Court Dismisses Some Challenges To ED Rule Protecting Student Religious Organizations

In Secular Student Alliance v. U.S. Department of Education, (D DC, Jan. 15, 2025), plaintiffs challenged a rule promulgated by the Department of Education in 2020. The rule prohibits universities receiving Education Department grants from denying any student religious organization any right, benefit or privilege available to secular groups because of the religious organization's "beliefs, practices, policies, speech, membership standards, or leadership standards, which are informed by sincerely held religious beliefs." The D.C. federal district court dismissed two of plaintiff's claims: that the rule was ultra vires agency action and that it was in excess of the agency's statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court held that a "sense of Congress" provision in 20 USC §1011a which says that no college student should be excluded from participation in any activity because of the student's protected speech or association, does not impose a limitation on the Department's rulemaking. The court said that the phrase is "a suggestive guideline, rather than a mandatory limitation...." The court left open to still be decided "whether the Rule is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of the agency discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law...." ADF issued a press release commenting on the decision.

University' Rescission of Agreement with Church Did Not Violate Equal Protection or Free Exercise Clauses

In Calvary Chapel Belfast v. University of Maine System, (D ME, Jan. 10, 2025), a Maine federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order requiring the University of Maine to move ahead with negotiations with Calvary Chapel for the sale to the Church of the University's satellite campus in Belfast, Maine, known as the Hutchinson Center. Originally the University awarded the Church the right to negotiate terms and conditions for the purchase. Competing bidders, as well as some in the community, objected to the award. The University rescinded the award and ultimately awarded the right to purchase to another bidder. The Church filed suit alleging Equal Protection and Free Exercise violations. Rejecting those claims, the court said in part:

The Church argues the comments of the public and the other bidders, combined with what the Church alleges were procedural anomalies in the System’s process, demonstrate the System made its decision to rescind its initial award to the Church because of the Church’s religious status and views, and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause....

[T]he only evidence the Church produces that demonstrates religious bias comes wholly from parties outside the University of Maine System. However, ... rather than adopting the community’s animosity toward the Church, the System here specifically rejected such bias. The System, in its August 22, 2024 press release, responded to the comments expressing religious animosity as follows: “[t]he university cannot discriminate, including on the basis of religion. Doing so would be against the law and inconsistent with the university’s commitment to inclusion.”...

None of the Church’s cited authorities stand for the proposition that the Court can conclude solely from public opposition that the System violated the Equal Protection Clause for following its own stated procedures to rescind the award to the Church. The fact that there was religious animosity present in the community and even argued to the System as a basis for appeal cannot mean the System is locked into a decision that it determined would result in a substantial net financial loss....

The Church’s arguments that it will likely succeed on its Free Exercise Clause claim rely on the same arguments it makes in support of its Equal Protection Clause claim....

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Against Moratorium Delaying Building of Mosque

In Zikar Holdings, LLC v. Ruhland, (D MN, Dec. 26, 2024), a Minnesota federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the city of Lino Lakes from enforcing a one-year moratorium on development of an area of the city where plaintiffs had proposed to build a housing development that included a mosque. Plaintiffs contended that the moratorium was motivated by discriminatory intent in violation of the free exercise clause, RLUIPA and the Fair Housing Act. The court said in part:

Here, Plaintiffs are likely to show that the Moratorium might have delayed Plaintiffs’ ability to build a place of worship and potential future residences near it in the northwest corner of Lino Lakes.  The language of the Moratorium, however, places no permanent restrictions on Plaintiff’s ability to build anything and, perhaps more importantly, it places no restriction on Plaintiff’s ability to seek development of a mosque elsewhere in the City or to worship elsewhere in the City.  Plaintiffs have therefore not shown that they are likely to prove the Moratorium was a “substantial burden” on their ability to practice Islam....

On this evidence, the Court believes a reasonable juror could infer that the Moratorium was pretextual.  However, the evidence presented at this stage, prior to discovery, is not so strong that it satisfies the heightened Rounds standard.  The motives and beliefs of the council members, as well as the basis for the timing of the Moratorium decision remain unknown at this stage, and absent additional circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that supporting the Moratorium reflected the importance of complying with the 2040 Plan and prudent infrastructure and resource planning.  Thus, the Court concludes that this factor is neutral, weighing neither in favor of nor against granting Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion.....

