Many Claims of Non-Liturgical Navy Chaplains Are Dismissed; Several Claims Survive

In In re Navy Chaplaincy, (D DC, March 16, 2016), a challenge to Navy procedures for selection and promotion of chaplains that has wound its way through the courts for over 16 years, the D.C. federal district court dismissed a substantial number of plaintiffs' claims.  The case has already generated over 20 decisions in the courts.  In the case (actually 3 consolidated cases), plaintiffs (Non-Liturgical Protestants) challenged both Navy policies and the practices of chaplain selection boards.  As explained by the court in its 59-page opinion:

[T]hey contend that the faith group categories recognized by the Navy are discriminatory and arbitrary..... In particular, they claim that the categories reflect neither religious demographics nor legitimate similarities or differences among the worship traditions represented.  Second, they allege that in the past ... the [Chaplain Corps] used religious quotas to apportion chaplain opportunities among various faith groups..... Third, Plaintiffs challenge a number of facially neutral personnel practices - both current and historical - that they believe have allowed religious bias to infect selection board outcomes.

The court dismissed most of plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing or on mootness or statute of limitations grounds. However the court allowed two former chaplains to proceed with their complaint that the Navy violated their free speech rights by interfering with their form of prayer. More specifically they allege that they were reprimanded for ending their prayer "in Jesus name." The court also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their non-selection for promotion claims.  In addition, the Navy did not seek dismissal of challenges to policies on the promotion and early retirement selection board process.

New Federal Inter-Agency Initiative On Religious Discrimination Launched

On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced  "Combating Religious Discrimination Today," a new inter-agency initiative to promote religious freedom, challenge religious discrimination and increase enforcement of religion-based hate crimes.  The new community engagement effort launched by 5 federal agencies, will lead a series of community round tables across the country.  The first was in Newark, New Jersey on Tuesday and focused on addressing bullying and religious discrimination in schools. Among those addressing the round table were Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. (Full text of remarks.)  Subsequent round tables are scheduled for  Dallas, Birmingham (AL), Detroit and Palo Alto (CA).  They will focus on topics such as hate crimes, employment discrimination and discrimination by local zoning officials.

Texas Bar Committee Backs Off Refusal To Certify Christian Ethics CLE Course

As reported by Catholic Education Daily, the State Bar of Texas Minimum Continuing Legal Education Committee last week backed off of its controversial refusal last November (see prior posting) to certify a religious-themed continuing legal education program for "Legal Ethics/ Professional Responsibility" credit.  Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had charged the Committee with religious discrimination after it refused to approve a St. Mary's law school professor's CLE program on "Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith and Law Today" for ethics credit.  In its January 12 letter (full text) to the professor, Bill Piatt, the Committee said in part:

It has become clear that the November 4 letter conveyed an unintended and incorrect impression regarding the MCLE Committee's position regarding the provision of credit for courses containing moral or religious content.  We take responsibility for and regret the miscommunication.

Ejected Muslim and Sikh Airline Passengers Sue

The New York Daily News reported yesterday that a federal lawsuit has been filed against American Airlines and two affiliated regional carriers by  four friends-- 3 Muslims and a Sikh-- who were ejected from a Toronto to New York flight last December because they made the stewardesses and the captain uneasy.  The flyers' appearance and the fact that two of them upgraded to business class just before boarding aroused suspicions in the crew.  Two of the ejected passengers were Bangladeshi Muslims, one an Arab Muslim and one a Sikh from India.  The lawsuit seeks $9 million in damages, claiming plaintiffs were discriminated against for looking too Muslim.

Settlement In Voter Registration Suit Brought By Disenfranchised Hasidic Jews

The Forward and JTA reported yesterday that a settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed last year against the Sullivan County, New York, Board of Elections by 27 Hasidic Jews whose voter registrations were among 156 in the Village of Bloomingburg that the Board of Elections had taken steps to cancel.  The Election Board claimed that the voters were not really residents of the Village, which had a population of only 420 in the 2010 census. (See prior posting.)  Under the settlement agreement the names will remain on the voter rolls.  This is part of a larger dispute over the building of a high density 396-unit apartment development in Bloomingburg that will be marketed to members of the Satmar Hasidic community.

UPDATE: A Feb. 2 report by the New York Post says that the settlement, which the court has approved, includes the appointment of a monitor for 5 years to oversee the voting process (including review of the voter challenge questionnaire). Also voting materials and signs will be in both Yiddish and English. The county will pay damages of $25,000 and $550,000 in attorneys' fees.

