Administrative Complaint Charges Catholic School With Discrimination For Terminating Employee In Same-Sex Marriage

The Boston Globe reports on the employment discrimination complaint  (full text) filed yesterday with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination by Matthew Barrett who was hired as food services director at a Catholic school. Three days after he accepted the position with Fontbonne Academy, the school terminated his employment because it learned from paperwork he had filled out that he was gay and had a same-sex spouse.

The Massachusetts law against discrimination (MGL Title XXI, Ch. 151B, Sec. 1(5)) provides:

[N]othing herein shall be construed to bar any religious or denominational institution or organization, or any organization operated for ... educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and which limits membership, enrollment, admission, or participation to members of that religion, from... taking any action with respect to matters of employment, discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law which are calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained.

In its press release on the case, GLAD says: "Our laws carefully balance the important values of religious liberty and non-discrimination.  When Fontbonne Academy fired Matt from a job that has nothing to do with religion, they came down on the wrong side of the law."

Oregon Agency Says Bakery Discriminated In Refusing To Furnish Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

The Oregonian reports that last Friday the state of Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found substantial evidence that a Gresham, Oregon bakery-- Sweet Cakes by Melissa-- violated Oregon's public accommodations anti-discrimination law (ORS 659A.403) when the bakery refused a year ago to furnish a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding.  The bakery owners said doing so would violate their Christian religious beliefs.  Under Oregon law, the finding leads to an informal conciliation process. If that does not result in a settlement, the state agency can bring charges before an administrative law judge. (See prior related posting.)

EU Directive Requires Companies To Give Same Benefits to Civil Partners Where Same-Sex Marriage Is Unavailable

In Hay v. Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres, (Eur. Ct. Jus. 5th Chamber, Dec. 12, 2013), the 5th Chamber of the European Court of Justice held that under Council Directive 2000/78/EC that creates a framework for equal treatment in employment, it amounts to direct discrimination for a French firm to deny a same-sex couple entering a civil partnership the same benefits given couples being married. The court concluded that:

an employee who concludes a PACS [civil solidarity pact] with a person of the same sex [must be] allowed to obtain the same benefits, such as days of special leave and a salary bonus, as those granted to employees on the occasion of their marriage, where the national rules of the Member State concerned do not allow persons of the same sex to marry, in so far as, in the light of the objective of and the conditions relating to the grant of those benefits, that employee is in a comparable situation to an employee who marries.

Art Leonard Observations has analysis of the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Britain's Supreme Court Says Christian Hotel Owners May Not Refuse To Rent To Gay Couple

In Bull v. Hall, (UK Sup. Ct., Nov. 27, 2013), Britain's Supreme Court held 5-0 that the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 prohibit a Christian couple who operate a hotel from refusing on religious grounds to rent a room with one double bed to a same-sex couple (who were in a civil partnership arrangement). The hotel owners rented double bed rooms only to married couples.  Britain's  Equality Act 2010 distinguishes between "direct" and "indirect" discrimination.  Indirect discrimination-- which is similar to the disparate impact concept in U.S. law-- is allowed if it can be justified as "a  proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."  Direct discrimination may not be justified.  All 5 of the Supreme Court's justices concluded that the refusal to rent to the couple amounted to unjustifiable indirect discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Three of the justices also concluded that the refusal amounted to direct sexual-orientation discrimination.

Lady Hale's lead opinion disposed of the hotel owners' religious liberty claims rather briefly, saying:

There is no question of ... replacing “legal oppression of one community (homosexual couples) with legal oppression of another (those sharing the defendants’ beliefs)” .... If Mr Preddy and Mr Hall ran a hotel which denied a double room to Mr and Mrs Bull, whether on the ground of their Christian beliefs or on the ground of their sexual orientation, they would find themselves in the same situation that Mr and Mrs Bull find themselves today. 

The court's decision in the closely-watched case affirms the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. (See prior related posting.)  The Daily Mail reports on the decision. [Thanks to Marc Stern via Religionlaw for the lead.]

EU Court of Justice Rules On When Homosexuals Qualify For Refugee Status

On Thursday, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a preliminary ruling interpreting Council Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for third-country nationals to qualify as refugees. The Directive defines a refugee, in part as a person who has a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ... membership of a particular social group...." In X, Y, Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel, (EU Ct. Justice, Nov. 7, 2013), the court held that:

the existence of criminal laws ... which specifically target homosexuals, supports the finding that those persons must be regarded as forming a particular social group.

... the criminalisation of homosexual acts per se does not constitute an act of persecution. However, a term of imprisonment ... which is actually applied ... must be regarded as being a punishment which is disproportionate or discriminatory and thus constitutes an act of persecution.

.... When assessing an application for refugee status, the competent authorities cannot reasonably expect, in order to avoid the risk of persecution, the applicant for asylum to conceal his homosexuality in his country of origin or to exercise reserve in the expression of his sexual orientation.

The Court also issued a press release on the decision. So did ORAM (the advocacy group for LGBTI refugees). It discusses at length the problems that European officials will face in accurately assessing the credibility of asylum claims based on sexual orientation. The Los Angeles Times reports on the decision, focusing on the persecution of gays and lesbians in Africa-- the home continent of the 3 refugees who were parties to the case decided by the court.