On Friday, Virginia Governor Glen Younkin signed House Bill 1063 (full text) which defines "religion" as used in the state's anti-discrimination laws as:
"Religion" means all aspects of religious observance, practice, or belief.
ADF issued a press release on the new law.
Suit was filed yesterday in a Washington federal district court by two Alaska Air flight attendants who allege, under Title VII and state anti-discrimination laws, illegal religious discrimination, hostile work environment, workplace harassment and retaliation. The flight attendants were fired after they posted on an internal employee message board their opposition to the Airline's support for the federal Equality Act which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as groups protected against workplace discrimination. According to the complaint (full text) in Brown v. Alaska Airlines Inc., (WD WA., filed 5/17/2022):
3.... Marli and Lacey felt compelled by their Christian faith to post one comment each, asking about the impact of the Equality Act on civil rights for religion and women in the workplace.
4. Alaska Airlines responded to Marli and Lacey’s posts by immediately removing Marli and Lacey from their flight schedules, terminating their employment, and disparaging their religious expression and beliefs as “discriminatory,” “hateful,” and “offensive.”
5. When Marli and Lacey—both union members—faced termination because of their religious practices and beliefs, AFA failed to effectively represent them, ignoring civil rights laws prohibiting both employers and unions from discriminating on the basis of religion.
First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
Yesterday suit was filed in a D.C. federal district court by a scout for the Washington Nationals baseball team who was denied an accommodation for his religious objections to the baseball club's COVID vaccine mandate. The complaint (full text) in Gallo v. Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC, (D DC, filed 4/20/2022), claims discrimination on the basis of religion and disability. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
In Ali v Heathrow Express Operating Company Ltd., (EAT, April 7, 2022), the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an Employment Tribunal's dismissal of an Equality Act religious harassment complaint brought by a Muslim employee of the Heathrow Express train service. At issue was the conduct of a Heathrow Airport employee who duties involved carrying out security checks. According to the Tribunal:
[T]his involved creating and leaving suspicious objects to test how security officers responded to them. In August 2017 it carried out a test using a bag containing a box, some electric cabling and, visible at the top, a piece of paper with the words “Allahu Akbar” written in Arabic.
The Tribunal below held:
We conclude that in the circumstances that existed at the time it was not reasonable for the claimant to take offence at this incident. He should have understood that in adding this phrase Mr Rutherford’s team were not seeking to associate Islam with terrorism - instead they were seeking to produce a suspicious item based on possible threats to the airport.
In affirming the Employment Tribunal, the appellate court said in part:
It is not said, on appeal, that the tribunal should have concluded that these words had been chosen gratuitously with the deliberate purpose of causing upset....
We understand that a strand of the claimant’s case was that the use of this phrase was particularly insensitive, and offensive to him, not merely because it referenced Islam, but because of the sacred nature and significance of this particular phrase in religious observance. While we do not accept that it was perverse not to regard the conduct of the second respondent as amounting in itself to the stereotyping of Muslims generally as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers, we do understand that he also says that, because such stereotyping is a significant and serious blight on the lives of Muslims, the use of these words in this context was particularly charged for him, more than, say, the use of an animal-rights slogan co-opted by some terrorists would be for a vegan. However, we cannot say that these features point to the conclusion that the tribunal could only properly have found that the claimant’s perception that the conduct had the effects on him of the kind referred to in section 26(1)(b) was a reasonable one.
Law & Religion UK reports on the decision.
In Weston v. Sears, (SD OH, April 5, 2022), an Ohio federal magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff, a Seventh Day Adventist, be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis with her Title VII claim for religious discrimination. She was fired for failing, until after the end of her Sabbath, to return multiple phone calls from her manager. However plaintiff is required to exhaust her administrative remedies by filing charges with the EEOC or her state agency.
On Monday, the Arizona legislature sent to the governor for his signature Senate Bill 1399 (full text) which protects adoption and foster care agencies from adverse action when they provide or decline services on the basis of their religious beliefs. It also provides that the state may consider whether a potential foster or adoptive family shares the same religious beliefs or practices as the child being placed. AZ Mirror has extensive reporting on the views of proponents and opponents of the legislation.
In an April 1 press release, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that the office's Civil Right Bureau has sent a Cease and Desist Notification (full text) to an "anti-Muslim hate group" warning it to stop its discriminatory surveillance of the Muslim community. The Notification says in part:
The New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has reviewed reports alleging that your organization, the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), used paid informants and infiltrators to spy on Muslim houses of worship, Muslim advocacy groups, and prominent Muslim leaders. You are advised that such conduct could violate the New York Civil Rights Law and other state and federal laws. You are hereby instructed to cease and desist any ongoing or contemplated unlawful espionage operations against Muslims and Muslim organizations within the State of New York. Discrimination has no place in New York. The OAG will use every tool at its disposal to protect Muslim New Yorkers against unlawful intimidation campaigns.
