Suit Claims Forced Baptism of Child Facilitated By Guardian Ad Litem

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on this week's filing in an Ohio federal district court of a lawsuit  alleging that a court-appointed CASA volunteer acting as guardian ad litem for a developmentally disabled child recruited a mentor who in turn had the child baptized against his parent's wishes.  The complaint (full text) in Defiaugh v. Big Brothers/ Big Sisters of Northeast Ohio Board of Trustees, (ND OH, filed 3/27/2017), alleges that in doing so, defendants committed various torts and also violated plaintiffs' free exercise rights.  A press release from American Atheists describes the allegations in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that V’s court-appointed guardian ad litem, Margaret Vaughan, repeatedly proselytized to V’s parents, April and Gregg DeFibaugh, and their children and told them that “families need God to raise children.” Despite complaining multiple times to Vaughan’s supervisors, no corrective action was taken by the agency. In 2015, Vaughan recruited David Guarnero, a member of her church, to act as a mentor for V through the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Northeast Ohio (BBBS).

According to the suit, despite explicit instructions from the DeFibaughs to refrain from religious activities with V, Guarnero would frequently discuss religion with V. On August 28, 2016, Guarnero took V to a picnic at his church, the Morning Star Friends Church in Chardon, and, along with the church pastor, Matthew Chesnes, forcibly baptized V, pushing him under water. Since the incident, V has suffered anxiety and extreme emotional distress.

Ohio City Enacts Broad Conversion Therapy Ban

According to the Toledo Blade, Toledo, Ohio City Council on Tuesday passed a broad ban on conversion therapy-- therapy aimed at changing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.  Unlike most bans elsewhere, Toledo's ordinance is not limited to protecting minors. The new law provides:

no mental health provider shall engage in sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts with any person.

The ordinance provides for a fine of $250 for each violation. According to Toledo City Paper, the new ordinance passed City Council by a vote of 12-0.

Former Employees Sue Claiming They Were Required To Participate In Scientology Traininig

According to yesterday's Madison County Herald Bulletin, Paul and Chelsea Wysong who are former employees of the Anderson, Ohio-based Continental Design Co. filed a religious discrimination lawsuit in state court in Darke County, Ohio last week.  Plaintiffs charged that company CEO Judy Nagengast required them to participate in Scientology religious practices, such as audits and training. They were told to attend Scientology courses in California, Indiana and Florida. Nagengast denies the allegations and said she plans a counter-suit.

Religious Comment Does Not Invalidate Civil Protection Order

In Majeed v. Majeed, (OH App., Oct. 7, 2016), an Ohio appellate court held that a religious comment made by a magistrate at the end of a hearing at which the magistrate agreed to issue a wife a domestic violence civil protection order was not grounds for overturning the order.  The wife, who testified that her husband was Muslim, had the following exchange with the magistrate at the end of the hearing at which the husband did not appear:

The Petitioner: Thank you very much for your time. The Court: Be careful. Take care of yourself. The Petitioner: Yes, with God’s help I’ve been depressed and it’s the worst feeling in the world to feel like Jesus is not real. I just got back with Jesus and I’d like it to stay there.  The Court: An[d] He would like you to stay there also. The Petitioner: Yes, ma’am. The Court: Thank you, ma’am. The Petitioner: God bless.

The appeals court said in part: "there is nothing in the record to indicate that religious beliefs affected the trial court’s issuance of a domestic violence CPO."

Court Requires School To Allow Transgender 5th Grader To Use Bathrooms Matching Her Gender Identity

In Board of Education of Highland Local School District v. U.S. Department of Education, (SD OH, Sept. 26, 2016), an Ohio federal magistrate judge granted a preliminary injunction to a fifth grade transgender girl requiring her school to allow her to use the girls' restroom.  The court found that she was likely to succeed on her Title IX and equal protection claims, saying in part:

the Sixth Circuit, as well as several other courts of appeals, have held that sex-discrimination claims based on gender noncomformity are cognizable under Title IX’s close cousin, Title VII.

Finding that heightened scrutiny is called for on plaintiff's equal protection claim, the court said in part:

Amici from school districts in twenty states around the country ... provide further support for the Court’s conclusion that Highland cannot show that allowing a transgender girl to use the girls’ restroom would compromise anyone’s privacy interests. When they adopted inclusive policies permitting transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity, all of these school districts wrestled with the same privacy concerns that Highland now asserts.... The school administrators agreed that although some parents opposed the policies at the outset, no disruptions in restrooms had ensued nor were there any complaints about specific violations of privacy.

The court conversely denied the school's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent federal agencies from enforcing their interpretation of Title IX.

