Discrimination Suit By Jewish Woman Denied Admission To Social Work Program Moves Ahead

In Weiss v. City University of New York, (SD NY, March 18, 2019), a New York federal district court allowed a Jewish woman to move ahead with several racial and religious discrimination claims against City University of New York and its trustees, as well as against several administrators, growing out of the denial of plaintiff's application for admission to the school's Master of Social Work program.  Faigy Weiss was raised in the Hasidic Satmar community in New York, with Yiddish as her first language.  She alleges that the Dean for Diversity and Compliance told her that the social work school "conducted the group admissions interviews to weed out conservatives, because Trumps and Cruzes can’t be social workers" and that "Jews from religious backgrounds are too conservative to be social workers." The court held that these allegations sufficiently state an equal protection claim for discrimination based on race and religion, a claim under Title VI, and an Establishment Clause claim.

Colorado and Masterpiece Cakeshop Agree To End Their Litigation

In a press release yesterday, the Colorado Attorney General's Office announced that the state and Masterpiece Cakeshop have agreed to end their battle over the right of a bakery owner to refuse to design cakes celebrating LGBT events. As previously reported, while the U.S. Supreme Court appeal involving Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillip's refusal to design a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony was pending, another customer, Autumn Scardina, sought a cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop to celebrate her gender transition. Phillips refused and the Commission issued a probable cause determination.  In response, Phillips filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the Commission was targeting him in violation of his constitutional rights.  In yesterday's announcement, the state said:

Under the terms of the agreement, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission will voluntarily dismiss the state administrative action against Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips, and Mr. Phillips will voluntarily dismiss his federal court case against the State.... This agreement does not affect the ability of Autumn Scardina ... to pursue a claim on her own.

“After careful consideration of the facts, both sides agreed it was not in anyone’s best interest to move forward with these cases. The larger constitutional issues might well be decided down the road, but these cases will not be the vehicle for resolving them. Equal justice for all will continue to be a core  value that we will uphold as we enforce our state’s and nation’s civil rights laws,” said [Attorney General] Weise...

ADF, which represents Phillips, issued a press release yesterday saying that the dismissal of litigation comes "in the wake of newly discovered evidence of the state’s ongoing hostility toward religious freedom."

Suit Challenges Religious Requirements Permitted In South Carolina Faith-Based Foster-Care Agencies

A lawsuit was filed Friday by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of a Catholic woman challenging actions by the federal government and the state of South Carolina that permit foster-care placement agencies to use religious criteria for approval of foster care families.  The complaint (full text) in Maddonna v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D SC, filed 2/15/2019) challenges the waiver from the religious discrimination ban in federally funded foster-care programs that the Department of Health and Human Services granted to the state of South Carolina last month. (See prior posting.) It also challenges a March 13, 2018 executive order by the Governor of South Carolina (Executive Order 2018-12) permitting licensed faith-based foster-care child-placement agencies to limit recruitment and training of foster parents to those who share the same faith as the agency. Plaintiff in the case, Aimee Maddonna, was refused participation in a foster care volunteer program by Miracle Hill Ministries because Miracle Hill required participants to be born-again Christians who belong to a Protestant church. The suit alleges Establishment Clause, equal protection and due process violations. AP reports on the lawsuit.

HHS Exempts South Carolina Foster Care From Religious Anti-Discrimination Rule

In a letter (full text) dated Jan. 23, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services granted the state of South Carolina an exemption so that faith-based foster care placement agencies operating in the state (such as Miracle Hill Ministries) can receive federal funds even though they select foster parents on the basis of religion.  HHS emphasized that the anti-discrimination requirements found in its rules are broader than those in the Foster Care Program statute which only bars discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in selection of adoptive or foster parents. HHS said it had determined that requiring faith-based agencies to comply with the non-discrimination provision would be inconsistent with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However such agencies would be required to refer them to other agencies that do not use religious criteria, at least so long as such referrals do not violate the agency's religious beliefs. Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the HHS action.