[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]
On March 23, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed HF 2220 (full text) which provides that in the enforcement of state anti-discrimination laws, in determining whether an act was undertaken with antisemitic intent, the state shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
Governor Reynolds also signed HF2373 (full text) which expanded the definition of "company" in the state's Israel Anti-boycott law.
KCRG News reported on the governor's actions.
In Zdunski v. Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES, (WD NY, Feb. 16, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed Title VII and state law religious discrimination claims brought by Raymond Zdunski, an account clerk at the Board of Cooperative Educational Services. BOCES required all of its employees to attend LGBTQ anti-discrimination training after one of its employees requested accommodation for gender transition. Zdunski refused, contending that the training was aimed at changing his religious beliefs on gender and sexuality and that attending would violate his religious beliefs. He was fired for insubordination. The court said in part:
Mr. Zdunski has not presented any evidence that the trainings were directed toward him or other Christian employees in a discriminatory manner....
Here, Mr. Zdunski's proposed accommodation—that he be excused from the mandatory LGBTQ anti-discrimination training—amounts to more than a de minimis cost to his employer's business operations. BOCES is bound by New York State law to provide annual anti-discrimination trainings for all employees and to maintain "an environment free of discrimination and harassment." See N.Y. Educ. Law Tit. 1 Art. 2 §§ 10, 13. Allowing Mr. Zdunski's requested accommodation to forego anti-discrimination trainings would have put his employer in the position of violating the training requirements set forth in DASA. An accommodation that would require an employer to run afoul of state law constitutes a substantial hardship and would be more than a de minimis cost to the employer.
In Lasche v. State of New Jersey, (3rd Cir, March 1, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's dismissal of a suit by former foster parents who alleged that their free exercise rights were infringed when their foster care license was suspended because of their religious opposition to same-sex marriage and their religious belief that homosexual conduct is sinful. The court remanded for further proceedings plaintiffs' claims under 42 USC §1983 and §1985(3). It also remanded for further proceedings their claim that defendants' action violated New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, finding that the state's Division of Child Protection and Permanency is a "place of public accommodation" under that law.
The White House yesterday issued Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Celebrates First Anniversary of the Reestablishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which reads in part:
Our country has made great progress thanks to neighborhood partnerships and compassionate leaders of all faiths and beliefs, whether it was hosting vaccination clinics, preventing evictions, helping to ensure that children get back to school and workers get jobs, or countless other acts of service. The Biden-Harris Administration is also working tirelessly to advance policies promoting religious equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility and protecting the fundamental right to practice faith without fear, especially in light of the troubling rise of antisemitic, xenophobic, and bigoted attacks against people of faith—targeting synagogues, predominantly Black churches, and Muslim and Sikh communities, among other communities. In addition, the Administration has prioritized the cultivation of a spirit of welcome for people of all religious, political, and ideological stripes; a commitment to treating everyone with equal respect and dignity; and the hard but essential work of building bridges across differences in background and beliefs.
The Fact Sheet goes on to list 40 achievements during the past year that advance these partnerships and policies.
The EEOC announced yesterday that Tampa Bay Delivery Service, an Amazon delivery provider, has settled a religious discrimination suit brought by the EEOC on behalf of a driver who was fired for refusing Sunday shifts in order to attend church services. The company will pay $50,000 in damages, will provide training on religious discrimination to managers and dispatchers, and will designate a religious accommodation coordinator.
Suit was filed yesterday in a Tennessee state trial court challenging the state's contracting with a Christian child placement agency that refuses to provide foster parent training to those who do not share its Christian beliefs. A Jewish couple who were denied services sued, along with several other plaintiffs. A Tennessee statute enacted in 2020 specifically allows faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to refuse to provide services that violate their religious convictions. The complaint (full text) in Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services, (TN Chanc. Ct., filed 1/19/2022), alleges that this religious discrimination violates several provisions of the Tennessee state constitution. Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
A consent decree (full text) was entered yesterday in a Mississippi federal district court in Abraham House of God and Cemetery, Inc. v. City of Horn Lake, (ND MS, Jan. 3, 2022). The suit alleged that the City of Horn Lake denied approval of the site plan for a proposed mosque because of religious animus. (See prior posting.) The consent decree requires the city to approve the site plan within two weeks, and to act promptly on future applications for permits relating to construction of the mosque. ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the consent decree.
