Trump Sends Holiday Greetings To Sikhs

On Nov. 4, the White House released a statement (full text) from President Trump sending "warm wishes to Sikh Americans and Sikhs around the world as they celebrate the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Devji, the founder and first guru of Sikhism."

9th Circuit: Facebook Is Immune From Liability For Blocking Access To Sikh Group's Page

In Sikhs for Justice, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., (9th Cir., Sept. 13, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a California federal district court's dismissal of a religious discrimination claim against Facebook. (See prior posting.) In the lawsuit, brought by a Sikh human rights group, plaintiffs contend that Facebook violated the public accommodation provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it blocked access to SJF's Facebook page in India.  The suit contends that Facebook collaborated with the government of India in retaliating against SFJ for its online campaign complaining about the treatment of Sikhs and promoting an independent Sikh state.  The 9th Circuit held that Facebook is immune from civil liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and that Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not provide an exception to this immunity.

Sikh Cadets Sue West Point Over Headgear Requirement

Two cadets who are observant Sikhs and who enrolled in the U.S. Military Academy at West Point filed suit in a Michigan federal district court yesterday contending that the Army has failed to follow its own regulations that allow Sikhs to serve without giving up their Sikh grooming and dress obligations.  The complaint (full text) in New Cadet Candidate Chahal v. Seamands, (ED MI, filed 8/14/2017), asserts that the Sikh cadets

are only welcome to remain at the Academy with their unshorn hair, beards, and turban on one condition: they must agree to wear the West Point “tar bucket”—a decorative hat worn in ceremonial parades a few times each year....

 For them, wearing the tar bucket over, or in place of, their turbans would desecrate their religious values....

The suit claims that requiring the cadets to wear the "tar bucket" violates their rights under the 1st and 5th Amendments and under RFRA.  Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

No 1st Amendment Bar To Suit Over Board Seats In Two Sikh Dharma Entities

In Puri v. Khalsa, (9th Cir., Jan. 6, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, vacating the district court's dismissal, held that neither the ministerial exception doctrine nor the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a suit by the widow and children of the deceased spiritual leader of the Sikh Dharma faith alleging they are being frozen out of board positions in two nonprofit Sikh Dharma entities. In rejecting application of the ministerial exception doctrine, the court said in part:

[T]he pleadings do not allege the board members have any ecclesiastical duties or privileges. In assessing the responsibilities attendant to the board positions, it is relevant that the entities involved are not themselves churches, but rather corporate parents of a church. SSSC’s primary responsibility appears to be holding title to church property, and UI, in addition to being ... the direct corporate parent of the Sikh Dharma church – owns and controls a portfolio of for-profit and nonprofit corporations, including a major security contractor and a prominent tea manufacturer. Although the complaint alleges the board members have “fiduciary duties to UI and SSSC to hold assets in trust for the benefit of the Sikh Dharma community,” it is not clear on the face of the complaint that these duties are “religious” or “reflect[] a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.”

Turning to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the court said:

Nothing in the character of th[e] defense will require a jury to evaluate religious doctrine or the ‘reasonableness’ of the religious practices followed . . . Under these circumstances, the availability of the neutral-principles approach obviates the need for ecclesiastical abstention.

Army Grants Greater Dress and Grooming Accommodation For Sikhs and Muslims

The Army yesterday issued Directive 2017-03 revising Army uniform and grooming standards to allow greater religious accommodation, particularly for Sikh and Muslim members of the Army. The new directive allows religious accommodation to be granted at the brigade level to Sikhs to wear a turban or under-turban/patka, with uncut beard and uncut hair.  For Muslims, brigade-level approval is allowed for hijabs. The Directive allows a similar religious accommodation for beards, which would affect Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and perhaps soldiers of other religious faiths.  Certain exceptions apply, particularly in relation to those who need to wear protective masks. Also, without the need for granting of a religious accommodation, the Directive allows women to wear dreadlocks and individuals to wear certain religious bracelets. The Atlantic reports on the new Directive.

NYPD To Allow Turbans and Beards For Religious Purposes

In an attempt to accommodate Sikh officers, the New York Police Department announced Wednesday that officers who are granted religious accommodation from the Department's Equal Opportunity Office will be allowed to wear one-half inch beards. They may also wear blue turbans  with a hat police shield attached, instead of the traditional police cap. New York Times and the New York Daily News report on the new policy which was announced by Police Commissioner  James O’Neill standing with a group of Sikh officers in turbans after an NYPD Academy graduation ceremony.

Sikh Neurologist Brings Title VII Suit Against Practice Group

The Sikh Coalition this week announced the filing of a Title VII lawsuit on behalf of a neurologist who claims that he was not hired by a physician‐owned  multi‐specialty medical group in Clarksville‐Montgomery County, Tennessee because of his religion, race and national origin.  The complaint (full text) in Singh v. Premier Medical Group, P.C., (MD TN, filed 12/27/2016) alleges:

Only after requesting information regarding Plaintiff’s appearance, and receiving and reviewing photographs of Plaintiff and information about his Sikh religious beliefs did Defendants refuse to hire Plaintiff.