Church Meeting Not Totally Immune From Judicial Examination

In Barrow v. Living Word Church, (SD OH, July 25, 2016), an Ohio federal magistrate judge refused to apply the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit by a former volunteer pastor who was removed from his position and from church membership, saying in part:

The Magistrate Judge agrees that the Free Exercise Clause requires this Court to abstain from judging the legitimacy of any Living Word decision about who is or can be a member or a clergyperson of their church or about whether it is proper to remove a person from either position on the basis of church moral judgment of that person’s behavior. If this were a case about those issues or indeed about interpreting church doctrine in any way, we would be required to abstain.  But the Free Exercise Clause does not shield church people from any secular court consideration of what happens in church meetings just because of where it happened. If a church meeting is used as a place to plan to commit torts involving third parties – which is what is alleged here regarding Living Word interference with Barrow’s book deals – ecclesiastical abstention will not shield the occurrences in the meeting from secular court consideration.

In Settlement, Good News Clubs Win Equal Access To After-School Facilities

In Cleveland, Ohio, Child Evangelism Fellowship has won equal treatment with non-religious community groups in use of public school facilities for after-school activities.  The consent order (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship of Ohio, Inc. v. Cleveland Metropolitan School District, (ND OH, June 28, 2016) provides that the school district will revise its equal access policy for community use of district facilities.  Under the revised policy, the school district will accept the services provided to students by Good News Clubs as in-kind payment of fees for using facilities to the same extent as it accepts services of non-religious groups. The federal court consent order also provides that the school district will pay nominal damages of $100 and attorneys' fees of $149,900 because its prior unequal treatment of Child Evangelism Fellowship violated the 1st and 14th Amendments. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the consent order.

Challenge To Sunday Exception In Property Maintenance Law Rejected

In State of Ohio v. McKinley, (OH App., June 9, 2016), defendant appealed his convictions for violating Youngstown, Ohio's Property Maintenance Code which requires that commercial building demolition projects once begun, continue daily until finished (excluding holidays, Sundays, and inclement weather days). Defendant's attempt to demolish a hospital building had not been completed after two-and-one-half years. Among the assignments of error rejected by an Ohio appellate court was defendant's claim that the statute, by allowing an exception for Sunday in assessing whether demolition work has continued, but not for other religions' days of rest, infringes defendant's free exercise rights. According to the court:

Appellant has failed to show how he has been injured by the exception to working on Sundays in the ordinance. Thus, he does not have standing to assert either a free exercise or establishment claim. 

Ohio School District Sues Feds Over Accommodation For A Transgender Student

A lawsuit was filed today in federal district court by an Ohio school district challenging the Justice Department and Department of Education's interpretation of Title IX as it applies to transgender students.  Unlike the broad-ranging lawsuit filed last month by eleven states challenging the same interpretation, today's suit focuses on accommodation, inconsistent with the new federal guidelines, already made by one school for a transgender student. The student began transitioning from male to female identity between kindergarten and first grade. The school allows the student to use single use staff restrooms, and encourages others students in the class to do likewise. The student's legal custodian has complained, and the Department of Education has investigated and proposed that the school change its policy to allow the transgender student to use sex-specific facilities. The complaint (full text) in Board of Education of the Highland Local School District v. U.S. Department of Justice, (SD OH, file 6/10/2016), says:

Highland has acceded, and will continue to accede, to the requests of Student A’s legal custodian to respect Student A’s gender-identity choice by not interfering with Student A’s current gender expression. But Highland will not accede to requests that adversely impact the dignity, privacy, safety, well-being, or rights of other students.

If the government were to deny federal funding because of a violation of Title IX, this would cost the school district $1.12 million. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing or the lawsuit.

Judge Sentences Defendant To 12 Sundays of Baptist Services

Yesterday's Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the elaborate in-court discussion that led a Hamilton County, Ohio trial court judge to sentence defendant Jake Strotman, charged with attempted assault, to attend a local Baptist church for the next 12 Sundays.  He also paid $480 in court costs and $2800 in attorneys' fees.  The assault charge grew out of a brawl that developed outside a hockey arena between enthusiastic street preachers and hockey fans (including Strotman) who had been drinking at the game.  Strotman, a Catholic, is apparently happy with the sentence.

Court Issues TRO Against Ohio's Cutoff of Funding For Planned Parenthood

In Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio v. Hodges, (SD OH, May 23, 2016), an Ohio federal district court issued a two-week temporary restraining order barring the Ohio Department of Health and the Hamilton County Public Health Commission from enforcing Ohio Rev. Code § 3701.034.  That section requires the state department of health to ensure that funds it receives under six specific federal programs are not used to contract or affiliate with an entity that performs or promotes non-therapeutic abortions. The effect of the law is to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood to use for various women's health programs that do not involve abortion services in order to pressure Planned Parenthood to end performing or promoting abortions using other funding. The court concluded that it is likely plaintiffs will succeed in their claim that the statute imposes unconstitutional conditions on the receipt of federal funds:

Section 3701.034 allows ODH to leverage its control over government funds to prevent recipients of government funds from engaging in constitutionally protected speech and association, even if that speech is undertaken with private funds.

