Court Refuses to Stay Discovery in Gay Teacher's Title VII Suit Against Catholic School

In Califano v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, (ED NY, Sept. 24, 2024), a New York federal district court refused to stay discovery in a Title VII sex discrimination suit brought by an openly gay math and English teacher at a Catholic elementary school. The court said in part:

... [A]t the motion to dismiss stage, “a [p]laintiff only has a minimal burden of alleging facts suggesting an inference of discriminatory motivation.”...

Plaintiff has plainly satisfied this standard.  Here, Plaintiff never received any criticisms about his job performance.  Instead, the Complaint alleges he was terminated based exclusively on his sexual preference after Defendants saw a social media post of him kissing his partner— another male.  More importantly, there is direct evidence for the termination: Defendants’ own personnel alluded to his homosexuality as a reason for the termination....

... [T]he question of application of the ministerial exception is fact specific.  That said, resolution on a motion to dismiss would be inappropriate....

... Plaintiff’s duties are not as intertwined with religious doctrine.  He was not a rabbi, priest, or member of the clergy with formal doctrinal training.  Therefore, deciding his Title VII claim would not impinge on the church autonomy doctrine and Defendants’ defense fails.  And here, Defendants fail to point to demonstrate that they would have fired Plaintiff even in spite of his identifying as a homosexual male....  

Although the ministerial and church autonomy doctrines appear to be inapplicable to Plaintiff’s claim, at the very least, discovery is necessary to proceed with this case--namely to discern whether the exceptions even apply to Plaintiff’s role as a Math and English teacher here.

6th Circuit Rules on Christian Plaintiffs' Standing to Challenge Michigan's Civil Rights Acts

In Christian Healthcare Centers, Inc. v. Nessel, (6th Cir., Sept. 20, 2024), a Christian membership-based medical service ministry and two Catholic K-12 schools challenged prohibitions on sexual orientation and gender-identity discrimination under Michigan's public accommodation law (EAA) and its Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that plaintiffs had standing to seek an injunction only as to some of their challenges. The court summarized its holding:

In these three related cases, Plaintiffs allege that Michigan’s laws chill their speech and conduct in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.  The district court dismissed each case for want of standing, reasoning that no Plaintiff had shown that Michigan’s laws arguably proscribed its speech or conduct and that, in the alternative, there was no credible threat that Michigan would enforce its laws against any Plaintiff.

We agree only in part....

We express no view regarding the merits of any claim, the appropriate resolution on remand of the motions for preliminary relief, or what conclusions might be warranted concerning any issue after discovery.  We hold only that (a) no Plaintiff has established standing to challenge the EAA, (b) Christian Healthcare has plausibly established standing to challenge the ELCRA’s public-accommodation provision, employment provision, and the publication clauses of each provision, (c) Sacred Heart has plausibly established standing to challenge the same provisions, the ELCRA’s education provision, and the publication clause of that provision, and (d) St. Joseph has failed to plausibly establish standing.

Judge Murphy filed a concurring opinion.

2nd Circuit: Trial Court Must Make Further Findings in Wedding Photographer's Challenge to NY Public Accommodation Law

In Emilee Carpenter, LLC, dba Emilee Carpenter Photography v. James, (2d Cir., July 12, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a New York federal district court's dismissal of a free speech challenge by a wedding photographer to New York's public accommodation law that bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The photographer refuses because of her religious and personal beliefs to photograph same-sex weddings.  The court held that the case must be remanded for further fact finding in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's intervening decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The court said in part:

... [W]hether Carpenter’s actual wedding photography services constitute expressive conduct is an open threshold question for the district court to consider on remand...

To state a compelled speech claim, it is not enough for a plaintiff to show that the service at issue involves a medium of expression.  The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the expressive activity is her own – that is, she created the expressive content herself or, by compiling or curating third-party content in some forum, she is also engaged in her own expressive activity....

Here, to the extent Carpenter is using her photographs or website to host the expressive content of third parties (such as the wedding couple who hired her), rather than her own, the district court must determine ... whether the law compels Carpenter’s own speech....

Specifically, the court should assess whether Carpenter’s blogging is more akin to, for instance, advertisement than to a service Carpenter offers to the general public, which her customers purchase from her—in other words, whether Carpenter’s blogging is a good or service regulated by New York’s public accommodations laws....