White House Releases National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate

Earlier this month (Dec. 12), the White House released a U.S. National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate (full text). The 67-page document says in part:

Islamophobia is hatred, discrimination, or bias directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslim. It can have a profound negative impact on people of all ages and backgrounds, threatening their personal safety and their ability to fully exercise their constitutional rights. This Strategy also seeks to counter hate targeting Arab Americans because they are Arab. It is important not to conflate Muslims with Arabs and Sikhs, who also often experience unique forms of hate, bias, and discrimination because of who they are, not because they are perceived to be Muslims.  

This Strategy sets forth actions to counter hate, discrimination, and bias affecting these communities, remaining mindful of their unique experiences. We have listened to community and civil society leaders, as well as subject matter experts from various backgrounds throughout the development of this Strategy, and they have shared both their common and distinctive concerns.  

For far too long, it has been common to conflate Arabs and Muslims. As we note in this Strategy, the majority of Arab Americans are not Muslim, and the vast majority of Muslim Americans are not Arab. Arab Americans practice a number of religions, including Christianity and Islam, and they are ethnically and racially diverse. Throughout this Strategy, we identify unique challenges facing Arab Americans and emphasize the importance of avoiding conflation with other communities, even as we put forward a number of common strategies to address many forms of hatred.

AP reported on the release of the National Strategy.

Yeshiva Denied Preliminary Injunction Against Zoning Enforcement

In Anash, Inc., d/b/a Wyoming Valley Yeshiva v. Borough of Kingston, (MD PA, Dec. 19, 2024), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to an Orthodox Jewish Yeshiva whose property was condemned because it was being used for a school and dormitory in violation of zoning ordinances. The court concluded that plaintiff was not suffering irreparable harm, and that it was not likely that plaintiff would succeed on the merits of its challenge to the relevant zoning ordinance. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs also provide no support for their assertion that Rabbi Hellinger’s inability to access the Properties impairs his religious freedom, ability to act as a religious leader to others, or others’ freedoms. Defendants are not refusing to allow Rabbi Hellinger to practice his religion in any manner or gather with members of his congregation in any location other than the Properties.... Plaintiffs concede that they have been able to secure temporary alternative locations to gather to study Torah and engage in religious activities.... While Plaintiffs testified that the temporary or alternative locations do not allow for the same level of participation or consistency, the Court does not find that such imperfections show “irreparable harm.”...

Importantly, Plaintiffs have refused to engage in any sort of efforts to compromise or come to a resolution with the Borough....

The parties agree that the seminal issue for Plaintiffs’ religious discrimination claims, asserted under RLUIPA, the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause, all require this Court to determine if Plaintiffs can show evidence that the Zoning Ordinance restricts their freedom of religion in some way, that Defendants’ actions were somehow motivated by animus, or that Plaintiffs were treated differently than similarly situated individuals based upon their religion.... Plaintiffs have not established any of these scenarios....

Plaintiffs can and have practiced their religion in alternative locations and may, but have not, apply for a variance to use the Properties as a school, dormitory, or house of worship.... There is no convincing evidence that Plaintiffs’ freedom of religion is legitimately burdened. Further, even if they had shown such evidence, the Zoning Ordinance is the least restrictive manner of furthering a compelling government regulatory interest in health and safety,... 

2nd Circuit: Lawyers Have Standing to Challenge Bar Rule That Limits Comments on Transgender and Religious Subject Matter

In Cerame v. Slack, (2d Cir., Dec. 9, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Connecticut lawyers have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a state Rule of Professional Conduct which prohibits lawyers from engaging in harassing or discriminatory conduct against members of various protected classes in the practice of law. It bars harassment or discrimination on the basis of  race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status. Commentary to the Rule defines discrimination as including harmful verbal conduct directed at an individual that manifests bias or prejudice. The attorneys allege that they often speak out on legal blogs, in articles and legal seminars in ways that could be construed as personally derogatory.  According to the court:

Moynahan and Cerame ... allege... that “[t]here are numerous examples of speech” fully protected by the First Amendment that members of the Connecticut bar will be reluctant to engage in, given the fear of a misconduct complaint...."  These include using “the pronoun associated with a transgender individual’s biological sex when addressing that individual”; using the term “‘gender preference’ rather than ‘gender orientation’”;  ... and publishing cartoons that “satiri[ze] or mock[]” “a religious deity”..... 

Appellees argue that the commentary to Rule 8.4, providing that an attorney “does not violate paragraph (7) when the conduct in question is protected under the first amendment to the United States constitution,”  ...“unambiguously shows that the Rule does not proscribe protected speech”....