The court also found a likelihood of success on plaintiffs' claims that the law imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion and denies equal protection.  Cleveland Plain Dealer reports on the decision.

6th Circuit Remands RLUIPA "Equal Terms" Zoning Challenge

In Tree of Life Christian Schools v. City of Upper Arlington, (6th Cir., May 18, 2016), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed and remanded in a RLUIPA land use case, finding that material facts remain as to the application of RLUIPA's "equal terms" provision.  At issue is an Ohio city's refusal to rezone a large office building for use as a religious school. The office building is in an area zoned as an "Office and Research District" -- an area designed for uses that would maximize the city's tax revenues. The majority said in part:

The religious land use that TOL Christian Schools proposes is, we assume without deciding, deleterious to the purpose of the regulation at issue (which we assume to be increasing income-tax revenue). But the nonreligious uses that the government concedes it would allow seem to be similarly situated to the regulation..... [T]he government suggested at oral argument that it would prefer that [the property] be used for an ambulatory care center or outpatient surgery center. But we cannot assume as a fact... that an ambulatory care center (or an outpatient surgery center, or a data and call center, or office space for a not-for-profit organization, or a daycare) would employ higher-income workers than TOL Christian Schools would.... 

6th Circuit: Remaining Convictions In Amish Beard-Cutting Case Stand

In United States v. Mullet, (6th Cir., May 4, 2016), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed convictions of 15 members of the Bergholz, Ohio Amish community on charges of conspiracy, concealing evidence and lying to the FBI.  The convictions grew out of hair and beard-cutting attacks by one faction of the Amish community against other Amish. Originally defendants had also been convicted of hate crimes, but those convictions were reversed in an earlier appeal due to faulty jury instructions. The government chose not to retry defendants on those charges. (See prior posting.)  In yesterday's decision, the 6th Circuit held that because the challenges raised to the remaining convictions were not raised in the first appeal, they cannot be raised now.  The court also rejected various challenges to the sentences imposed by the trial court.  Reuters reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

University's Limits on Religious Speech Create 1st Amendment Concerns

In Faulkner v. University of Cincinnati, (SD OH, March 23, 2016), an Ohio federal district court refused to dismiss a suit against the University of Cincinnati by one of its former lower level administrators, Mark Faulkner, who was sent a "corrective action" letter from the University's Office of Equal Opportunity and Access.  The letter was issued after he made references to Jesus and Biblical teachings in a lecture on "servant leadership" that he was asked to deliver at a leadership training course.  In the letter, Faulkner was told that he  "should refrain from using biblical quotations during presentations and work related interactions." The court said in part:

The University’s asserted interest in avoiding an employee’s discomfort at hearing biblical references (or in another context, hearing references to Buddhist teachings or the Quran, or the principles of atheism) simply and plainly do not outweigh Faulkner’s interests in free speech and in the free exercise of his religious principles.

The court also refused to dismiss a vagueness and overbreadth challenge to the University's Discriminatory Harassment Policy.

Court May Decide Church Affiliation Dispute

In Ohio District Council, Inc. of the Assemblies of God v. Speelman, (OH App., Feb. 29, 2016), an Ohio state appeals court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not prevent civil courts from adjudicating the validity of action by a local church, known as Christian Assembly, disaffiliating itself from Assemblies of God and instead merging with (and transferring its property to) Fellowship of Praise Church of God.  After Christian Assembly took this action, Assemblies of God adopted a resolution declaring that it still had jurisdiction over the church and purporting to remove its pastor Dennis Speelman.  In holding that the trial court can decide the dispute, the appeals court said in part:

A judicial determination with respect to the significance of Christian Assembly’s affiliation involves no ecclesiastical issues. Here, the parties have presented evidence of constitutions, by-laws, applications for affiliation, as well as ample testimony regarding the structure of the presbytery. The resolution of that matter does not involve the weighing of any controversies concerning religious doctrines, tenets, or practices....

The trial court was not called upon to determine whether Speelman should be pastor or to determine matters of religious concern. Rather, the trial court was called upon to determine which body was authorized to make those determinations and to defer to the determination of the authorized body. 

