Teacher Fired For Marrying Same-Sex Partner Sues Catholic High School

The North Carolina ACLU yesterday announced the filing of a federal lawsuit on behalf of a teacher who was fired by a Catholic high school in Charlotte after the teacher announced on Facebook that he planned to marry his long-time same-sex partner. Plaintiff Lonnie Billard had taught for over ten years at the school and in 2012 was named the Teacher of the Year. The lawsuit alleges that the firing violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. WFAE reports on the lawsuit.

North Carolina's Attempt To Repeal "Bathroom Bill" Fails

As reported by the Washington Post, yesterday's special session of the North Carolina legislature that had been called to repeal the state's controversial anti-transgender "bathroom bill" was unsuccessful in doing so.  It appeared that a compromise had been worked out to repeal the law that prevents transgender individuals from using school and government office building restrooms that match their gender identity. (See prior posting.)  The city of Charlotte repealed its local non-discrimination ordinance that had triggered the state legislature's action.  However, the state repeal bill introduced in the legislature included a six-month moratorium on any city enacting a nondiscrimination ordinance to protect LGBT rights.  That limit was unacceptable to Democrats in the legislature.  Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger blamed the failure of the repeal on the Democrats, saying:

Their action proves they only wanted a repeal in order to force radical social engineering and shared bathrooms across North Carolina, at the expense of our state’s families, our reputation and our economy.

4th Circuit Grants En Banc Review In Legislative Prayer Case

The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals announced this week that it has granted en banc review in Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina. In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 4th Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that the practice of the Rowan County Board of Commissioners to open its meetings with an invocation led on a rotating basis by one of the commissioners is constitutional under the Supreme Court's Town of Greece decision. (See prior posting.)

No Taxpayer Standing To Challenge NC Magistrate Opt-Out Law

In Ansley v. Warren, (WD NC, Sept. 20, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed for lack of standing an Establishment Clause challenge to North Carolina's S.B. 2 that allows magistrates to recuse themselves from performing same-sex marriages on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. Plaintiffs, asserting taxpayer standing, pointed to expenditures involved in implementing the opt-out provisions.  The court held, however:

Plaintiffs have not pointed to the establishment of any specific appropriation of funds by the legislature to implement the allegedly unconstitutional purpose of S.B. 2. The funding provisions that Plaintiffs challenge here—travel expenses for magistrates and retirement contributions—are not “expenditures made pursuant to an express [legislative] mandate and a specific [legislative] appropriation,” ... but are “incidental expenditure[s] of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute,” which is not sufficient for the purposes of standing.

Dealing with a separate due process concern, the court said:

Because a magistrate’s “sincerely held religious objection” is secret, a person appearing before a state magistrate on a matter in said magistrate’s jurisdiction will not be aware of a potential bias against them. A law that allows a state official to opt out of performing some of the duties of the office for sincerely held religious beliefs, while keeping it a secret that the official opted out, is fraught with potential for harm that could be of constitutional magnitude.... But such matters must be dealt with as they arise.

Magistrates Lack Standing To Challenge Memo From Administrative Office On Same-Sex Marriages

In Breedlove v. Warren, (NC App., Sept. 20, 2016), the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing a suit by two former magistrates who objected on religious grounds to a Memo issued by the state Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) indicating that magistrates have a constitutional duty to perform marriages for same-sex couples on the same basis as other marriages, and that refusal to do so is grounds for suspension or removal from office. The two resigned after they were not granted religious accommodations. The Court concluded that, despite the AOC memo, under North Carolina law it is various judges, not the AOC, that has authority to sanction, suspend or remove magistrates. The Court concluded:

the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint... fail to demonstrate an injury that defendants were capable of inflicting upon plaintiffs, and by extension fails to show that such an injury could be redressed.

WRAL News reports on the decision, and reminds readers that late last year the North Carolina legislature enacted a bill giving magistrates the right to opt out of performing marriages on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. (See prior related posting.)

Challenge To Church Governance Matters Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Azige v. Holy Trinity Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church, (NC App., Sept. 6, 2016), a North Carolina state appellate court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a lawsuit by a faction of church members alleging that the church bylaws had been violated in extending the terms of certain parish council members and in taking other actions.  The court said in part:

Although plaintiffs seek to present this dispute as a simple procedural disagreement over the adoption of bylaws in accord with proper procedure, the substance of the complaint belies this claim. The amended complaint alleges that each plaintiff is “a registered member” of the church; defendants dispute their membership....