Maritime Park Worker Sues After Being Fired For Helping With Baptism

Courthouse News Service reported last week on a religious discrimination suit filed in a California federal district court.  A maintenance worker at the Maritime National Historic Park in San Francisco, who is also a Baptist minister, says he was fired for helping to baptize a visitor in the ocean.  The baptism took place while the minister Roger Holly was on his lunch break and was not in uniform. Holly, who is African-American, had previously complained about racial discrimination.

Texas Gov. Abbott Accuses State Bar's CLE Committee of Religious Discrimination

Texas Lawyer reported yesterday that Texas Governor Greg Abbott has now weighed in on a refusal by the State Bar's Minimum Continuing Legal Education Committee to certify a law professor's continuing legal education program for "Legal Ethics/ Professional Responsibility" credit.  Under Texas MCLE rules, all lawyers must take 15 hours per year of continuing legal education, 3 hours of which must be in legal ethics/ professional responsibility.  The State Bar's Accreditation Standards provide:

"Legal Ethics and Legal Professional Responsibility" shall include, but not be limited to the accreditation of those topics involving disciplinary rules of professional conduct, rules of disciplinary procedure, and the use and availability of alternative dispute resolution and pro-bono services....

"Legal Ethics and Legal Professional Responsibility" shall not include programs or topics that deal with government or business ethics, individual religious or moral responsibilities, training in personal organizational skills, general office skills, time management, leadership skills or stress management.

Applying these standards, the State Bar's MCLE Committee refused to approve St. Mary's law school professor Bill Piatt's CLE program on "Christian Ethical Perspectives: Faith and Law Today" for ethics credit. Sponsors of the program are appealing to the State Bar of Texas board of directors.  Gov. Abbott's general counsel has written to the State Bar president urging a change in the definition of "legal ethics" in the MCLE rules, contending that the current definition is "based on a shallow and impoverished understanding of legal ethics and an unduly narrow view of legal education."  He suggested that the refusal to accredit could be seen as religious discrimination against the program sponsors.  A week later, Gov. Abbott posted a blunter statement on his Facebook page:

I'm accusing Texas State Bar of religious discrimination for denying continuing education credit for Christian legal ethics programs. The Texas State Bar leaders should be compelled to read my winning arguments upholding the Ten Commandments and "One Nation Under God."

The parties are meeting next week to try to work out a solution before the Jan. 21 appeal hearing.

Muslim Student Sues Missouri Prof Over Alleged Bigoted Comments

Yesterday's Missourian reports on a lawsuit filed Nov. 30 against University of Missouri biology professor Michael Garcia by Fatma El-Walid, an observant Muslim student who was in one of Garcia's classes.  The suit, seeking $25,000 in damages, claims that the professor directed offensive and bigoted comments at the student during office hours, resulting in trauma that impacted her grades and the loss of a scholarship. According to the report:

The lawsuit alleges that ... Garcia asked El-Walid if her parents had waterboarded her "as a child in preparation for the future," wanted to know if her faith made her hate gay people and Jews, suggested she should pose as a suicide bomber and made sexually suggestive remarks, among other comments.

Garcia's lawyer says his client denies the charges.

Challenge To Gun Store's "Muslim Free Zone" Dismissed For Lack of Imminent Injury

In CAIR Florida, Inc. v. Teotwawki Investments, LLC, (SD FL, Nov. 24, 2015), a Florida federal district court dismissed a religious discrimination suit brought by a Muslim advocacy organization against a gun store and firing range whose owner announced (through a YouTube video) that it was implementing a "Muslim Free Zone."  The suit alleged that the declaration by Florida Gun Supply violates Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation. (See prior posting.) The court held however that the announcement -- which was seen on national television-- did not threaten imminent harm.  The court agreed with defendant's contention that:

[T]here are no facts demonstrating that Plaintiff was (or will be) unlawfully discriminated against. There are no facts demonstrating that Plaintiff has attempted to purchase a firearm from Defendant and was denied on the basis of its religion or has attempted to attend a gun safety class and was denied on the basis of its religion or attempted to do anything at Defendant’s retail gun store and was denied on the basis of religion. And there are no allegations that Plaintiff will attempt to do any such activities at Defendant’s retail gun store in the future and be unlawfully denied on the basis of religion. Thus, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to demonstrate actual present harm or a significant possibility of future harm as required by Article III.