Court Invokes Ecclesiastical Abstention To Dismiss Church Members' Claims of Financial Mismanagement

In Harrison v. Bishop, (OH App., Dec. 18, 2015), an Ohio appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit brought by three members of the Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church against directors and the senior pastor of the church.  The plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached their duties under the church's constitution by mismanaging the church's finances, wrongfully withholding financial statements and refusing to permit members to examine the church's books and records. The court said in part:

Appellants cite select provisions in the Constitution that they allege give rise to appellees’ duties....  While it is true that the Constitution contains apparently secular provisions, we cannot view those provisions in isolation, thereby ignoring the ecclesiastical content that is found throughout the document. In view of the patently religious nature of the church’s Constitution, we find that reliance upon provisions within the Constitution for determination of the rights and responsibilities of the parties in this case, under auspices of “neutral principles of law,” would necessarily entangle the trial court in ecclesiastical issues over which the court has no subject matter jurisdiction under the First and Fourteenth Amendments....

Further, we find that appellants, in filing this action, are essentially seeking to utilize the power of the civil courts to institute the termination and replacement of the church’s leadership.

Cincinnati Enacts Conversion Therapy Ban

Last Wednesday, Cincinnati, Ohio followed four states and the District of Columbia in passing a ban on providing conversion therapy aimed at changing the sexual orientation of young people who are gay or lesbian. Cincinnati Enquirer reports that the new law imposes a $200 per day fine on violators. City Council passed the ordinance by a vote of 7-2 in the wake of the suicide death a year ago of a transgender teen who cited the conversion therapy she had been subjected to in her suicide note. During the comment period on the proposed ordinance, 21 people spoke against the bill on religious and free speech grounds.  One Baptist clergyman said: "This Council will create another another type of bondage for something people themselves have a right to seek liberty from."

Ohio Supreme Court Board Issues Advisory Opinion On Judges' Refusal To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

The Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct has issued an advisory opinion on Judicial Performance of Civil Marriages of Same-Sex Couples.  In Opinion 2015-1 (Aug. 7, 2015), the Board concluded:

A judge who performs civil marriages may not refuse to perform same-sex marriages while continuing to perform opposite-sex marriages, based upon his or her personal, moral, and religious beliefs, acts contrary to the judicial oath of office and Jud. Cond. R. 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.11, and Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(g).

A judge who takes the position that he or she will discontinue performing all marriages, in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples based on his or her personal, moral, or religious beliefs, may be interpreted as manifesting an improper bias or prejudice toward a particular class. The judge’s decision also may raise reasonable questions about his or her impartiality in legal proceedings where sexual orientation is at issue and consequently would require disqualification under Jud. Cond. R. 2.11.

The Board refused to address questions regarding assignment or rotation of judges conducting marriages at a court.

Yesterday's Columbus Dispatch reported on the advisory opinion. The issue was highlighted in Ohio last month when Toledo Municipal Court Judge C. Allen McConnell's bailiff told a same-sex couple who had been issued a marriage license that McConnell does not do "these types of marriages." (See prior posting.)

Ohio Police Department Will Continue Hijab Ban

The Columbus, Ohio Police Division has decided to continue its ban on officers wearing headscarves, despite publicity earlier this year about a Somali-American Muslim recruit who dropped out of the department's police academy because of the ban on her wearing a hijab.  According to yesterday's Columbus Dispatch, Deputy Police Chief Michael Woods explained the decision:

We want to interact with all members of the community without a preconceived notion of who we are. We strive to be a nonpolitical, nonreligious organization.

The assistant city attorney representing the Police Division says that case law supports the continued headscarf ban, pointing to the 2007 Pennsylvania federal district court decision in Webb v. City of Philadelphia. (See prior posting).

Trial Judge's Opening With Pledge of Allegiance Does Not Violate Establishment Clause or Due Process

In State of Ohio v. Daniels, (OH App., March 16, 2015), an Ohio appeals court affirmed the drug possession and drug trafficking conviction of Michael Daniels, Jr., who, among other things, argued that the trial court erred when it required the parties and the jury at his trial to recite the Pledge of Allegiance that invokes a Supreme Being in violation of the Establishment Clause. He also urged that the Pledge amounts to a required loyalty oath that violates the due process clause.  The court held that, first, Daniels waived any challenge by failing to object to the Pledge when the court announced that it would be recited. It continued:

[E]ven if the waiver doctrine did not apply herein, appellant provides no definitive case law holding that the use of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, particularly when made part of a customary courtroom recitation, constitutes an impermissible State endorsement of monotheistic religion ..., and he further fails to articulate how an appellate reversal of his conviction would be the proper remedy for such an alleged constitutional violation.

Responding to Daniels' due process argument, the court quoted from a 2004 federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion:

 "We recognize that trial judges, among their many other responsibilities, should take care not to create the impression that it is appropriate for the judge or the jury to favor the prosecution simply because the court and the prosecution are both institutions of the United States. However, we do not think it reasonable to suppose that the jurors inferred from the Pledge of Allegiance a patriotic obligation to serve as a rubber stamp for the prosecution...."