5th Circuit, 11-6, Denies En Banc Rehearing on Availability of Damages Under RLUIPA

In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, (5th Cir., Feb. 5, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a vote of 11-6, denied an en banc rehearing in a RLUIPA suit seeking damages from officials in their individual capacities. Judge Clement, joined by 8 other judges, filed an opinion concurring in the denial, saying in part:

Officials at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center knowingly violated Damon Landor’s rights in a stark and egregious manner, literally throwing in the trash our opinion holding that Louisiana’s policy of cutting Rastafarians’ hair violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act before pinning Landor down and shaving his head. Landor clearly suffered a grave legal wrong. The question is whether a damages remedy is available to him under RLUIPA. That is a question only the Supreme Court can answer.

Judge Ho, joined by Judge Elrod, filed a dissent to the denial. Judge Oldham, joined in whole or part by 5 other judges, also filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The panel held RLUIPA does not allow prisoners to sue state prison officials in their individual capacities for money damages. With all due respect to my esteemed and learned colleagues, that result cannot be squared with Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. 43 (2020). Tanzin held that individuals can sue for money damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”). The operative provisions of RFRA and RLUIPA are in haec verba, and both the Supreme Court and ours routinely interpret the statutes in parallel. Today, unfortunately for Landor, our court pits the statutes against one another. I respectfully dissent.

Rastafarian Police Officer's Free Exercise Claim May Move Ahead

In Taylor v. City of New Haven, (D CT, March 10, 2023), a Rastafarian police officer sued claiming religious and disability discrimination after being denied an exemption from the police department's grooming policy. While dismissing a half dozen of plaintiff's claims largely on procedural and jurisdictional grounds, the court permitted him to move ahead with his First Amendment free exercise claim for damages, saying in part:

The plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to show that the general order at issue burdened his religious conduct..., and that the order lacked general applicability, both because it invited individualized exemptions... and because the City of New Haven permitted secular conduct contrary to the general order.... Thus, the plaintiff has alleged facts which, if true, demonstrate that the general order is subject to strict scrutiny and that the government can achieve its interests in a manner that does not burden religion. Consequently, for purposes of this stage of the case, the plaintiff has shown that he had a right protected by the First Amendment.

EEOC Sues For Rastafarian Who Was Denied Grocery Manager Position

The EEOC has announced that yesterday it filed a Title VII religious discrimination suit against a Williamsburg, Kentucky IGA grocery store.  The suit, filed in a Kentucky federal district court, alleges that the grocery refused to hire Spiritualist Rastafarian Matthew Barnett as an assistant manager after he refused to cut his dreadlocks which he wears for religious reasons. The EEOC says that employers must consider reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs.

Eviction of Church Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Schworck v. City of Madison, (WD WI, May 6, 2021), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed a suit for damages brought against city officials by The Lion of Judah House of Rastafari and its founders who claim that their eviction from their leased premises violated their rights under RLUIPA, the free exercise clause, the equal protection clause and other provisions. The premises served as a homeless shelter, and a location for the church which distributed cannabis to members in exchange for donations. The lessees were never able to obtain a certificate of occupancy allowing them to operate the former retail store site as a church. The court said in part:

[N]ot only have plaintiffs failed to link to any land use regulation a substantial burden, but they have failed to submit evidence of a substantial burden on their religious practices altogether, thus defeating both plaintiffs’ RLUIPA and First Amendment claims on the merits....

In particular ... plaintiffs’ asserted substantial burden on their religious practices is the October 16, 2019, eviction from the property. Critically, they do not take the position that (1) compliance with the City’s municipal ordinances would violate their religious beliefs, (2) the costs and inconvenience of compliance posed a substantial burden, or (3) the uncontested municipal court proceedings created a substantial burden on their ability to exercise their religious beliefs....

[E]ven assuming that defendants or any City officials treated plaintiffs’ unfairly during the permitting or inspection process (and again, the evidence does not support such a finding), a reasonable trier of fact would have no basis to conclude that treatment impacted the October 16, 2019, eviction from the property on this record.

Wisconsin State Journal has more on the decision.

11th Circuit: Rastafarian Paramedic Was Offered Reasonable Accommodation

In Bailey v. Metro Ambulance Services, Inc., (11th Cir., April 6, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an ambulance company had offered a Rastafarian paramedic a reasonable accommodation of his religious beliefs as required by Title VII. The court said in part:

AMR offered Bailey a reasonable accommodation. It provided Bailey with the opportunity to maintain his beard and to work on the non-emergency-transport side of its operations, for which DeKalb County’s facial-hair policy did not apply. Had Bailey accepted the offer, his salary, hours, and job description would have remained the same as if he had worked either exclusively on the emergency side or on both the emergency and non-emergency sides of AMR’s operations. As a result, his terms and conditions of employment would not have been affected by the accommodation AMR offered.