The court rejected the photographer's expressive association, free exercise, Establishment Clause and vagueness claims, saying in part:

Nowhere in her complaint does Carpenter allege that she offers as a service to the public her active religious participation in the weddings that she photographs.  New York’s laws therefore do not require Carpenter to sing, pray, follow an officiant’s instructions, act as a “witness” of the union “before God,” or otherwise participate in any same-sex wedding....

Courthouse News Service and ADF report on the decision. 

Catholic Preschools Must Be Able to Conditionally Participate in Colorado Universal Preschool Program

In St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy, (D CO, June 4, 2024), a Colorado federal district court in a 101-page opinion, held that Colorado cannot exclude from its Universal Preschool Program two Catholic schools that will not enroll LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families so long as the state continues to improperly grant an exemption from religious anti-discrimination requirements to faith-based pre-schools that limit their enrollment to members of their own congregations. The court said in part:

Defendants have established a compelling interest in denying an exemption from the sexual-orientation and gender-identity aspects of the equal-opportunity requirement for Plaintiff Preschools specifically....

In sharp contrast to the evidence Defendants presented to establish a compelling interest with respect to the sexual-orientation and gender-identity aspects of the equal-opportunity requirement, Defendants did not offer any evidence relating to discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation....

Defendants enable faith-based providers to effectively discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation in their admission of preschoolers but, at the same time, deny Plaintiff Preschools an explicit exemption from the related aspect of the equal-opportunity requirement. Defendants have provided no compelling interest for their course of conduct....

The application by Defendants ... acting in their official capacities on behalf of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, of the religious affiliation aspect of the equal-opportunity requirement...violates Plaintiffs’ rights secured by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution....

The Court immediately and permanently enjoins Defendants ... from requiring, as a condition for participation in the Colorado Universal Preschool Program, that the preschools operated by Plaintiffs St. Mary Catholic Parish ... and St. Bernadette Catholic Parish... agree to provide or provide eligible children an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of religious affiliation for as long as Defendants allow exceptions from the religious affiliation aspect of the equal-opportunity requirement set out in Colorado Revised Statute § 26.5-4-205(2)(b) and in the Colorado Universal Preschool Program Service Agreement.

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the decision. 

DOE Issues New Rules Under Title IX Protecting Against LGBTQ+ Discrimination

The Department of Education yesterday, in a 1577-page Release (full text), issued its final rules under Title IX on sex discrimination by educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Among other things, the new rules provide:

§ 106.10 Scope.   Discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.  

§ 106.31 Education programs or activities....   (a)(2) In the limited circumstances in which Title IX or this part permits different treatment or separation on the basis of sex, a recipient must not carry out such different treatment or separation in a manner that discriminates on the basis of sex by subjecting a person to more than de minimis harm.... Adopting a policy or engaging in a practice that prevents a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with the person’s gender identity subjects a person to more than de minimis harm on the basis of sex.  

In its Release, DOE said in part:

With respect to religious educational institutions, the Department agrees with commenters that §§ 106.10 and 106.31(a)(2) do not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that the provisions’ application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization. 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(3). If an institution wishes to claim an exemption, its highest-ranking official may submit a written statement to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, identifying the provisions of Title IX that conflict with a specific tenet of the controlling religious organization. 34 CFR 106.12(b). 

The Department notes that that the religious exemption in Title IX applies to an “educational institution” or other “entity’ that is controlled by a religious organization, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(3); 1687(4); it does not address an individual student or employee’s exercise of their religious beliefs. As commenters also noted, however, RFRA provides that the Federal government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless the government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and . . . is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1.  

... OCR considers RFRA’s requirements when it evaluates a recipient’s compliance with Title IX. An individual may also inform the Department of a burden or potential burden under RFRA by sending an email to RFRA@ed.gov....  

With regard to commenters’ concerns related to the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, § 106.6(d) explicitly states that nothing in the regulations requires a recipient to restrict rights protected under the First Amendment or other constitutional provisions. The Department, likewise, must act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

The new rules also make other changes, including changes in grievance procedures. NPR reports on the rule changes.

UPDATE: On April 30, suit was filed by a Louisiana school district challenging the extension of Title IX to discrimination on the basis of gender identity. (Full text of complaint in Rapides Parish School Board v. U.S. Department of Education, (WD LA, filed 4/30/2024)).