American Freedom Law Center, which represented defendants, issued a press release announcing the decision. Its press release described the announcement by Florida Gun Supply as a "refusal to equip Islamic terrorists." WND reports on the decision.

Muslim Woman Can Move Ahead With Suit Against Bus Driver Who Evicted Her

In Louis v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, (ED NY, Nov. 6, 2015), a New York federal district court held that a Muslim woman, Maria Louis, could proceed to trial with her retaliation and intentional discrimination claims against a bus driver who insisted that Louis-- who was wearing a burqa that covered her face-- move further back in the otherwise empty bus.  When she refused, the driver had Louis removed by the police.  Louis claims she was standing a seat length behind the driver who called her "scary" and who ordered her to leave the bus when she told him she was a Muslim and had a right to practice her religion. The driver insists that Louis was standing illegally on the white line in the front of the bus and became confrontational when he asked her to move. He says he did not know whether he was dealing with a man or woman because of the burqa. The court dismissed claims against the MTA and the city.

7th Circuit Upholds Muslim Woman's Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Claims

In Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, (7th Cir., Oct. 21, 2015), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the district court, held that a Muslim woman's hostile work environment and retaliation claims should not be dismissed.  Fozyia Huri, a Saudi native employed by a state court as a child care attendant, complained particularly about her treatment by her supervisor, Sylvia McCullum, who is a devout and vocal Christian.  When Huri filed internal complaints about her treatment, she was transferred to the court reporter's office where her supervisors continued to treat her badly in retaliation for her complaints. AP reports on the decision,

In Ireland, Non-Catholic Students Have Difficulty Locating A School

The Guardian reported yesterday on efforts in Ireland to obtain repeal of the provision in Section 7 of the Equal Status Act 2000 which allows state-funded schools operated by religious institutions to give preference to, or  in some cases limit admission to, members of the denomination sponsoring the school.  Some 90% of state-funded schools in Ireland are run by the Catholic Church. They give preference to students who have been baptized.  Many non-Catholics are finding it extremely difficult to locate a good school for their children.  The main secular schools are run by an organization known as Educate Together.  But its 74 schools do not have enough places for all their applicants. More than 16,000 people have signed a petition that will be presented to Parliament.  They argue that the Equal Status Act provision violates Article 44.2.3 of Ireland's Constitution which prohibits government discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.

Fitness Club Sued For Barring Long Skirts Worn For Religious Reasons

New York Jewish Week and The Jewish Voice report on a lawsuit filed in New York federal district court last week by an Orthodox Jewish woman charging the Lucille Roberts fitness chain with religious discrimination.  The women's-only chain of gyms barred 25-year old Yoserfa Jalal from wearing a fitted knee-length skirt while working out.  When Jalal, a teacher, insisted on wearing the skirt in compliance with Orthodox Jewish rules of modesty, the chain revoked her membership. Lucille Roberts says: "Our decision to uphold a dress policy, consistent with industry standards and equipment manufacturers, is not an attempt to hinder any personal religious beliefs."

Suit In Israeli Court Charges Administration of Temple Mount Violates Religious Discrimination Ban

Arutz Sheva and JNS reported yesterday on an interesting lawsuit filed this week in Israel in Jerusalem's District Court.  Jewish activist and attorney Baruch Ben-Yosef has sued the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and the Islamic Movement group in Israel, essentially claiming that they are violating Israel's equivalent of a public accommodation law by limiting Jewish access to the Temple Mount.

The suit alleges violation of an Israeli law enacted in 2000 that prohibits operators of public sites from barring admission on the basis of religion, race, nationality, gender or political affiliation. The suit charges defendants with discriminatory practices against Jews on the Temple Mount. Jewish access is limited to certain times, and Jewish prayer on the Mount is banned. The suit charges that inciting of violence on the Temple Mount is aimed at decreasing Jewish visitors.  The suit also challenges Jordan's claim of sovereignty over the Temple Mount in light of Israel's control over the site taken in the 1967 Six Day War. The Temple Mount is currently administered by the  Islamic Waqf that is controlled by Jordan.  However security is handled by Israeli police.

