintiff had pleaded a prima facie claim for religious discrimination, her argument is foreclosed by the Second Circuit's decision in We The Patriots. Defendant correctly argues that Plaintiff's requested accommodation would qualify as an undue hardship because it required Defendant to violate the law.

The court also rejected her free exercise, equal protection and other challenges.

New York Yeshivas Sue Over Substantial Equivalency Guidelines

In New York, a group of yeshivas and two organizations have sued challenging the state Board of Regents recently adopted guidelines implementing NY Education Law §3204(2) which requires instruction in nonpublic schools to be at least "substantially equivalent" to that in public schools in the same city or district. The complaint (full text) in In re Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools, (Albany County Sup. Ct., filed 10/9/2022), alleges in part:

... [T]he New York State Education  Department... has spent the last half decade seeking to impose greater requirements and heightened oversight on these schools than are imposed on other schools in New York, whether public or private....

First, the New Regulations violate the New York State Administrative Procedures Act ... because the public comment process was a sham.... Here, NYSED received more than 300,000 comments in opposition to the proposed regulations but did not truly consider them and did not make any substantive revisions....

Second, the New Regulations violate SAPA by imposing on yeshivas obligations and restrictions not found in other schools. Only yeshivas ... will be prohibited from offering instruction ... in a student’s home language....

Third, the New Regulations create an impermissible de facto licensing requirement through the review and determination process....

The New Regulations frustrate the Petitioners’ constitutionally protected rights to the free exercise of religion and free speech, and violate their due process rights and right to equal protection. 

Hamodia reports on the lawsuit.

COVID Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemption Is Upheld

In Does v. Hochul, (ED NY, Sept. 30, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed challenges to New York's COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers brought by five employees with religious objections to the vaccine. In evaluating plaintiffs' free exercise claims, the court concluded that the regulation, which contains no religious exemption, is subject only to rational basis review, saying in part:

The plaintiffs argue that the mandate is not neutral because it includes a medical exemption, and thus “treats religious exemptions less favorably than some nonreligious exemptions;” in the plaintiffs’ words, this “double standard is not a neutral standard.”... 

Section 2.61 is neutral on its face. It does not refer to religion at all, and applies to “all persons employed or affiliated with a covered entity” who could “potentially expose other covered personnel, patients or residents to” COVID-19; the only exception is for employees with medical conditions that qualify for a medical exemption...

The rule at issue in this case involves no “singling out” of religious employees. Indeed, Section 2.61 applies equally to all employees who can be vaccinated safely, regardless of their religious beliefs or practices, whether they have political objections to the vaccine, or question their efficacy or safety, or any of the many other reasons that people choose not to get vaccinated....

The court also rejected plaintiffs' Title VII challenge, saying in part:

The sole “accommodation” the plaintiffs seek—a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement— would impose an undue hardship on the Private Defendants because it would require them to violate state law.

Village Residents Lack Standing In Establishment Clause Challenge To Zoning Law

In Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, (SD NY, Sept. 30, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit by a civic organization and Village residents alleging that the Village's new zoning code violated the Establishment Clause by favoring one religious group, Orthodox Jews.  The Code created new categories of religious uses and houses of worship, including "residential gathering places" so that single-family homes could be opened for religious activities, subject to additional parking requirements. This facilitated small-scale worship services often used by Orthodox Jews who for religious reasons cannot drive on the Sabbath and holidays. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs claim the new zoning amendments “target religious uses with special favorable treatment over secular uses.” (Id.) However, Plaintiffs have not identified any injury, nonetheless a particularized and concrete one. The law is clear that generalized grievance is insufficient to establish standing....

Individual Plaintiffs claim they have direct exposure standing because the New Zoning Law was rushed into law and gives preferential treatment to OJC and religious uses over secular uses, such that “the construction of an untold number of houses of worship” will serve as “constant reminders of the law and its endorsement of religion.” ... This is an insufficient basis ... for finding direct exposure standing....