Court Upholds Maine's Law Barring LGBTQ Discrimination by Christian School Receiving State Funds

In Crosspoint Church v. Maikin, (D ME, Feb. 27, 2024), a Maine federal district court refused to enjoin application of the state's educational antidiscrimination laws against a private Christian school. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Maine's exclusion of sectarian schools from its tuition payment program to out-of-district schools when districts do not operate their own public high schools. (See prior posting.) While that litigation was in progress, Maine's legislature amended its civil right laws to now bar schools that receive public funds from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In rejecting the school's challenges, the court said in part:

The Court concludes that Crosspoint is not entitled to a preliminary injunction.  With this said, the Court acknowledges that Crosspoint is raising important legal questions.  Despite the plaintiffs’ hard-fought and significant victory at the United States Supreme Court in Carson, the Maine Legislature and the Maine Attorney General have largely deprived Crosspoint and similar religious schools of the fruit of their victory.  Crosspoint essentially argues that the Maine Legislature’s enactment of statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is a form of state-enforced, secular religion.  Yet, the Maine Legislature has the authority to define protected classes under its antidiscrimination laws.  The rub comes when the Maine Legislature’s view of the categories of people meriting protected status conflicts with sincerely held beliefs of members of religious communities.  This is a tension as old as the nation itself.  Although it has done its best to set out, analyze, and decide these difficult constitutional issues, the Court also recognizes that this case poses novel constitutional questions and has attempted to frame its opinion as a prelude to a challenge to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for a more authoritative ruling....

Certiorari Denied in Case of Jurors Disqualified Because of Religious Beliefs

Today the Supreme Court denied review in Missouri Department of Corrections v. Finney, (certiorari denied, 2/20/2024). In the case a Missouri state appellate court (full text of state court opinion) upheld a trial court's striking of three potential jurors for cause. The suit involved claims against the Department of Corrections by a lesbian employee alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment. The potential jurors were disqualified because of their strongly-held religious views that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality was an important issue in the case. Justice Alito filed a Statement respecting the denial of certiorari indicating that were it not for a complicating state law issue in the case, he would have voted to grant review, saying in part:

Before us, the Department of Corrections argues that these for-cause dismissals were unconstitutional, and I agree that the Court of Appeals’ reasoning raises a very serious and important question that we should address in an appropriate case. The judiciary, no less than the other branches of State and Federal Government, must respect people’s fundamental rights, and among these are the right to the free exercise of religion and the right to the equal protection of the laws. When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights.

Christian Non-Profit Cannot Rescind Job Offer Because of Same-Sex Marriage

In McMahon v. World Vision, Inc., (WD WA, Nov. 28, 2023), a Washington federal district court held that a Christian non-profit organization violated Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination when it rescinded a job offer originally made to plaintiff after it learned that she was in a same-sex marriage. Plaintiff had been offered the position of customer service representative which involved telephone cultivation of donor relationships. The court held that the religious employer exemption in Title VII only immunizes religious discrimination by such organizations; it does not immunize them from sex discrimination claims. It also held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply to the position offered to plaintiff.

Similarly, the rejected the bona fide occupational qualification defense, saying in part:

Nothing in the record indicates that being in a same-sex marriage affects one’s ability to place and field donor calls, converse with donors, pray with donors, update donor information, upsell World Vision programs, or participate in devotions and chapel.

The court went on to find that both Title VII and the WLAD are neutral laws of general applicability so that only rational basis review is required. Finally the court rejected defendants' free speech and expressive association claims.

Christian School Sues Vermont Challenging Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Rules

Suit was filed yesterday in a Vermont federal district court by a Christian school seeking to participate in the state's Town Tuitioning and Dual Enrollment Programs as well as in Vermont Principals' Association athletic competitions. It has been precluded from doing so because of rules banning it from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in order to participate. Two families whose children participate in athletics at the school are also plaintiffs. The complaint (full text) in Mid Vermont Christian School v. Bouchey, (D VT, filed 11/21.2023), alleges in part:

The State-through its Agency of Education ... and the Vermont Principal's Association ... requires religious schools like Mid Vermont Christian School ... to follow (and affirm compliance with) laws, rules, and policies that prevent those schools from operating consistently with their religious beliefs about sexuality and gender.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

1st Amendment Requires Exemption from Anti-Bias Law for Business That Discriminates Against Same-Sex Weddings