Although the First Amendment carve-out may make it more likely that the SGC will conclude that some speech that would otherwise fall within the text of Rule 8.4(7) is not in fact proscribed, the carve-out is not enough, on its own, to render Appellants’ fear of a misconduct complaint and its professional repercussions “imaginary or wholly speculative” for Article III purposes...

At this stage in the proceedings, Appellants have alleged plausibly that they intend to engage in speech proscribed, at least arguably, by a recently enacted, focused regulation.  This gives rise to a credible threat of enforcement.

Reuters reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Hears Arguments on Youth Ministry's Access to State Grants

Last week (Nov. 20) the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Youth 71Five Ministries v. Williams (video of full oral arguments). In the case, the state of Oregon canceled $410,000 in grants to Youth 71Five when the state discovered that the Ministries only hires those that share its faith.  This violates of the state's "Certification Rule" that bars grantees from discriminating in their employment practices.  An Oregon federal district court denied the Ministries' request for a preliminary injunction.  In August 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal allowing 71Five to participate in the 2023-25 Oregon Youth Community Investment Grant Program. (See prior posting.) It also ordered an expedited schedule for briefing and arguing the appeal. That is the appeal which the 9th Circuit heard last week. World reports on the decision.

Eviction Did Not Violate Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

In Wexler v. City of San Diego, California, (SD CA, Nov. 4, 2024), a California federal district court rejected plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was evicted from rental property he had occupied for a few days. The court said in part:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dup-A-Key harmed him by changing the rental unit’s door locks on the Sabbath....  Plaintiff alleges harm from Defendant Rough Rider Real Estate because he “had to record” Defendant’s employee drilling of a “No Trespass” sign onto the property on the Sabbath.... Plaintiff further alleges harm from Defendant Police Officers because the alleged unlawful eviction occurred on the Sabbath....  However, these actions are not violations under the Free Exercise Clause.  Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants Dup-A-Key and Rough Rider Real Estate were government entities.  Nor does Plaintiff sufficiently allege that any government policy was not neutral or not generally applicable.  Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s First Amendment § 1983 claims against all Defendants with leave to amend.

The court also rejected a variety of other challenges to the eviction alleged by plaintiff, including a claim that police officers discriminated against him because he mentioned to them that he was an Orthodox Jewish person.

Lufthansa Fined $4M For Discrimination Against Jewish Passengers Flying On Pilgrimage To Hungary

On Oct. 7, a Consent Cease-and-Desist Order (full text) was issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation imposing civil penalties of $4 million on the air carrier Lufthansa for religious discrimination against Jewish passengers traveling to Budapest in 2022 to participate in the annual pilgrimage to the shrine of the so-called "miracle rabbi" Yeshaya Steiner (known as Rabbi Shayele). (Background). The airline received a credit for $2 million that it had already paid to passengers.

Some 128 identifiably Orthodox Jewish passengers were on a flight from New York, with a connection in Frankfurt to go on to Budapest. They were all barred from boarding the connecting flight in Frankfurt after some 60 of the passengers refused on the first leg of the flight to comply with the Covid-related requirement to wear masks on the flight and some also gathered in aisles and near exits. The DOT Consent Order said in part:

Lufthansa’s decision to affix an HPC [High Priority Comment] to the reservations of nearly every passenger traveling in a group to Budapest without limiting such affixation to those passengers who Lufthansa verified failed to follow crew instructions on LH 401, which did not comport with Lufthansa’s own boarding procedures, directly resulted in the inability of the passengers to travel on the flights they purchased. As such, Lufthansa took action that had an adverse effect on these passengers whose only affiliation with each other was that they were of the same religion and/or ethnicity. 

Lufthansa’s actions impacted passengers who did not engage in problematic conduct. OACP finds that, under the totality of the circumstances, Lufthansa’s treatment of the 128 Jewish passengers as a collective group, based on the alleged misconduct of a smaller number of those individuals, constitutes discrimination based on religion in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 40127.