Mobile Home Park Seeks To Require Resident To Remove Portrait of Virgin Mary

In Bradenton, Florida, a mobile home park, Bradenton Tropical Palms, has filed a demand for arbitration with the state's Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes in an attempt to require an 85-year old Catholic woman to remove a portrait of the Virgin Mary from the outside of her mobile home.  York Dispatch reports that the woman commissioned an artist to create the plywood painting which she installed to replace a window.  She contends that the park's enforcement attempt is anti-Catholic, and that she was targeted because of her religious beliefs. Management says she has failed to comply with park rules regarding her window replacement-- her filed paper work did not include a request for a change in appearance or design.

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In Title VII Religious Discrimination Jurisdictional Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review on a procedural issue in a Title VII religious discrimination case--  Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, (Docket No. 18-525, certiorari granted, 1/11/2019). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the the requirement that a person exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a Title VII action is not jurisdictional.  This meant that the county's delay in raising the defense of exhaustion could result in its forfeiting its right to raise the defense. (See prior posting.) Here is SCOTUSblog's case page giving links to the filings with the Supreme Court in the case.

California City Settles Officer's Religious Discrimination Suit Against Police Chief For $2.3M

AP reports that last Friday the city of Beverly Hills, California agreed to pay $2.3 million to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought against it by Police Capt. Mark Rosen.  Rosen, who is Jewish, contends that Police Chief Sandra Spagnoli, through restructuring of the command staff, denied him opportunities for promotion because of his religion.  At least 20 other complaints of discrimination of various sorts have been filed against Chief Spagnoli since 2016. Rosen retired immediately after the suit was settled.

Claim Filed Against Airbnb For Its Delisting of West Bank Rentals

As reported by the New York Times, last week Airbnb under pressure from Palestinian officials, anti-settlement advocates and human rights groups announced that it is removing listings for rentals in Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  In response, yesterday an arbitration claim (pursuant to the arbitration clause in Airbnb's terms of service) was filed against Airbnb by an Israeli company owned by a resident of New York.  The Statement of Claim (full text) in Bibliotechnical Blue & White Ltd. v. AIRBNB, Inc., (Amer. Arbitration Assoc., filed 11/26/2018) alleges in part:

Claimant recently registered as a user of Respondent's services. This was done in the City of New York. Claimant would like to purchase or purchase or lease property in Judea & Samaria and list it with Respondent's services using computer services in the City of New York. Thus, Respondent's policy is discriminatorily preventing Claimant from using Respondent's services in the City of New York....

Respondent has violated the New York City and New York State human rights laws by discriminating on the basis of religion, national origin and/or citizenship and also by engaging in a discriminatory boycott.

Legal Insurrection blog reports in more detail on the case.

Jury Awards $75,000 To Couple Whose Christmas Program Was Opposed By Homeowners Association

The Spokane Spokesman-Review reports that a federal court jury in Idaho last month awarded $60,000 in compensatory damages and $15,000 in punitive damages against a Homeowners Association that attempted to block a resident from setting up an elaborate Christmas display. The jury, in the case which attracted national media attention when filed, found that the Homeowners Association engaged in religious discrimination in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act when it sent a letter to Jeremy and Kristy Morris telling them that if they wanted to move into the neighborhood they would need to cancel plans for their annual 5-day Christmas celebration.  The celebration features elaborate decorations, live music, and live animals, draws thousands of people, and raises money for charities benefiting children suffering from cancer and abused children. The HOA letter, in addition to claiming that the celebration would violate lighting and noise rules, added: "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."  This was portrayed by some media as part of the so-called "war on Christmas." More details on the lawsuit and photos of the celebration are at The Daily Mail and the Coeur d'Alene Press.

No Free Exercise Violation In Ban of Patron From City Swim Club

In White v. Simpson, (WD AR, Oct. 10, 2018), an Arkansas federal district court dismissed plaintiff's claims that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was banned from the premises of a city aquatic club.  The ban was based on his distracting lifeguards and his sexually harassing them verbally.  Plaintiff claimed that his rights were infringed because he was carrying on religious discussions with one of the lifeguards and gave the lifeguard a gift with a "Jesus loves you" message in it. The court found that none of the defendants knew of the religious nature of the discussions, so there was no evidence that he was banned because of his religion or the content or viewpoint of is speech.