NY Board Of Regents Adopts "Substantial Equivalency" Guidelines For Private And Religious Schools

As reported by JTA, the New York Board of Regents yesterday approved the Final Substantial Equivalency Regulation (full text) (summary) which implements NY Education Law §3204(2) requiring instruction in nonpublic schools to be at least "substantially equivalent" to that in public schools in the same city or district. Originally proposed in March (see prior posting), the Regulation provides multiple pathways for private and religious schools to demonstrate compliance. The Regulation garnered increased attention after the New York Times on Sunday published a lengthy article setting out the findings of its study of the inadequacies of secular instruction in a number of Hasidic Jewish schools. (It also posted the article in Yiddish on its website.) The Forward also has background on the new rule.

New York Violates Speech Rights of Adoption Agency By Requiring Placement With Unmarried and Same-Sex Families.

In New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, (ND NY, Sept. 6, 2022), a New York federal district court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the state of New York from requiring New Hope, a religiously affiliated social service agency, to provide adoption services to unmarried or same-sex couples. The state Office of Children and Family Services contended that New Hope's policy of referring such clients to other agencies violated its anti-discrimination rules. Citing a previous holding by the Second Circuit, the court concluded that "by compelling it to place children with unmarried and same-sex couples, OCFS is necessarily compelling New Hope to engage in the speech required for that conduct...." While agreeing that the state has a compelling interest in avoiding discrimination and increasing the pool of potential adopting families, the court held that OCFS's rule is not narrowly tailored to advance those interests:

New Hope's "recusal-and-referral" practice was a more narrowly tailored means of avoiding discrimination than the closure of New Hope's adoption operation.

Eminent Domain Violated Rights of Chabad

In Chabad Lubavitch of the Beaches, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of  Atlantic Beach, (ED NY, Sept. 6, 2022), a New York federal district court granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that an attempt to acquire the property of a Jewish religious group by eminent domain likely violated the group's 1st Amendment free exercise rights. Chabad acquired the property in order to build a center on it. Eminent domain proceedings were initiated shortly after Chabad held a Menorah lighting ceremony on the property. The court explained:

[T]he Village’s acquisition decision was made in a manner intolerant of Chabad’s members’ religious beliefs and which would restrict Chabad’s practices because of its religious nature. Thus, the Village’s acquisition decision was targeted and not done neutrally, thereby requiring the Court to apply strict scrutiny in deciding whether that decision is constitutionally permissible. 

... The Village never inquired from the Property’s prior owner whether he was interested in selling the Property ... notwithstanding it being adjacent to and/or in very close proximity to Village-owned and controlled properties and it having sat vacant for three years, with a prominent “For Sale” sign having been erected in front of the Property for the last two of those three years.... Instead, for vague reasons, not strongly supported by direct evidence ... the Village’s apparent urgency to acquire the Properties intensified during the same time when Chabad purchased the Property....

Further, the several anti-Semitic comments posted to the FB Group page after the January 10 open meeting, i.e., community member comments, add to the suspicion caused by the timing of events and call into question the Village’s stated motivation for acquiring the Property by eminent domain....  [O]ne of the Village Trustees, was an administrator/monitor of the FB Group; thus, it is difficult not to conclude that at least one member of the Village Board was aware of several strong opponents to Chabad’s presence in the Village, based upon impermissible religious animus.

Jewish School Lacks Standing In Suit Claiming Religious Discrimination

In Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland v. Town of Clarkston, (SD NY, July 12, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit under RLUIPA and federal civil rights laws brought by an Orthodox Jewish school ("ABY") against a New York town and a citizens group.  The suit alleged that the defendants, motivated by discrimination against Orthodox Jews, prevented the school from closing the purchase of a building owned by Grace Baptist Church. The court said in part:

... ABY fails to sufficiently establish that its claims based on the denial of the building permit application are ripe such that it suffered an “actual, concrete injury” because the ZBA never issued a final decision on ABY’s appeal and variance application. In other words, the ZBA’s nonfinal decision here does not “give rise to an injury that is sufficiently concrete and particularized to satisfy Article III.”...