NY Town Settles Construction Dispute With Sikh Temple

According to NBC News, on Wednesday a settlement agreement between the Town of Oyster Bay, New York and the Guru Gobind Singh Sikh Center was filed with a federal district court. The Sikh Temple had sued under RFRA claiming that the town's stop work and environmental review orders were issued to appease residents who are hostile to the temple and its worship. (See prior posting.) Under the settlement the temple agreed to make certain construction changes and the town board agreed that it would no longer be authorized to serve as the oversight committee for the site plan approval process.

EEOC Settles With Trucking Firm Over Complaints By Sikh Job Applicants

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has entered a conciliation agreement with J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. in connection with complaints by four East Indian Sikh job applicants based in California who say the company refused to provide an alternative to its hair sample drug testing policy.  Maintaining uncut hair is a Sikh article of faith. Under the agreement, which avoids litigation, the company will pay $260,000 in damages and will extend conditional offers of employment to the four complainants.  The company also agreed to designate an EEO consultant, develop complaint procedures, and conduct employee EEO training.

Settlement Ends Long-Running Dispute Over Control of Sikh Temple In California

A long-running dispute over control of a Sikh Temple in Yuba City, California, appears to have come to an end after a court-ordered election of new board members resulted in a cooperative transition of leadership.  According to yesterday's Appeal-Democrat, the election (ordered by the court to be held without regard to the Temple by-laws quorum requirements) led to victory by a slate of 73-board members who were opposed to the incumbent directors. The parties then entered a settlement agreement covering all four of the pending cases growing out of the controversy. The agreement was presented to the court yesterday.  Under the settlement, the new directors take office immediately and they will amend the Temple's bylaws to reduce from 8 to 4 years the term of board members. During a board meeting yesterday evening, the new board received the keys and financial records of the Temple.

Religious Worker's Challenge To Immigration Law Interpretation Dismissed On Jurisdictional Grounds

Singh v. Johnson, (SD IN, Aug. 17, 2016), is a suit in federal district court for declaratory relief and an injunction by an Indian citizen who is in the U.S. on an R-1 nonimmigrant religious worker visa working for a Sikh Gurdwara in Indiana. Plaintiff sought to adjust his status to become a lawful permanent resident.  USCIS denied his application for change of status because, it contended, his receipt of room and board, donations, and gifts from Sikh temples other than his employer amounted to unauthorized employment in the U.S. Plaintiff contends that this definition of unauthorized employment is inconsistent with law and violates his free exercise rights.  An Indiana federal district judge dismissed plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, saying:

The immigration judge presiding over the Plaintiff’s removal proceeding has de novo review of the USCIS’s denial of the Plaintiff’s I-485 Application....  Thereafter, if the immigration judge’s decision is unfavorable to the Plaintiff, he may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.... And, if the Board of Immigration Appeals affirms an immigration judge’s unfavorable decision, the Plaintiff may appeal to the Seventh Circuit the results of his removal proceeding and any constitutional claims or questions of law.

Sikh Center Sues Under RLUIPA After Work On New Temple Is Ordered Stopped

NBC News reports on a federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of New York last week by the Guru Gobind Singh Sikh Center against the Town of Oyster Bay, New York.  In July-- almost 17 months after approving the Center's site plan for its new gurdwara-- the town issued a stop work order and ordered an environmental review, saying that the construction departed from the site plan. Claiming that the town's actions were taken to appease some residents who are hostile to the temple and its worship, the suit alleges violations of RLUIPA as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments. The new building, which replaces an older one that was on the same site, is already 82% complete. The Center has spent over $3 million on construction and on costs subsequent to the stop work order.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Requires Dismissal of Suit Over Sikh Temple Membership

In Singh v. Sandhar, (TX App., May 10, 2016), a Texas appellate court, on the basis of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, dismissed a suit contesting the membership list that was used by a Sikh temple in determining who was eligible to vote in an election to select members of the temple's 7-member executive committee known as the Prabandhak Committee. The court held:

The temple’s alleged failure to follow its bylaws on a matter of internal governance involves ecclesiastical concerns, and civil courts may not interfere in these matters when disposition of church property is not at stake. 

Army Grants Sikh Soldier Accommodation After His Preliminary Court Victory

As previously reported, last month the D.C. federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the Army from subjecting Sikh Army officer Simratpal Singh to any non-standard or discriminatory testing for his helmet and gas mask.  Now without mentioning the court decision, the Army has issued a Memorandum (full text) dated March 30 granting Singh an accommodation, subject to various conditions. The Memorandum from Assistant Secretary of the Army Debra Wada to Singh reads in part:

I have considered your request for a religious accommodation to permit you to wear a beard, turban, and uncut hair in observance of your Sikh faith.... I grant your request for an exception to Army personal appearance and grooming standards, subject to the limitations described below....