DOT issued a press release announcing the Consent Order. AP reported on the Consent Order. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

10th Circuit: School Administrator Fired Over Religious Comments Has Discrimination, But Not Retaliation, Claim

 In McNellis v. Douglas County School District, (10th Cir., Sept. 10, 2024), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of retaliation claims by a high school Assistant Principal/ Athletic Director, but reversed dismissal of his religious discrimination claims under Title VII and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.  Plaintiff Corey McNellis was fired after he complained about the depiction of Christians in an upcoming school play about the 1998 hate-motivated murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. The court concluded the McNellis's speech was not protected by the 1st Amendment because it was made in the course of performing his official duties. It also concluded the McNellis's complaints about being investigated because of his Christian beliefs were not the cause of his firing. In allowing plaintiff to proceed with his discrimination claims, the court said that plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Court Grants Injunction to Jewish Students at UCLA Impeded by Gaza Protests

In Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, (CD CA, Aug. 13, 2024), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction in a suit brought by Jewish students at UCLA who were blocked from accessing portions of the campus by pro-Palestinian encampments protesting Israel's retaliation in Gaza. The court said in part:

In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. This fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. UCLA does not dispute this. Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters. But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not allow services to some students when UCLA knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion....

Under the Court’s injunction, UCLA retains flexibility to administer the university. Specifically, the injunction does not mandate any specific policies and procedures UCLA must put in place, nor does it dictate any specific acts UCLA must take in response to campus protests. Rather, the injunction requires only that, if any part of UCLA’s ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas become unavailable to certain Jewish students, UCLA must stop providing those ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas to any students. How best to make any unavailable programs, activities, and campus areas available again is left to UCLA’s discretion.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

De Facto Exclusion of Catholic Schools From Tuition Grant Program Through Antidiscrimination Law Survives Strict Scrutiny

In St. Dominic Academy v. Makin, (D ME, Aug. 8, 2024), a Maine federal district court, in a 75-page opinion, refused to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of Maine's educational and employment antidiscrimination laws in a suit brought by a Catholic diocese, a Catholic school and a Catholic family. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Maine could not exclude parochial schools from participating in its program that pays tuition for certain out-of-district students. While that litigation was pending, the Maine legislature amended state law to provide that schools receiving state funds could not discriminate on the basis of religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. This had the effect of excluding Catholic schools. Plaintiffs contend that this violates their free exercise rights.

The court concluded that the statute must meet strict scrutiny review because it is not a generally applicable law.  However, the court found that the statute survives struct scrutiny, saying in part:

 As a general matter, Maine’s asserted interest in eliminating discrimination within publicly funded institutions is compelling....

Furthermore, all the challenged provisions are written to prohibit only discriminatory conduct.  Under the provisions, “St. Dominic would still be free to conduct morning prayers however it wants, teach from a Catholic perspective, and promote Catholicism to the exclusion of all other religions.”... While the Plaintiffs put forth a number of policies and practices that arguably violate the challenged provisions, at this early stage—no state court has interpreted Chapter 366—it is not sufficiently clear the Act would reach any conduct that the state does not consider discriminatory.... 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Chapter 366 survives strict scrutiny.  In reaching this result, the Court is mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition that a “law that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment or advances legitimate governmental interests only against conduct with a religious motivation will survive strict scrutiny only in rare cases.” ...  However, “rare” does not mean “never.”  Based on the record before it at this preliminary stage, the Court determines that the weighty interest advanced by the Defendants and the tailoring of Chapter 366 to fit that interest support a determination that Chapter 366 is likely to survive strict scrutiny....

In reaching its conclusions, the Court has discussed and decided the difficult constitutional questions presented.  At the same time, the Court recognizes that this case poses novel constitutional issues and ... the Court has attempted to frame its opinion as a prelude to a challenge to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for a more authoritative ruling.

[Post corrected to accurately reflect the scoope and timing of the Maine legislation.]

Jury Must Decide Whether School Board Had Religious Animus

In Pines Church v. Hermon School Department, (D ME, July 31, 2024), a Maine federal district court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment.  Pines Church sought to enter a 12-month lease to use space at Hermon High School for Sunday religious services.  The School Committee offered only a month-to-month lease. Plaintiffs claimed that the denial of a long-term lease was motivated by animus against their orthodox Christian religious beliefs. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs rely on the relatively blatant bias and the inferences that arise from the interrogatories posed by one Committee member who demanded to know from Pastor Gioia the Church’s “position” on a spate of religious, political, and cultural flashpoints before evaluating whether to extend a lease on behalf of a publicly funded school.  Plaintiffs also rely on a somewhat more tepid bias, sanitized through fear-of-association comments by others, along the lines that association with the Church may not fit with the Committee’s “goals” and may therefore create a “negative image” by not comporting with the School Department’s “mission” and evidently its own beliefs.  This evidence certainly is probative of Plaintiffs’ position that the School Committee’s refusal to offer Plaintiffs a lease was motivated by unconstitutional considerations, such as animus toward the Church’s orthodox religious beliefs.  For its part, the School Department counters that the School Committee’s decision, save for the one Committee member’s bill of particulars put to the Pastor, simply resulted from humdrum, benign space and cost concerns, although that narrative is far from conclusive based on the summary judgment record.  These competing characterizations of the Committee’s motivations form the most conspicuous reason I deny summary judgment to the parties in favor of a jury trial.