... ABY fails to sufficiently allege how the Town Defendants’ conduct “constrained or influenced” GBC’s decision to stop agreeing to amend the contract and to terminate it on May 16, 2019.... Accordingly, the Court concludes that ABY has failed to sufficiently establish standing for its second alleged injury in fact with respect to the Town Defendants’ conduct. Consequently, the Court dismisses all of ABY’s claims against the Town Defendants and its § 1985 conspiracy claim against all Defendants....

Supreme Court Denies Review In New York Vaccine Mandate Case

Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Dr. A v. Hochul, (Sup. Ct., certiorari denied 6/30/2022). This is another of the many cases that contend COVID vaccine mandates-- this time for New York healthcare workers-- with medical, but without religious, exemptions violate the Free Exercise clause. Justice Thomas, in an opinion joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, dissented from the denial of certiorari, saying in part:

[T]here remains considerable confusion over whether a mandate, like New York’s, that does not exempt religious conduct can ever be neutral and generally applicable if it exempts secular conduct that similarly frustrates the specific interest that the mandate serves. Three Courts of Appeals and one State Supreme Court agree that such requirements are not neutral or generally applicable and therefore trigger strict scrutiny. Meanwhile, the Second Circuit has joined three other Courts of Appeals refusing to apply strict scrutiny. This split is widespread, entrenched, and worth addressing.

This case is an obvious vehicle for resolving that conflict.

The Supreme Court last December, by the same 6-3 vote, had denied an injunction pending the Supreme Court's review of the certiorari petition. (See prior posting.)

New York Court Reaffirms Its Decision Upholding Required Coverage For Medically Necessary Abortions

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Vullo, (NY App., June 2, 2022), a New York intermediate appellate court, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, reaffirmed its holding rejecting a challenge by several religious organizations and other plaintiffs to a New York administrative regulation  requiring health insurance policies in New York to provide coverage for medically necessary abortion services. (See prior posting) The U.S. Supreme Court had vacated the original judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Fulton v. Philadelphia. (See prior posting.)

NY School Districts Not Required To Provide Bussing For Religious Schools On Days Public Schools Are Closed

In In the Matter of United Jewish Community of Blooming Grove, Inc. v. Washingtonville Central School District, (NY App., June 2, 2022), a New York state appellate court held that under New York statutory law, school districts are not required (but are permitted) to provide bus transportation to non-public school students on days when those schools are in session but public schools are closed. The suit was brought seeking to require the school district to provide transportation to students in Jewish schools in Kiryas Joel on all days when those schools were open.

2nd Circuit: Rabbinical College's Zoning Challenge Is Not Ripe For Review

In Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona, New York, (2d Cir., May 27, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging two Village zoning laws that prevent plaintiffs from building a rabbinical college on its 100-acre property.  The court held that the challenge to the laws fails on ripeness grounds. It concluded that the Village Board of Trustees' refusal to consider plaintiffs' petition to repeal completely the two laws cannot be considered to be the Board's final decision on the particular building plans, since the petition did not set out any details of the plans. It also concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco did not change the ripeness rules for challenging a zoning denial. (See prior related posting.) Rockland/Westchester Journal News reports on the 2nd Circuit's decision.

New York Enacts One-Year Window To Bring Old Adult Sex Abuse Cases

Yesterday New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed S66A (full text), a bill which creates a one-year window to bring previously time-barred civil actions for sexual assaults that were committed on an adult. New York Post reports on the bill. Previously, in 2019, New York enacted the Child Victims Act applying to prior child sexual abuse. (See prior posting.)