Judge Rosenbaum filed a concurring opinion. [Thanks to Joshua Sarnoff via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Summary Judgment Denied In Rastafarian's Title VII "Failure To Accommodate" Claim

 In EEOC v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., (MD TN, Aug. 20, 2020), a Tennessee federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to the EEOC which claims that Publix Supermarkets refused to accommodate Guy Usher's Rastafarian religious beliefs that require him to wear his hair in dreadlocks. The court held that disputed issues of fact remain as to whether the Usher informed Publix that its grooming policy conflicts with his religious beliefs, and that factual questions remain as to whether Usher holds sincere religious beliefs on the matter. The court also allowed the EEOC to move ahead with its failure-to-hire claim, but not with its constructive discharge claim.

4th Circuit: Rastafarian Inmate Can Move Ahead With His Suit Over Solitary Confinement

Smith v. Collins, (4th Cir., July 10, 2020), is a suit by a Rastafarian inmate who spent over four years in solitary confinement for refusal to cut his hair. The inmate, Elbert Smith, says that his religion does not permit him to do so. The court, vacating the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, said in part:

we hold that there is at least a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Smith’s conditions of confinement imposed a significant and atypical hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Specifically, on remand, the district court should consider in the first instance, and after further discovery, whether the process that Smith received was constitutionally adequate and whether the Defendant-Appellees are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity.

6th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Rastafarian Inmate's Diet and Fasting Claims

In Koger v. Mohr, (6th Cir., July 7, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Ohio federal district court's dismissal of two religious accommodation claims brought by a Rastafarian inmate. The court concluded that officials had not offered adequate justification for refusing to provide an Ital diet (organic food, vegetarian no soy).  The court also concluded that plaintiff had asserted a valid equal protection claim as to refusal to accommodate Rastafarian fasting days:

Koger stated that he “fasted during Ramadan in the past because it occasionally aligns with the fasting days observed by Rastafarianism” and because ODRC did not allow him “to fast as a Rastafarian . . . without being subject to discipline.”

The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to dreadlocks and inability to commune with other Rastafarians.

4th Circuit: Inmate Fails To Prove Causation In His RLUIPA And Free Exercise Claims

In Wright v. Lassiter, (4th Cir., April 17, 2019), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Rastafarian inmate's claims that his rights under RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment were infringed when prison officials rejected his request to celebrate four annual religious holidays through communal feasts and three others that do not include feasts. The court, holding that "plaintiff must show that the prison's policies imposed a substantial burden on his exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs," concluded that plaintiff failed to show the required causation:

...Wright’s causation problem stems from the fact that he has requested communal gatherings and feasts. There is no such thing as a community of one, and Wright agreed at oral argument that he was not seeking a feast for himself alone. He therefore had to show that, but for the policies that allegedly prohibit the requested holiday gatherings, other inmates would join in the gatherings.... There was no testimony showing that any other Rastafarian at Central Prison or any other North Carolina prison had joined in his requests to celebrate in the manner he requested or would attend his gatherings if they were held....

Rastafarian Minister's Trespass Arrest did Not Violate His Free Exercise Rights

In Brown v. Jordan, (WD AR, Feb. 14, 2019), a Rastafarian minister sued over his arrest that grew out of his picketing for passage of a medical marijuana issue on the 2016 Arkansas ballot. The court rejected his claim that his arrest violated his free exercise rights, saying in part:

In this case, Plaintiff was advocating for the passage of the Medical Marijuana Act. While the Act's passage would, in his view, pave the way for his church to lawfully use marijuana in its ceremonies, his advocacy did not itself involve his exercise of a religious belief. Furthermore, the officers who arrested him appeared at the Flash Market in response to a claim that Plaintiff was trespassing, as he had remained on the Flash Market property after having been asked to leave and was bothering the customers. No action the officers took on October 16, 2016 inhibited Plaintiff from practicing or exercising his religious beliefs. Therefore, no free exercise claim is stated, and this claim is dismissed.

Suit Seeking Cannabis Exemption For Rastafari Moves Ahead In Iowa

An Iowa state trial court has denied a motion by the Iowa Board of Pharmacy to dismiss a suit brought against it claiming that it abused its discretion when it refused to recommend to the state legislature an exemption for religious use of cannabis by Rastafari.  (Order in Olsen v. Iowa Board of Pharmacy, (IA Dist. Ct., Nov. 16, 2018). Links to all the pleadings in the case as well as to audio of oral arguments are available here. (See prior related posting.)

Staffing Agency Settles EEOC Suit Over Accommodation of Rastafarian

HospitalityStaff, a company that places employees in central Florida's hotel industry, has settled a religious discrimination claim filed against it by the EEOC. According to EEOC's June 14 press release:

The EEOC's lawsuit charged that HospitalityStaff violated religious discrimination law by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to Courtnay B. Joseph, a Rastafarian, when it required him to cut his dreadlocks to comply with its client's grooming standards in order to keep his position at an Orlando-area hotel. The EEOC said that HospitalityStaff took Joseph off his assignment and never reassigned him.