A religious discrimination suit was filed yesterday in a Missouri federal district court against a "faith, family and freedom" based indoor gun range that refuses admission to Muslim women wearing hijabs. The complaint (full text) in Barakat v. Brown, (WD MO, filed 12/28/2021) alleges that this policy of the Frontier Justice gun range, owned by a Christian family, violates the public accommodation anti-discrimination provisions in Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. CAIR issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
Suit was filed yesterday in a Virginia state trial court by parents of a number of school children challenging the Albemarle County School Board's "Anti-Racism Policy" and the curriculum developed to implement it. The complaint (full text) in C__I__v. Albemarle County School Board, (VA Cir. Ct., filed 12/22/2021) alleges violations of a number of provisions of the Virginia state Constitution. The allegations include a religious discrimination claim which reads in part:
302. Defendants’ curriculum discriminates on the basis of religion by teaching that Christianity is a “dominant” “identity” that has oppressed “subordinate” “identities” such as Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, other non-Christian religions, and atheism....
304. Defendants’ curriculum discriminates against Christians by identifying them as “dominant” and an “identity” for others to work against.
305. Defendants’ curriculum discriminates against other religions by identifying them as “subordinate.”
ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
The New York Post reports on a lawsuit filed by an elderly Jewish couple who were forced off their American Airlines flight from Miami to New York after an argument with a flight attendant who insisted that Roberto Birman's tallit (prayer shawl) bag be removed from the overhead compartment and placed on the floor beneath his seat. Birman objected saying that his religious beliefs precluded him from placing the tallit on the floor. The Post reports:
As soon as they were ushered out, the crew member allegedly told his coworkers, “Close the gate!”...
They were left without Roberto’s diabetes medications, which were in the checked luggage, got no help from the airline for securing food or a place to stay that night, and were forced to take a taxi to a friend’s home as a hurricane swept in.
Suit was filed yesterday against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in a Tennessee federal district court by a religious child welfare agency that offers residential and foster care services for abused and neglected children. The suit challenges an HHS regulation that prohibits foster care and adoption programs receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or same-sex marriage status. The regulation expands upon the statutory prohibition on discrimination in such programs on the basis of race, color or national origin. The complaint (full text) in Holston United Methodist Home for Children v. Becerra,(ED TN. filed 12/2/2021), alleges that the regulation exceeds the federal agency's authority and that it violates RFRA and various 1st Amendment rights. The complaint alleges in part:
28. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with persons that do not agree with its Christian statement of faith and beliefs....
30. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with couples who may be romantically cohabitating but not married, or who are couples of the same biological sex.
The Trump Administration had issued waivers of the rule for faith-based agencies, but those waivers were rescinded by the Biden Administration last month. (See prior posting). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.
Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it is rescinding waivers of non-discrimination requirements issued during the Trump Administration to South Carolina, Texas and Michigan, along with certain child welfare agencies in those states. The waivers allowed faith-based foster care placement agencies to receive federal funds even though they select foster parents on the basis of religion. (See prior posting.) In its release yesterday, HHS summarized the background for its action:
Through these waivers, States and child welfare agencies – including States and organizations that did not make such requests - were granted exemptions from program nondiscrimination requirements in a rule that was not in effect. In taking today's actions, HHS is reestablishing its long-standing Department practice of evaluation of religious exemptions and modifications of program requirements on a case-by-case basis, as needed, and as is required by law—which was unprecedently changed in 2017 by the previous Administration. Today, HHS reaffirms its important commitment to core American values: HHS will not condone the blanket use of religious exemptions against any person or blank checks to allow discrimination against any persons, importantly including LGBTQ+ persons in taxpayer-funded programs.
Suit was filed last week in a Montana state trial court against a local chapter of the National Organization of Realtors by Pastor Brandon Huber who is also a part-time realtor challenging the National Organization's Code of Ethics provision that prohibits realtors from using "harassing speech, hate speech, epithets, or slurs based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity." The Code of Ethics provision applies to all activities of a realtor, not just to those related to real estate transactions.
The complaint (full text) in Huber v. Missoula Organization of Realtors, Inc., (MT Dist. Ct., filed 11/3/2021), states that the Missoula Organization of Realtors has scheduled an ethics hearing for Huber after a complaint regarding his use of language about gays and lesbians. Huber says that his church merely ended its partnership with a summer kid's lunch program when it discovered that LGBTQ Pride inserts that violated the church's religious teachings were included with the lunches. The church instead began its own lunch program, and explained its decision in a letter to its congregation. The complaint alleges that the ethics provision is void for vagueness and that the action by the realtors' organization violates Art. II, Sec. 4 of the Montana Constitution which provides:
... Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas.
Volokh Conspiracy reports on the lawsuit.