Rabbi Sues Condo Association For Religious and Disability Accommodations

Jersey Shore Online reports on a lawsuit filed yesterday in New Jersey federal district court by a retired Orthodox rabbi against his condominium association claiming religious and disability discrimination. Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz moved to the Jackson, NJ senior living community with his two sons in 2016.  All three are confined to wheelchairs because of complications from diabetes. Lefkowitz seeks permission to build a Sukkah -- a temporary structure for the Fall holiday of Sukkot-- that is larger than the association bylaws permit in order for the structure to be wheelchair accessible. He is also asking that a path be built between the sidewalk and a nearby gate that is currently kept locked.  He wants the gate equipped with a Sabbath-accessible lock so he and his sons can get to religious services.

Court Rejects EEOC's "Pattern or Practice" Claims Against Meat Packer

In EEOC v. JBS USAA, LLC, (D CO, Sept. 24, 2018), a Colorado federal district court in a 95-page opinion issued after a 16-day trial dismissed the EEOC's claims that JBS Swift & Co. meat packers engaged in pattern and practice of discrimination against Muslim employees. The suit claimed that the company had refused to reasonably accommodate Muslim employees' needs during Ramadan to pray and break their fast; that employees were disciplined on the basis of religion, national origin and race; and that JBS retaliated against a group of black, Muslim, Somali employees for opposing discrimination during Ramadan. In rejecting the reasonable accommodation claim, the court said in part:

The EEOC presented numerous instances of employees given verbal or written warnings for “unauthorized breaks” that other evidence indicated may have been in relation to prayer.... But, in spite of JBS’s progressive discipline policy, there was no evidence that any such reprimanded employees were ultimately suspended or terminated as a result of such verbal or written warnings.

Therefore, lacking evidence that any employee suffered a detriment to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . religion” in relation to discipline imposed for unscheduled prayer breaks, the Court concludes that the EEOC has failed to prove its claim that JBS’s policy constituted an unlawful pattern or practice of discrimination.

The discriminatory discipline and retaliation claims were rejected on other grounds.

Protestant Navy Chaplains Lose Discrimination Lawsuit

In In re Navy Chaplaincy, (D DC, Aug. 30, 2018), a D.C. federal district court granted summary judgment for the U.S..Navy in a long-running suit by non-liturgical Protestant Navy chaplains alleging discrimination against them. The court summarized the facts and its holding:

Plaintiffs’ primary claim is that, until 2002, the Navy maintained an unconstitutional policy of placing at least one Roman Catholic chaplain on every selection board, which resulted in Catholic chaplains being promoted at a disproportionately high rate compared to other religious groups. Plaintiffs also challenge a host of other allegedly unconstitutional selection-board policies and procedures—some of which, plaintiffs claim, continue to this day. Finally, plaintiffs challenge a statute that privileges selection-board deliberations from disclosure in litigation, arguing that it is unconstitutional as applied to their case because it denies them access to information that they need to prove their constitutional claims. To redress these wrongs, plaintiffs—each of whom was either passed over for promotion or selected for early retirement by a board that was allegedly tainted by one or more of the challenged procedures—seek an order directing the Navy to reinstate them to active duty, if necessary, and to convene new, properly constituted selection boards to reconsider the personnel actions taken against them....

To a considerable extent, the result in this case is dictated by prior rulings.... Consequently, there is little left to do here but to apply those standards ... which, as explained below, does not even come close to showing the degree of discrimination required for plaintiffs’ challenges to succeed. Likewise, this Court has already twice considered and twice rejected plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to the statutory privilege for selection-board proceedings...

Muslim School Sues City Over Harassment At City Pool

A Muslim school in Wilmington, Delaware has filed suit against the city alleging religious discrimination against students in the school's summer day camp by personnel at the city's swimming pool.  According to yesterday's Delaware Public Media, pool workers harassed pre-school students in the summer program of Darul Amaanah Academy because of the students' religious attire. Pool workers say they were enforcing a no-cotton policy, but parents say that children were traumatized.