Membership in a church is a core ecclesiastical matter. The power to control church membership is ultimately the power to control the church. It is an area where the courts of this State should not become involved.... 

The issues before us would require interpretation of the bylaws which do impose doctrinal requirements. Even if a declaration of plaintiffs’ status as registered members is not specifically the issue before us, in order to determine if plaintiffs even have standing to bring the other issues or to determine if the correct number of members voted for the challenged amendments, the trial court would need to address the contested membership status...

Court Issues Narrow Preliminary Injunction Against North Carolina's Transgender Bathroom Access Law

In an 83-page opinion handed down last week, a North Carolina federal district court issued a narrow preliminary injunction preventing enforcement North Carolina's transgender bathroom access law against two students and one employee of the University of North Carolina.  In Carcano v. McCrory, (MD NC, Aug. 26, 2016), the court concluded that the provisions requiring transgender individuals to use school bathrooms, locker rooms and showers corresponding to the biological sex listed on their birth certificate likely violate Title IX as interpreted by the U.S. Department of Education and upheld by the 4th Circuit.  In reaching its conclusion, the court relied heavily on evidence that the prior practice of dealing with bathroom use by transgender students on a case-by-case basis had worked well.

The court however rejected plaintiffs' contention that the North Carolina law violates the equal protection clause, saying in part:

it appears that the privacy interests that justify the State’s provision of sex-segregated bathrooms, showers, and other similar facilities arise from physiological differences between men and women, rather than differences in gender identity....

The court reserved judgment on plaintiffs' substantive due process claims relating to informational privacy and unwanted medical treatment.  Baptist Press reports on the decision.

According to AP, plaintiffs yesterday filed an appeal with the 4th Circuit on the equal protection issue.

Pregnancy Resource Center Sues Over Rezoning Denial

In Raleigh, North Carolina on Wednesday a Christian ministry filed suit in federal district court challenging the city's refusal to rezone property adjacent to an abortion clinic for use by the ministry as a pregnancy resource center.  The complaint (full text) in A Hand of Hope Pregnancy Resource Center v. City of Raleigh, (ED NC, filed 8/17/2016), contends that the city's rezoning refusal that prevents the ministry from expanding its services violates plaintiff's rights under RLUIPA as well as under the 1st and 14th Amendments.  WRAL reports on the lawsuit.

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against College's Speech Permit Policy

In Grace Christian Life v. Woodson, (ED NC, June 4, 2016), a North Carolina federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring North Carolina State University from enforcing its non-commercial speech permit policy that requires students to obtain prior written permission before distributing leaflets or soliciting passersby on campus. The suit was brought by a Christian student organization that proselytizes on campus. (See prior posting.) According to a press release by ADF, the court issued the preliminary injunction two days after a hearing in the case.  The court adopted plaintiff's allegations as its findings of fact. The preliminary injunction allows the University to still ban disruption of University activities, obstruction of buildings or sidewalks, or interference with educational activities or ceremonies.

Minister Can Sue His Church For Disability Benefits

In Bigelow v. Sassafras Grove Baptist Church, (NC App., May 10, 2016), the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that neither the ministerial exception doctrine nor the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars a minister from suing his church for contractually promised disability compensation and benefits.  The court said in part:

because plaintiff’s complaint does not challenge the Church’s decision to terminate his employment, but instead seeks to enforce a contractual obligation regarding his compensation and benefits, we hold that the ministerial exception does not apply and is not a basis for dismissal of plaintiff’s claims....

because a court can decide plaintiff’s contract-based claims applying “neutral principles of law,” without entangling the Court in an ecclesiastical dispute or interpretation, we hold that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not require dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.

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

Justice Department Sues North Carolina Over Transgender Bathroom Access

In a counter-suit to one filed by the governor of North Carolina (see prior posting), U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced yesterday that the Justice Department has filed suit against  the state of North Carolina, the University of North Carolina, and the North Carolina Department of Public Safety over H.B. 2, the state's new transgender bathroom law.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. State of North Carolina, (MD NC, filed 5/9/2016) seeks a declaratory judgment that in complying with H.B. 2,  defendants are discriminating on the basis of sex in violation Title VII and Title IX, and on the basis of sex and gender identity in violation of the Violence Against Women Act.  The suit also asks for injunctive relief.