Under the settlement, the company will pay Joseph $30,000 in damages, will adopt a clear policy on religious and disability accommodation, will provide training to managerial and HR personnel, and will report to the EEOC for 3 years.

8th Circuit Upholds Solicitation Ban At Revenue Offices

In Brown v. Arkansas Department of Administration, (8th Cir., Feb. 3, 2017), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a Rastafarian minister challenging a no-solicitation policy at certain state Revenue Offices.  The ban prevented the minister from continuing to setup a table on the lawn of a revenue office to seek signatures for a ballot initiative on the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act. (See prior posting.)  The appeals court held that the private property immediately surrounding the revenue office was a nonpublic forum, that the ban was reasonably related to the State’s interest in running revenue offices, and was viewpoint neutral.

EEOC Sues For Rastafarian Fired From Disney World Hotel

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against HospitalityStaff, an Orlando, Florida based staffing company that fired Courtney Joseph, a Rastafarian employee who was assigned to work as a prep cook at a Walt Disney World resort hotel.  Joseph grew his hair into dreadlocks because of his religious beliefs.  For over a year, he worked with his dreadlocks tucked under his hat. However after a 2013 inspection of the kitchen by a Disney staff member for compliance with the company's appearance standards, the staffing company told Joseph he must cut his hair. When he refused, he was fired. The lawsuit alleges that HospitalityStaff made no effort to accommodate Joseph's religious beliefs. Orlando Sentinel reports on the lawsuit.

Rastafarian Minister Loses Fight To Solicit Ballot Signatures At Revenue Office

In Brown v. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration, (WD AR, April 8, 2016), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed an action by Rev. Tom Brown, a Rastafarian minister, challenging a recent no-solicitation policy imposed by the state at certain Revenue Offices. For over a year Brown had stationed himself at a table on the lawn of the Fayetteville Revenue Office seeking signatures for a ballot initiative on the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act.  A number of patrons had filed police reports complaining of Brown's behavior. The court held that the solicitation ban is a reasonable restriction on speech in a non-public forum, saying in part:

As the ban is reasonably designed to promote the normal business activities of the State’s revenue offices and is viewpoint-neutral, the Court finds that the ban does not violate Rev. Brown’s constitutional rights. The ban does not prevent Rev. Brown from canvassing in other public forums, such as on city sidewalks, in plazas, or in parks. Similarly, Rev. Brown is still free to express to others his ideas about marijuana use, his religious faith, and the benefits of signing the ballot initiative he supports. 

Marijuana Possession Conviction of Rastafarian Does Not Violate Free Exercise Clause

In State of New Jersey v. Forchion, (NJ App., Aug. 7, 2015), the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division in an appeal of a conviction for possessing marijuana rejected a claim by a Rastafarian that his First Amendment free exercise rights are infringed by criminalizing the possession of cannabis which is a sacrament used in his faith.  The court held that the statute is neutral and generally applicable, and "the fact that marijuana may be medically prescribed for some New Jersey citizens does not create a secular exemption that triggers strict scrutiny analysis."

International Travel Limits In Custody Order Did Not Violate Rastafarian Parent's Rights

In In re the Paternity of Y.K.S., (WI Ct. App., June 11, 2015), a Wisconsin appeals court upheld a provision in a joint custody order barring Jesse Schwork from traveling internationally with his son to any country that is not a signatory to the Hague Abduction Convention.  Schwork, a practicing Rastafarian, argued that this would prevent him from taking his son to religiously significant sites.  The court rejected his argument, saying in part:

Schworck’s argument that the circuit court should have granted him a hearing and that it was required to apply strict scrutiny in crafting the travel restriction is premised on his assertion that the travel restriction infringes on his right to provide religious instruction to Y.S. We see no such infringement because the travel restriction does not prohibit Schworck from raising Y.S. in the Rastafarian faith....

Assuming, without deciding, that travel to Kenya and Ethiopia would be beneficial to raising Y.S. in the Rastafarian faith, we reject the proposition that the circuit court was required to hold a hearing to determine whether the travel restriction infringed on Schworck’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion. Both the United States Supreme Court and our supreme court ... have recognized that the First Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to act in conformity with his or her religion in all circumstances.

Company Settles EEOC Suit; Rejected Rastafarian Applicant Gets $50K In Damages

The EEOC announced Tuesday that Mims Distributing Co., a Colorado-based beer distributor, has agreed to settle an EEOC suit filed against it on behalf of a Rastafarian applicant for employment.  Mims refused to hire Christopher Alston as a delivery driver unless he would cut his hair.  Under a consent decree, Mims will pay $50,000 in damages, adopt a formal religious accommodation policy and conduct annual anti-discrimination training.