UAE's New Law Bars Discrimination, Hate Speech and Insulting of Religion

The National reports that on Monday the United Arab Emirates adopted the Anti-Discriminatory Law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, creed, doctrine, race, color or ethnic origin. The new law also bans actions that promote religious hatred or insult God, his prophets or apostles or holy books or houses of worship or graveyards. It prohibits hate speech or the promotion of discrimination or violence against others using any form of media.

27 Members of Congress Urge New AG To Help Strengthen Anti-Profiling Ban

Yesterday 27 members of Congress sent a letter (full text) to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging stronger limits on religious and ethnic profiling than are set out in December 2014 guidelines issued by her predecessor Eric Holder. While the 2014 guidelines for the first time extended anti-profiling restrictions to national origin, gender, gender identity, religion, and sexual orientation (see prior posting), yesterday's letter pointed out a number of weaknesses in those guidelines: they are only advisory and do not offer victims any remedy; they still permit surveillance in order to map and infiltrate Muslim communities based on religious identity; and they do not cover profiling at airports, borders or by state and local officials.  The letter urged Lynch to work with Congress to adopt a comprehensive federal anti-profiling program. [Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

Suit Charges Mall With Rejecting Christian Bookstore

In Missoula, Montana this week business owner Michael Burks filed suit against a local mall because it refused to allow him to open a Christian bookstore in retail space he was leasing. The complaint (full text) in Missoula Maulers, Inc. v. Southgate Mall Associates, (MT Dist. Ct., filed 5/11/2015), alleges that Burks became concerned about the profitability of a retail hockey store he was operating in the mall, and proposed replacing it with another of his businesses, a Christian bookstore. The mall refused.  The complaint alleges that the refusal was based on the store's status as a Christian bookstore, or "for some other malicious reason."  Helena Independent Record reports on the lawsuit.

Hasidic Jewish Property Owners State Claim Against City For Discriminatory Decision To Condemn Buildings

In Shkedi v. City of Scranton, (MD PA, April 1, 2015),  a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected a motion by the city of Scranton and its housing officials to dismiss a civil rights suit filed against them.  Plaintiffs who are the trustees of two trusts that own apartment buildings allege that the city's decision to condemn their buildings for code violations was motivated in part by the fact that defendants are practicing Hasidic Jews.  In concluding that plaintiffs had adequately stated a substantive due process claim, the court said that if defendants' action was motivated by plaintiffs' religion and ethnicity, this would amount to "conscience-shocking behavior." The court also concluded that plaintiffs had stated procedural due process, equal protection and retaliation claims.

Satanic Temple Urges "Discrimination Transparency" Amendment To Michigan's Proposed RFRA

Fox News reported earlier this month that in a creative response to Michigan's proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Detroit Chapter of the Satanic Temple is urging that a "Discrimination Transparency" amendment be added to the bill.  The proposed amendment would legally require businesses that serve the public to post any discrimination policy in effect in a conspicuous location visible to patrons and employees.  The Satanic Temple even furnishes on its website a downloadable sign that could be used by businesses.  It reads: "Due To Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs, Service Is Denied To _______".

Britain's Equality Commission Reports On Religion In the Workplace and Service Delivery

Yesterday Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission released a report on its Consultation launched last year seeking evidence on religious discrimination and accommodation in Britain. The 218-page report, titled Religion or Belief in the Workplace and Service Delivery, reports on information received from nearly 2500 individuals and organizations. Here is an excerpt from the Commission's summary of key findings:

Some employees or service users stated that they had experienced no or few negative issues in their workplace or in receiving a service which they attributed to the view of employers or service providers that religion or belief was a private matter and should not be discussed in the workplace or the service.

Some employees and students stated that they had encountered hostile and unwelcoming environments.... The issues raised concerned the recruitment process, working conditions, including the wearing of religious clothing or symbols, promotion and progression, and time off work for religious holidays and holy days. Some reported that particular beliefs were mocked or dismissed in the workplace or classroom, or criticised unwelcome 'preaching' or proselytising, or the expression of hurtful or derogatory remarks aimed at particular groups....

Many participants were concerned about the right balance between the freedom to express religious views and the right of others to be free from discrimination or harassment. Specific issues raised included conscientious objection in relation to marriage of same sex couples and how to protect employees from harassment and discrimination by staff, customers or service users with a religion. There was a marked divergence of opinion about when it was desirable and appropriate to discuss religious beliefs with service users during the delivery of a service.

The Commission's press release on the report emphasized some of the concerns expressed by respondents. The report is discussed further at Law & Religion UK blog.