North Carolina Sues Feds In Transgender Bathroom Dispute

As previously reported, last week the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory warning that compliance with North Carolina's recently enacted House Bill 2 on transgender bathroom access places the state in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and threatens millions of dollars in federal funding.  The letter called for a response from the state by today.  As reported by the Washington Post, this morning Gov. McCrory filed suit against the federal government challenging its interpretation of the federal civil rights laws.  The complaint (full text) in McCrory v. United States, (ED NC, filed 5/9/2016) asserts that the Justice Department's position constitutes "a baseless and blatant overreach."  It argues in part:

This is an attempt to unilaterally rewrite long-established federal civil rights laws in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Congress and disregards decades of statutory interpretation  by the Courts. The overwhelming weight of legal authority recognizes that transgender status is not a protected class under Title VII. If the United States desires a new protected class under Title VII, it must seek such action by the United States Congress.... Moreover, the Department has similarly overreached in its interpretation of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (“VAWA”).

The University of North Carolina, which was also warned by the Justice Department in connection with its obligations under Title IX, was not one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Transgender Bathroom Bills Trigger Strong Responses

Two developments yesterday highlight the reactions to legislative initiatives to ban transgender individuals from using restrooms that match their gender identity.  As reported by the New York Times, the Justice Department yesterday sent a letter (full text) to North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory warning that compliance with North Carolina's recently enacted House Bill 2 places the state in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and threatens millions of dollars in federal funding.  The letter says in part:

Access to sex-segregated restrooms and other workplace facilities consistent with gender identity is a term, condition, or privilege of employment. Denying such access to transgender individuals, whose gender identity is different from their gender assigned at birth, while affording it to similarly situated non-transgender employees, violates Title VII.

The Justice Department also told the University of North Carolina that compliance violates Title IX, and told the state Department of Public Safety that it amounts to a violation of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

Meanwhile, in Oxford, Alabama, the City Council voted 3-2 yesterday to rescind the public restroom ordinance that it passed last week.  (See prior posting.) The ordinance had not yet been signed by the mayor and so had not become law. As reported by Alabama Media Group, the ACLU was already planning a legal challenge, and the city attorney had warned that the ordinance as written might violate Title IX. The ordinance was a response to a policy announcement by Target stores that they welcome employees and customers to use restrooms and fitting rooms that correspond to their gender identity.

UPDATE: On May 2, the EEOC issued a Fact Sheet on Bathroom Access Rights for Transgender Employees Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Corporate Counsel reports on the EEOC's action.

North Carolina Governor Issues Executive Order Emphasizing LGBT Rights Retained After H.B. 2

As previously reported, last month the North Carolina General Assembly passed, and Gov. Pat McCrory signed, House Bill 2 regulating the use by transgender individuals of bathrooms and changing facilities in public schools and government offices.  The new law also pre-empts local employment and public accommodation anti-discrimination laws and prohibits civil actions in state courts based on discrimination complaints filed with the federal EEOC. After, in the language of the New York Times, "withering criticism" since the law was enacted, yesterday Gov. McCrory issued (signing statement) Executive Order No. 93 (full text) going as far as possible within the new law to protect LGBT rights.

The Executive Order emphasizes that House Bill 2 did not pre-empt local laws on housing discrimination, and that it allows state and local governments, as well as private businesses and non-profits, to set non-discrimination policies for their own employees. The Order provides that:

North Carolina is committed to administering and implementing all State human resources policies, practices and programs fairly and equitably, without unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, political affiliation, genetic information, or disability.

It also calls on state and local governments and colleges to provide single occupancy restroom accommodations for transgender individuals wherever practicable. It provides that when state property is leased by private entities, those private entities may control restroom and locker room policies. It calls for the state Human Relations Commission to submit an annual report to the governor, and calls on the legislature to restore a state cause of action for wrongful discharge based on unlawful employment discrimination.

Suit Challenges North Carolina's Anti-Transgender Law

The ACLU, Equality North Carolina and three individuals yesterday filed a federal lawsuit challenging a statute enacted last week in North Carolina which bars transgender individuals from using school and public agency bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.  The law also more broadly pre-empts local anti-discrimination laws. (See prior posting.)  The complaint (full text) in Carcaño v. McCrory, (MD NC, filed 3/28/2016) contends that the law was enacted for the purpose of disadvantaging members of the LGBT community and is based on animus against LGBT people.  Plaintiffs allege that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and infringes their right to privacy and right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.  Wall Street Journal reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said at a news conference that he will not defend the state's new law against the challenge in this lawsuit.  He called the law a national embarrassment and unconstitutional.  Cooper is running against incumbent Republican Gov. Pat McCrory who signed the anti-transgender bill. (AP, BuzzFeed, 3/29/2016).