Jewish Women Lack Standing in Religious Freedom Challenge to Kentucky Abortion Restrictions

In Sobel v. Cameron, (KY Cir. Ct., June 28, 2024), plaintiffs, three Jewish women, alleged, among other things, that the lack of exceptions for complications during pregnancy and lethal fetal anomalies in Kentucky's restrictive abortion laws impinge on their willingness to follow their religious obligations to expand their families in a manner that does not jeopardize their health or the health of their unborn children. Plaintiffs say that "In Judaism, having children is considered a blessing, and the commandment to be fruitful and multiply is paramount." Plaintiffs alleged that the abortion statutes are unconstitutionally vague, violate the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act and reflect sectarian Christian views that denigrate Jewish practice. A Kentucky state trial court dismissed the case, saying in part:

... [T]he alleged injuries of the three Plaintiffs are hypothetical as none are currently pregnant or undergoing IVF at the present time. Accordingly, the Court simply cannot find that the plaintiffs have shown "the existence of an actual controversy respecting justiciable questions which is a required condition precedent for a declaratory judgment action.... Therefore, the Court must conclude that the Plaintiffs here lack standing to proceed in this action.

NPR reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

9th Circuit: Homeowner's Intrusive Christmas Display at Center of Fragmented Decision on Fair Housing Act Claims

 In Morris v. West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association, Inc., (9th Cir., June 17, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed an Idaho federal district court's rejection of a jury's verdict against a Homeowner's Association charged by plaintiff with violating provisions of the Fair Housing Act. At issue was efforts by the Homeowners Association to prevent plaintiffs from purchasing a home in the subdivision because of plaintiffs' plans to put on at their home a multi-day Christmas festival with thousands of lights, a live nativity scene, costumed characters and a real camel, all in order to raise funds for charity. A letter from the Homeowners Association to plaintiffs included a sentence reading: "And finally, I am somewhat hesitant in bringing up the fact that some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith and I don’t even want to think of the problems that could bring up."

Judge Berzon's opinion, reflecting the conclusion of a majority of the 3-judge panel, held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of religious discrimination in violation of §3604(b) the Fair Housing Act, saying in part:

... [T]o support a disparate treatment claim, plaintiffs must be able to point to some concrete adverse impact suffered as a result of the defendants’ behavior.  The Morrises have pointed to no such harm.

Similarly she held that the evidence did not support claims of a violation of §3604(c), saying in part:

Viewing the letter as a whole, an ordinary reader would understand the Board to have indicated a preference, limitation, or discrimination based not on whether the prospective homeowners were themselves religious or nonreligious, Christian or atheist, but on whether the event they proposed to host once a year would disturb the neighbors, both by its size and raucousness and by offending non-Christians. 

However, the court upheld the jury's conclusion that the Homeowners Association violated §3617 of the Act, saying in part:

The Board’s letter to the Morrises could reasonably be read to indicate that the program’s association with the Christian faith was one consideration in the Board’s opposition to the show....

These statements sufficiently support an inference by the jury that an anti-Christian purpose was at least a motivating factor in the Board’s conduct regarding the proposed Christmas event, independent of any other concerns also underlying that conduct.  And given this permissible inference, there was sufficient evidence for the jury rationally to conclude that the Board interfered with the Morrises’ exercise of their right to purchase and enjoy their home at least in part because of their religious expression, and therefore violated § 3617 of the FHA.

Judge Berzon went on to conclude that on the facts of this case, the Homeowners Association was not liable for harassing conduct of subdivision residents.

Judge Tashima dissented in part, contending that the district court correctly granted judgment for the Homeowners Association on all claims because the Homeowners Association's concern was with the size and scale of the Morrises' holiday events, not with the Morrises' religion.

Judge Collins dissented in part saying that he would have affirmed the jury's finding of liability on all the Morrises' claims.