In Country Mill Farms, LLC v. City of East Lansing, (ED MI, Aug. 21, 2023), a Michigan federal district court held that the city of East Lansing violated the Free Exercise rights of Country Mill Farms and its owner when the city refused to invite Country Mill to be a vendor at East Lansing's Farmer's Market.  The refusal was based on Country Mill's violation of the city's anti-discrimination ordinance in another part of Country Mill's business.  Country Mill rents out a portion of its farm property for weddings, but for religious reason will not rent it out for same-sex weddings. The court held that the discrimination ban was not generally applicable because of exemptions in the anti-discrimination ordinance that would allow the city to do business with firms that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The court concluded in part:

In light of the nondiscretionary and the discretionary exemptions in the ordinance, the City has not demonstrated a compelling interest in excluding Plaintiffs from the Farmer’s Market. The City’s nondiscrimination ordinance tolerates the same discrimination in other situations.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

MD Supreme Court: State Law Sex Discrimination Ban Does Not Include Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, (MD Sup. Ct., Aug. 14, 2023), the Maryland Supreme Court, responding to certified questions from a federal district court, refused in interpreting state law to follow the analogous holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in its Title VII Bostick decision.  The Maryland court held that, in light of the separate prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination in state law, the ban on sex discrimination in the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act does not also cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It went on to hold that in light of the specific ban on pay disparities based on sex or gender identity, the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act does not bar pay disparities based on sexual orientation. Finally the court held that the exemption in the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act for "a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity to perform work connected with the activities of the religious entity" covers "claims brought by employees who perform duties that directly further the core mission (or missions) of the religious entity." It is not co-extensive with the ministerial exception doctrine.

Justice Hotten, joined by Justice Eaves, filed a dissenting opinion contending that the ban on sex discrimination in both statutes includes sexual orientation discrimination. They would also read the religious institution exemption more narrowly than the majority, contending that it only applies when a nexus exists between the employer’s religious activities and the work that an employee performs.

The underlying case that led to the certified questions involved a complaint by a Program Data Analyst employed by Catholic Relief Services who was denied spousal health benefits for his same-sex spouse.

[Thanks to Arthur Spitzer for the lead.]

Baylor Gets DOE Assurance That It Is Exempt From Title IX Sexual Harassment Rules

In a July 25 letter (full text), the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has assured Baylor University that, as a university controlled by a religious organization, it is exempt from various regulations under Title IX to the extent that they are inconsistent with the University's religious tenets.  As reported by the Religious Exemption Accountability Project, in the past many religious universities have been assured they are exempt from Title IX regulations barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, sex outside of marriage, pregnancy or abortion. (See prior posting.) For the first time, however, Baylor was also assured that it is exempt from sexual harassment rules. More specifically, it was assured that compliance with its religious tenets by the University or its students would not constitute “unwelcome conduct” under the Department’s definition of “sexual harassment” under Title IX. 

Baylor's letter requesting a ruling (full text) was filed in response to several complaints filed with the DOE Office for Civil Rights. The letter reads in part:

The University does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression per se, but it does regulate conduct that is inconsistent with the religious values and beliefs that are integral to its Christian faith and mission....

The OCR complaints at issue here allege that Baylor violated OCR's Title IX regulations by its application of its Statement on Human Sexuality, Sexual Conduct Policy, Civil Rights Policy, Theological Seminary Policy, Baptist Faith and Message of 1963, and Truett Handbook to its campus community, both as a general matter and specifically in three situations: (1) the University's alleged decision to deny applications for an official charter for Gamma Alpha Upsilon, (2) the University's alleged response to notice that students were subjected to harassment based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, (3) and the University's alleged decision to pressure University media to not report on LGBTQ events and protests in September and October 2021.

According to an extensive report on Baylor's request, Baptist News Global says in part:

Baylor Assistant Vice President for Media and Public Relations Lori Fogleman said Baylor is responding to the “expanded definition of sexual harassment” under Title IX from the Biden administration, which includes discrimination against LGBTQ people.