Dispute Over Kosher Certification Agencies Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Chimichurri v. Vaad Hakashrusof the Five Towns Far Rockaway, (Sup Ct Nassau Cnty NY, May 17, 2022), a New York state trial court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit by a restaurant owner against a kosher certification agency.  The monopoly of a community-wide certification agency was broken when two rabbis formed a competing agency.  53 rabbis issued a letter urging members of the community not to patronized establishments certified by the new agency.  A restaurant making use of the new agency sued, claiming the letter cost it $156,000 per year in revenue. In dismissing the suit, the court said in part:

Here, the dispute is essentially one that involves the religious principles concerning the Kashrut, or Jewish dietary laws. Cases have long recognized that such disputes are ecclesiastical in nature....

It is apparent that the Defendant represents the efforts of the Five Towns and Rockaway community to break away from the historical disagreement over the laws of Kashrut and to develop generally agreed upon standards for that particular community. The Plaintiff chose to deviate from that. This Court is precluded, by the First Amendment, from considering the merits of the Plaintiff’s contentions arising from these facts.

The Forward reports on the decision.

Cert. Denied In Challenge To NY Repeal Of Religious Exemption To School Vaccinations

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in F.F. v. New York, (Docket No. 21-1003, certiorari denied 5/23/2022). (Order List). In the case, a New York state appellate court rejected parents' constitutional challenges to New York's repeal of the religious exemption from mandatory vaccination for school children. (See prior posting). SCOTUSblog's case page has links to the filings in the case.  Christian Post reports on the denial of certiorari.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Challenge No-Fault Divorce Law Under 1st Amendment

 In King v. State of New York, (2d Cir., May 9, 2022), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge New York's no-fault divorce law on free exercise or Establishment Clause grounds. The court said in part:

Ms. King alleges that this law and the resulting divorce violated her Free Exercise and Establishment Clause rights by requiring her to become divorced despite her religious belief in marriage until death..... Because Ms. King alleges only the termination of a civil contract, she has not plausibly alleged that the civil judgment of divorce entered against her “sever[ed] the holy marriage covenant made before God,” ... or “chang[ed] her status under . . . the laws of God”....

Plaintiff In Abuse Case May Discover Psychological Report In Priest's Personnel File

In Harmon v. Diocese of Albany, (NY App. Div., April 21, 2022), a New York state appellate court upheld a trial court's discovery order in a case alleging sexual abuse of  plaintiff by a Catholic priest in the 1980's.  The trial court ordered the Diocese to turn over to plaintiff a memo, a report and correspondence in the priest's personnel file from a psychologist who had been retained by the the Bishop to determine whether it would be appropriate for the priest to resume his ministry and the risk of recidivism. The court also upheld the trial court's order requiring disclosure to plaintiff of the personnel files of 48 former priests whose names are on the Diocese's list of credibly accused clergy. Albany Times-Union reports on the decision.

Lev Tahor Leaders Sentenced To Prison

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced last Thursday that two leaders of extremist Jewish sect Lev Tahor have been sentenced to 12 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release, for child sexual exploitation offenses and kidnapping.  According to the announcement:

In or about 2017, [NACHMAN] HELBRANS arranged for his then-12-year-old niece, Minor-1, to be “married” to a then-18-year-old man.  Though they were never legally married, they were religiously “married” the following year, when Minor-1 was 13 and her “husband” was 19.  Lev Tahor leadership, including HELBRANS and [MAYER] ROSNER, required young brides ... to have sex with their husbands, to tell people outside Lev Tahor that they were not married, and to lie about their ages....

After [Minor-1's] mother fled and settled in New York with her children, HELBRANS and ROSNER devised a plan to kidnap Minor-1, then 14 years old, to return her to Guatemala and to her then-20-year-old “husband.”  In December 2018, they kidnapped Minor-1 and her brother in the middle of the night from a home in upstate New York and transported them through various states and, eventually, to Mexico.... At the time of the kidnapping, Lev Tahor leadership was seeking asylum for the entire Lev Tahor community in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Times of Israel reports on the sentencing.