Court Upholds Firing of Nurse with Religious Objections to Flu Vaccine

In French v. Albany Medical Center, (ND NY, June 12, 2024), a New York federal district court upheld a hospital's firing of a nurse who refused for religious reasons to receive the flu vaccine. Plaintiff based her religious exemption claim on teachings of the "Israelite" religion which she adopted in 2018. Rejecting plaintiff's claim that the hospital violated Title VII by refusing to accommodate her religious beliefs, the court said in part:

[T]he Court concludes that Plaintiff's requested accommodation was not reasonable as it was a blanket exemption request which would have allowed her to continue interacting with staff and vulnerable patients while unvaccinated. This exemption would have caused an undue hardship on Defendant.

The court also rejected plaintiff's claims of disparate treatment and retaliation, saying in part:

Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that her religion was a motivating factor in Defendant's decision to suspend and terminate her.

Rabbi Sues Homeowners' Association for Blocking Synagogue Construction

Suit was filed last week in a Florida federal district court by a Chabad rabbi and related plaintiffs charging a Homeowners' Association with religious discrimination in violation of state and federal Fair Housing Acts and civil rights protections. The complaint (full text) in Hertzel v. Loggers' Run, Inc., (SD FL, filed 5/17/2024), alleges in part:

This action arises out of a campaign by the HOA... to discriminate against the Hertzels and, more broadly, to slow the growth of Jews within the Loggers’ Run planned residential community..... 

The campaign began when the Hertzels began exploring the possibility of constructing a synagogue within Loggers’ Run, which they proposed locating near multiple similarly situated churches attended by HOA board members and residents. This synagogue is essential to the growth of the Orthodox Jewish community within Loggers’ Run because central tenets of that faith prohibit driving to religious services on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. Members of the HOA Board intervened to prevent the HOA from even considering the Hertzels’ proposal.... Although the HOA would eventually muster pretextual reasons for the rejection, individual members of the HOA and its agents were shockingly honest, explaining that the HOA “didn’t want Jews” in Loggers’ Run and, more recently, that a synagogue would be constructed over then-HOA Board President Harp’s “dead body.”

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Religious Discrimination Claim for Denial of Personal Leave Moves Ahead

In Balchan v. New Rochelle City School District, (SD NY, May 7, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss claims of religious discrimination, retaliation for submitting claims of religious discrimination, and a due process claim for stigmatization plus loss of employment. Plaintiff is a Jewish woman who was employed as the school district's Medial Director. At issue are disciplinary charges brought against her for allegedly using personal leave days for a vacation and the stigmatizing report by a hearing officer in connection with those charges. The court details the factual background in part as follows:

Plaintiff observes Jewish holidays including, but not limited to, Yamim Nora’im (a/k/a the “Days of Awe”), Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur..... Plaintiff alleges that her personal scheme of things religious evolved over the course of her life, and that marriage to her Trinidadian husband resulted in her “meld[ing] many of her Jewish religious beliefs into her new Trinidadian identity.” ...

... Specifically, Plaintiff’s “personal scheme of things religious required that she take personal leave during [the Days of Awe] to adjust, meditate, repair her connection to [God], and re-focus . . . .” Accordingly, she planned a trip with her family to Trinidad and Tobago which she alleges was “religious in nature given its relation to the Jewish high holy days” and what had been going on in her personal and professional life....

8th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Employee's Religious Discrimination Claim Over Objection To LGBTQ+ Display Online

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Snyder v. Arconic Corp. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Iowa federal district court in Snyder v. Arconic Corp., (SD IA, Aug. 31, 2023), dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by an employee who was fired for placing a post on the company's intranet objecting to a rainbow-colored heart on the company's intranet publicizing a support group for LGBTQ+ employees. The employee's post read:  "Its a (sic.) abomination to God. Rainbow is not meant to be displayed as a sign for sexual gender." He contended that the post was religiously motivated. The district court held that the employee had not shown a conflict between his religious practices and the company's diversity policy. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the oral arguments.

Tennessee Passes Law Banning Religious and Ideological Discrimination by Banks and Insurance Companies

The Tennessee legislature this week gave final approval to HB 2100 (full text) which prohibits banks and insurance companies from denying or cancelling services based on a customer's religious beliefs, practices or affiliations or the customer's political opinions, speech or affiliations. The bill also bans financial institutions and insurance companies from discriminating against customers based on a number of other factors such as firearm ownership, failure to meet environmental standards, or support of the government in combatting illegal immigration, drug trafficking or human trafficking. However, the bill permits financial institutions or insurance companies that claim a religious purpose to provide or deny service based on a customer's religious beliefs, exercise, or affiliation. The bill now goes to Governor Bill Lee for his signature. ADF issued a press release on the passage of the legislation.