Chautauqua Cottage Community Eliminates Christian-Only Clause

As previously reported, last year a suit was filed in Michigan federal district court against the Bay View Association, a Lake Michigan summer community with roots in the Chautauqua Movement, challenging provisions in the Association's rules that limit cottage ownership to practicing Christians. Now, according to the Grand Rapids News, nearly 70% of the members of the Association have voted to amend its bylaws to eliminate the requirement that members be of the "Christian persuasion."

8th Circuit Orders Dismissal of Trial Judge's Suit Over His Sitting On Death Penalty Cases

In In re Kemp, (8th Cir., July 2, 2018), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote issued a writ of mandamus essentially ordering an Arkansas federal district court to dismiss a suit against seven justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court brought by Wendell Griffen, a state trial court judge. The Arkansas Supreme Court had ordered Griffen, who is also a Baptist minister, taken off of all cases involving the death penalty or the state's execution protocol, citing an apparent lack of impartiality. Griffen had issued a temporary restraining order against the state's method of execution after he wrote a blog post criticizing the death penalty as immoral and took part in an anti-death penalty rally on Good Friday.  Griffen then sued in federal district court claiming infringement of his religious freedom as well as retaliation for exercising his free speech rights, and violation of his due process and equal protection rights. The district court refused to completely dismiss Griffen's lawsuit. (See prior posting.) The 8th Circuit held, however, that Griffen had not stated a plausible claim for relief under any of his theories.  Judge Kelly dissented, arguing that this is an improper use of mandamus.  Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports on the decision.

5th Circuit: Title VII Exhaustion Requirement Is Not Jurisdictional

In Davis v. Fort Bend County, (5th Cir., June 20, 2018), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the requirement that a person exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a Title VII action is not jurisdictional. It held that in this case, defendant "forfeited its opportunity to assert this claim" by waiting 5 years and an entire round of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court to raise the defense.  At issue is whether plaintiff exhausted her remedies on her religious discrimination claim, which she had added to her sex discrimination and harassment allegations.  Reuters reports on the decision.

Settlement Reached In Muslim Women's Suit Against California Restaurant

A settlement agreement (full text) was reached yesterday in a lawsuit filed in May 2016 (see prior posting) by 7 Muslim women against a Laguna Beach, California restaurant.  The women claimed they were singled out because they were Muslim and were told to leave for overstaying the restaurant's 45-minute rule. The settlement is described in an ACLU press release:

Seven Muslim women ejected from an Urth Caffe restaurant by its management have obtained a settlement agreement requiring the restaurant chain to hold diversity trainings for its employees and update its policies....

Urth Caffe has also agreed, under the settlement, to clarify its seating policy to ensure it is applied consistently to all customers and to include in its employee handbook a requirement that customer diversity be respected.

The restaurant chain also agreed to open its Laguna Beach location all day on June 16 with free drinks and desserts for all customers in a public celebration of Eid al-Fitr, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Therapist Sues After Dismissal For Refusing To Counsel Gay Couple

A religious discrimination lawsuit was filed last week in Michigan federal district court by a licensed clinical social worker against her former employer, HealthSource Saginaw.  The complaint (full text) in Lorentzen v. Healthsource Saginaw, Inc., (ED MI, filed 5/11/2018) alleges that Kathleen Lorentzen was informed that she would be terminated, and was subjected to demeaning, threatening and abusive actions, after she insisted on referring a same-sex couple to a different therapist for marriage counseling. Lorentzen says that continuing to counsel the couple would violate her Catholic religious beliefs. The complaint alleges violations of Title VII and of various state law provisions. Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Fair Housing Suit Filed Over Condo Rule Barring Toran

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports on a federal Fair Housing Act religious discrimination lawsuit filed on Wednesday in a Pennsylvania federal district court. Filed by a Hindu condo owner in an upscale high-rise Philadelphia building, the suit challenges a new rule adopted by the condo association which bars resident Akhilesh Tripathi from keeping a toran on his door.  The Hindu toran, made of chains, bells and balls of fabric, and blessed by a Hindu priest, has hung across his door frame since 2009.  The condo association's new rules permit certain religious symbols, particularly mezuzahs, to be attached to door frames, but does not allow Tripathi's toran.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and damages.