The purpose of the hat is that he wore it because he was visiting the 9/11 Memorial. He was paying spiritual tribute to the victims of 9/11. The Make American Great Again hat was part of his spiritual belief.After hearing arguments, the judge took a short break and then ruled from the bench:
Plaintiff does not state any faith-based principle to which the hat relates.
There is plenty of evidence that they agitated against plaintiff, or for his removal, on the basis of his religion, but there is none that suggests they played some formal role in the City’s dealings with plaintiff. Complaints and gossip, even lots of it, do not arise to the level of involvement necessary to establish the necessary causative link.
does not contain sufficient factual allegations from which the court can reasonably infer that A.M. was subject to unequal disciplinary treatment based on his religion or race....Daily Caller reports on the decision.
The applicant had used expressions which were highly insulting to members of an ethnic group, such as “this stinking Christmas”, “get rid of the danger behind our backs”, “the city centre should then be slowly cleansed” and “Serbs who came from different shitholes live there”.Rejecting applicant's argument that his conviction violated Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court said in part:
31. The Court notes that the applicant’s conviction amounted to an “interference” with his right to freedom of expression. An interference contravenes Article 10 of the Convention unless it is “prescribed by law”, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10, and is “necessary in a democratic society” for achieving such an aim or aims.
32. The interference in the present case was prescribed by law; namely, it was based on Article 160 § 1 of the 2003 BD Criminal Code... Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that it pursued at least one of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 10 § 2 – namely the protection of the reputation and rights of others.
33. The Court reiterates that freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to Article 10 § 2, it applies not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no “democratic society”. As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, but these must be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly....
Defendants were clearly harassing Duffin about his religion, and trying to test his adherence to his beliefs – especially when they invited him to a night club and sent women to his hotel room to proposition him for sex. Such actions were boorish and entirely inappropriate. In doing so, they likely intended to discourage Duffin from practicing his religion and following the tenets of his faith, by presenting him with opportunities to act contrary to his religious beliefs. But, their actions do not rise to the level of coercion or substantial pressure to modify Duffin’s behavior, which is needed to establish a free exercise of religion claim.The court asserted supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. In connection with plaintiff's negligence claim, the court certified a question of law to the Idaho Supreme Court. The court dismissed plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and denied summary judgment on his claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Mohad Athar says he was subjected to racial slurs and false performance reviews after a new chief executive officer, Michael Glickman, was hired in 2016.
Under the guise of this anti-bullying program, Defendants have fallen in with [CAIR] to set up a subtle, discriminatory scheme that establishes Muslim students as the privileged religious group within the school community. Consequently, students of other faiths are left on the outside looking in, vulnerable to religiously motivated bullying, while Muslim students enjoy an exclusive right to the School District’s benevolent protection.
Here, plaintiff fails to allege facts plausibly supporting a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation. Although plaintiff contends that she was treated differently than other Lucille Roberts members on the basis of her religion, the factual allegations only suggest that she was treated differently because she insisted on wearing an article of clothing that, according to defendant, was inappropriate gym attire.... Nowhere does the complaint allege that defendant selectively enforced its dress code against Jewish women.... There is no indication ... that claims grounded solely in disparate impact—and lacking any allegation of discriminatory intent—are cognizable under Title II.Consumerist reports on the decision.