North Carolina Regulates Transgender Bathroom Use and Pre-Empts Local Anti-Discrimination Laws

In a hurriedly-called special session, the North Carolina General Assembly on Wednesday passed House Bill 2 (full text) regulating the use by transgender individuals of bathrooms and changing facilities in public schools and government offices.  The new law also pre-empts local employment and public accommodation anti-discrimination laws. Governor Pat McCrory signed the bill Wednesday night.

The new law requires any multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and used only by individuals based on the biological sex that is stated on their birth certificate. However special accommodations, such as single occupancy bathrooms, may be made.  The law also declares that

the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation.

The law includes a similar declaration regarding local employment discrimination ordinances, but permits local government regulations governing their own employees that are not in conflict with state law.

As previously reported, the hurried passage of the law was designed to prevent a recently enacted Charlotte non-discrimination ordinance from going into effect on April 1. In his signing statement (full text), Gov. McCrory said in part:

The basic expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings, a restroom or locker room, for each gender was violated by government overreach and intrusion by the mayor and city council of Charlotte. This radical breach of trust and security under the false argument of equal access not only impacts the citizens of Charlotte but people who come to Charlotte to work, visit or play. This new government regulation defies common sense and basic community norms by allowing, for example, a man to use a woman's bathroom, shower or locker room.

NBC News reports that many of the state's largest employers are opposed to the new law.

North Carolina Legislature Aims To Repeal City's Transgender Rights Ordinance

In February, the Charlotte, North Carolina City Council approved changes to the city's Non-Discrimination Ordinance.  According to a City Council press release issued in February, the changes "add marital and familial status, sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity to the list of protected characteristics in the existing Non-Discrimination Ordinances." As reported then by Al.com, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory said he would fight the Ordinance that is scheduled to go into effect on April 1. Now the legislature is apparently poised to implement that fight in a special session of the legislature called for today.  Yesterday, Lt. Governor Dan Forest issued a press release announcing:

Senate and House leaders announced Monday they have obtained the necessary three-fifths majority in both chambers and will convene a special session on Wednesday to address a radical Charlotte City Council ordinance allowing men to share public bathrooms and locker rooms with young girls and women.

The announcement from the legislative leaders said: "We aim to repeal this ordinance before it goes into effect to provide for the privacy and protection of the women and children of our state." Human Rights Campaign and Equality North Carolina issued a release calling the special session a costly and outrageous step.

4th Circuit Upholds North Carolina's "Choose Life" License Plates

In ACLU of  North Carolina v. Tennyson, (4th Cir., March 10, 2016), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld North Carolina's decision to issue specialty "Choose Life" license plates even though the state refused to also issue a pro-choice specialty plate.  The case was on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court with instructions to to the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.  In reconsidering the case, the 4th Circuit's majority opinion said in part:

The specialty license plate program at issue here is substantively indistinguishable from that in Walker, and the Walker Court’s analysis is dispositive of the issues in this case. Accordingly, we now conclude that specialty license plates issued under North Carolina’s program amount to government speech and that North Carolina is therefore free to reject license plate designs that convey messages with which it disagrees.

Judge Wynn dissenting said in part:

I refuse to believe that with Walker, the Supreme Court meant to force us to choose that the mule in this case is either a horse or a donkey. Instead, Walker’s holding, when narrowly understood, does not lead to the conclusion that the North Carolina specialty plate speech at issue here constitutes pure government speech. On the contrary ..., it presents mixed speech—with private speech components that prohibit viewpoint discrimination.

U.S. Law Week reports on the decision.

Tribal Council Balks At Posting of U.S. National Motto

According to the Smokey Mountain News, Rick Lanier, head of the U.S. Motto Action Committee, was startled at the reaction to his presentation last week to the Cherokee Tribal Council. Lanier has been trying to get the motto "In God We Trust" placed on government buildings around North Carolina, and his proposal is usually welcomed.  Members of the Cherokee Tribal Council and community members took Lanier to task for not understanding beliefs of the Cherokee, and for not realizing that the Cherokees are a sovereign nation and so would not want to put up the motto of the U.S. government.

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On County Commissioners' Invocation Policy

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals today heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Lund v. Rowan County, North Carolina, (Docket No. 15-1591). In the case, a North Carolina federal district court held that a county Board of Commissioners' invocation policy is not constitutionally permissible under the Supreme Court's Town of Greece decision when sectarian invocations are delivered by the county commissioners themselves rather than invited clergy and other prayer-givers. The district court also found the county's practice unconstitutionally coercive. (See prior posting.) WBTV reports on today's arguments.