RFRA Requires Title VII Exemption for Business Operating on Christian Gender Beliefs

In Braidwood Management, Inc. v. EEOC, (5th Cir., June 20, 2023), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that RFRA requires an exemption from the sex discrimination provisions of Title VII for a company that operates three related health and wellness businesses on the basis of Christian beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.  The court said in part: 

RFRA requires that Braidwood ... be exempted from Title VII because compliance with Title VII post-Bostock would substantially burden its ability to operate per its religious beliefs about homosexual and transgender conduct. Moreover, the EEOC wholly fails to carry its burden to show that it has a compelling interest in refusing Braidwood an exemption, even post-Bostock....

Although the Supreme Court may some day determine that preventing commercial businesses from discriminating on factors specific to sexual orientation or gender identity is such a compelling government interest that it overrides religious liberty in all cases, it has never so far held that....

Under RFRA, the government cannot rely on generalized interests but, instead, must demonstrate a compelling interest in applying its challenged rule to “the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.”...

[T]he EEOC fails to carry its burden. It does not show a compelling interest in denying Braidwood, individually, an exemption. The agency does not even attempt to argue the point outside of gesturing to a generalized interest in prohibiting all forms of sex discrimination in every potential case. Moreover, even if we accepted the EEOC’s formulation of its compelling interest, refusing to exempt Braidwood, and forcing it to hire and endorse the views of employees with opposing religious and moral views is not the least restrictive means of promoting that interest.

Reuters reports on the decision.

White House Announces New Initiatives to Protect LGBTQI+ Communities

The White House yesterday released Fact Sheet: Biden-⁠Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Protect LGBTQI+ Communities (full text). It reads in part:

Today, in celebration of Pride Month, the Biden-Harris Administration is announcing new actions to protect LGBTQI+ communities from attacks on their rights and safety.  Over a dozen states have enacted anti-LGBTQI+ laws that violate our most basic values and freedoms as Americans, and are cruel and callous to our kids, our neighbors, and those in our community. The Biden-Harris administration stands with the LGBTQI+ community and has their backs in the face of these attacks....

The Fact Sheet announced new federal action, including a new LGBTQI+ Community Safety Partnership and new initiatives to deal with LGBTQI+ youth homelessness, foster care and mental health. It also announced the release of federal funds "to support programs that help parents affirm their LGBTQI+ kids."  Additionally, it announced initiatives to counter book bans, which "disproportionately strip books about LGBTQI+ communities, communities of color, and other communities off of library and classroom shelves." The Department of Education will appoint a coordinator to "work to provide new trainings for schools nationwide on how book bans that target specific communities and create a hostile school environment may violate federal civil rights laws."

Church Preschool Challenges California's Anti-Discrimination Rules for Food Program Participants

Suit was filed earlier this month in a California federal district court by a Christian church and its preschool challenging the state's agreement form that was required for participants in the state's Child and Adult Food Care Program. The complaint (full text) in Church of Compassion v. Bonta, (SD CA, filed 3/10/2023), alleges in part:

The new 2022 CDSS PSA required the Church and Dayspring to certify that their management of the CACFP Food Program will be “operated in compliance with all applicable civil rights laws and will implement all applicable non-discrimination regulations....

Because of the Church’s orthodox religious beliefs regarding human sexuality, it was unable to comply with the PSA when it submitted its application for the 2022-2023 year. Specifically, Dayspring signed the PSA statement, but deleted the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

The complaint alleges that the requirement violates plaintiffs' Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clause rights. National Center for Law & Policy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Michigan Legislature Adds LGBTQ Protections to State Civil Rights Act

The Michigan legislature today gave final approval to Senate Bill 4 (full text) which adds "sexual orientation" and "gender identity or expression" to the anti-discrimination provisions of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The bill now goes to Governor Gretchen Whitmer for her signature. Detroit News reports that she has promised to sign the bill into law. During its consideration of the bill, the Michigan Senate rejected a number of proposed religious liberty amendments. The Michigan Supreme Court previously held that existing language of the Act bars sexual orientation discrimination. The state Court of Claims has held that it also bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity. (See prior posting.) Senate Bill 4 now makes these holdings explicit.

Christian Mission Challenges Narrowing of Washington State's Religious Exemption From Employment Non-Discrimination Law

Suit was filed yesterday in a Washington federal district court by a Christian social service agency contending that the Washington Supreme Court's recent interpretation of the state's employment discrimination law violates the First Amendment. The complaint (full text) in Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Wash. v. Ferguson, (ED WA, filed 3/3/3023) alleges in part:

The Mission’s employees must adhere to certain Christian belief and behavior requirements—including abstaining from any sexual conduct outside of biblical marriage between one man and one woman—in order to properly live out and represent a Christian lifestyle and to not undermine the Mission’s religious message....

The WLAD [Washington Law Against Discrimination] used to protect the Mission by exempting religious nonprofit organizations from its provisions, but the Washington Supreme Court recently gutted the religious employer exemption, reducing it to the “ministerial exception.” See Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, 197 Wash. 2d 231 (2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1094 (2022).... 

Post-Woods, Defendant Ferguson has made clear the State’s position that the WLAD now prohibits religious organizations from considering sexual orientation in hiring their non-ministerial employees....

As a result of the judicially re-written WLAD, and Defendants’ enforcement of the WLAD, the Mission now faces significant penalties for using its religiously-based hiring criteria for “non-ministerial” employees.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Australia Proposes New Antidiscrimination Requirements For Religious Educational Institutions

On January 27, the Australian Law Reform Commission released a 54-page Consultation Paper on Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws (full text). The Commission summarized the Paper in a press release:

The Australian Law Reform Commission seeks stakeholder submissions on proposals to change the way Commonwealth anti-discrimination law applies to religious schools and other educational institutions.

The Consultation Paper sets out four general propositions supported by 14 technical proposals for reform. If adopted, these would:

make discrimination against students on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy in schools and other religious educational institutions unlawful, by removing exceptions currently available under federal law,

protect teachers and other school staff from discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy, by removing similar exceptions, and

allow religious schools to maintain their religious character by permitting them to:

give preference to prospective staff on religious grounds where the teaching, observance, or practice of religion is a part of their role (and it is not discriminatory on other grounds); and

require all staff to respect the educational institution’s religious ethos.

Law and Religion Australia has more extensive reporting on the proposal.

9th Circuit Orders En Banc Review of School's Action Against Fellowship of Christian Athletes

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted en banc review in Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education. The court's January 18 Order (full text) vacates the decision of a 3-judge panel which ordered reinstatement of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes as an official student club at San Jose high schools. (See prior posting.). At issue is selective enforcement of the San Jose Unified School District's non-discrimination policy.  It revoked FCA’s status as an official student club because FCA requires those serving in leadership roles to abide by its Statement of Faith which includes the belief that sexual relations should be limited within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. CBN News reports on the decision.

NY Appellate Court Says Yeshiva University Must Recognize LGBTQ Student Group

In YU Pride Alliance v. Yeshiva University, (NY App. Div., Dec. 15, 2022), a New York state appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision that New York City's public accommodation law requires Yeshiva University to officially recognize as a student organization an LGBTQ group, YU Pride Alliance. The appellate court said in part:

[The trial court] correctly held that Yeshiva does not meet the definition of "religious corporation incorporated under the education law or the religious corporation law," which would exempt it from the prohibitions against discrimination in public accommodations as an organization "deemed to be . . . distinctly private" (Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 8-102, 8-107[4][a][1][a])....

Turning to defendants' First Amendment arguments, we find that providing the Pride Alliance with full and equal access to public accommodations does not intrude on Yeshiva's asserted right "to decide matters 'of faith and doctrine'" ... The record demonstrates that Yeshiva already recognizes LGBTQ+ student organizations at three of its graduate schools... and made clear as early as 1995 that this recognition did not mean Yeshiva endorsed or accepted the views of those student groups.... [W]e find that denial of recognition for the Pride Alliance is not "essential" to Yeshiva's "central mission"...

Similarly, we find no violation of Yeshiva's free exercise of religion. The City HRL's public accommodations provision is both neutral and generally applicable.... 

Finally, we reject the contention that recognizing the Pride Alliance as a student club violates Yeshiva's freedom of expression and association, as a "school does not endorse or support student speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis".... Moreover, there is no violation of Yeshiva's associational rights where plaintiff Pride Alliance members are already enrolled students, Yeshiva already engaged in many discussions with the Pride Alliance about sexual orientation and gender identity issues, Yeshiva continued to express the desire to foster diversity and inclusion in association with Pride Alliance members when denying official recognition, and Yeshiva even explained several actions it was undertaking to bring about "greater awareness and acceptance" and "create a space where students, faculty and Roshei Yeshiva to continue this conversation" about sexual orientation and gender identity....

The Forward reports on the decision.