While assigned or performing non-hazardous duties, you may wear a beard, turban, and uncut hair in a neat and conservative manner that presents a professional and well-groomed appearance. The bulk or your hair, beard, or turban may not be such that it impairs your ability to wear the Army Combat Helmet ... or other protective equipment....

Because of the Army's strong interest in maintaining good order and discipline, the Army intends to develop clear uniform standards applicable to Soldiers who have received a religious accommodation. Until such standards are published, you may wear a black turban (or under turban, as appropriate).... 

The Memorandum goes on to specify precise hair and beard lengths, and says that Singh's commander is to provide quarterly assessments of the effect of the accommodation on unit cohesion and morale, good order and discipline, health and safety, and individual and unit readiness. West reports on the Army's action.

UPDATE: Stars and Stripes reported on April 11 that 3 additional Sikh enlistees have been granted similar accommodations.

Sikhs Sue Over Army Accommodation of Religious Practices

A lawsuit was filed yesterday by three observant Sikhs who have enlisted in the Army, but who are encountering difficulties in obtaining accommodation to allow them to continue to wear beards, uncut hair, and turbans.  The 54 page complaint (full text) in Singh v. McConville, (D DC, filed 3/29/2016), alleges in part:

[T]he Army has a long pattern and practice of discriminating against Sikhs.... The Army’s regulations promise that soldiers whose religious exercise poses no significant obstacle to the military’s mission will be generously accommodated.... [H]owever, the regulations themselves are defective and foster religious discrimination on a number of levels.... [T]hey force soldiers who need religious accommodations to violate their religious beliefs before they can apply for an accommodation, even if their religious exercises would clearly have no impact on the military’s compelling interests.

The regulations are also ... require soldiers to reapply for a religious accommodation every time they have a “transfer of duty stations, or other significant change in circumstances”..... The ambiguity in the regulations also creates an environment where the Army feels free to delay resolving requests for accommodation for long periods of time, leaving future soldiers in limbo and potentially forcing them to forgo other education and career opportunities while they wait for the Army’s decision.

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Indian Court Says Sikh Witness Cannot Be Barred From Wearing Kirpan

In Singh v. State of Haryana, (High Ct. Punjab and Haryana, March 16, 2016), a trial court in the Indian state of Punjab held that Art. 25 of India's Constitution which protects freedom of conscience and religion invalidates a court's order barring a Sikh witness from wearing a kirpan while testfying.  The opinion contains lengthy discussion of the kirpan and of the freedom of religion provision in India's constitution. LiveLaw reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Dispute Over Control of Sikh Dharma Company

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday heard oral arguments in Puri v. Khalsa (Docket No. 13-36024) (video of full oral arguments).  Courthouse News Service has extensive background on the case in which Bibiji Inderjit Kaur Puri, the widow of the leader of the Sikh Dharma faith, is seeking a seat on the board of the company that makes Yogi Tea and which also controls various parts of the Sikh Dharma religious movement. Here is an excerpt from CNS's excellent report:

Bibiji sued in Multnomah County [Oregon] Circuit Court, claiming that her husband had wanted her to be a board member and accusing the board of Unto Infinity of inflating their salaries and executing a self-serving sale of the company's cereal division that cheated Sikh Dharma....

The parties agreed to settle in arbitration. But Bibiji moved the case to Federal Court, claiming the settlement was never ratified and was unfair.... There, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mossman dismissed the case, finding that Bibiji lacked standing to sue ... because she is not a board member. He also found that the First Amendment prohibited him from installing the leaders of a religious organization.

On Thursday, Bibiji's lawyer ... urged a panel of the Ninth Circuit to apply "neutral principles of law" rather than a First Amendment exception.

(See prior related posting.)

Court Enjoins Army From Requiring Special Testing of Sikh Officer

In Singh v. Carter, (D DC, March 3, 2016), the D.C. federal district court, invoking RFRA, granted a preliminary injunction protecting religious rights of an Army officer.  The Army had ordered a decorated Sikh Army captain to undergo costly specialized testing with his helmet and protective mask to assure that his religiously required head covering, beard and uncut hair will not interfere with the functions of the helmet and mask. The court said:

At first blush, the challenged order appears to reflect a reasonably thorough and even benevolent decision by the Army to fulfill its duty of protecting the health and safety of this particular Sikh officer.

Yet, that is far from the complete picture. Thousands of other soldiers are permitted to wear long hair and beards for medical or other reasons, without being subjected to such specialized and costly expert testing of their helmets and gas masks. Moreover, other Sikh soldiers have been permitted to maintain their articles of faith without such specialized testing.

See prior related posting.

Sikh Army Captain Sues Seeking Religious Accommodation

U.S. Army Captain Simratpal Singh, a Sikh, filed suit yesterday in federal district court in the District of Columbia seeking an injunction to require the Army to allow him to continue to serve without requiring him to shave, cut his hair or remove his turban.  According to the complaint (full text) and memorandum in support of application for a TRO and preliminary injunction (full text), Singh was granted a temporary accommodation last December (see prior posting), but as its March 31 expiration approached Singh was ordered to report for special helmet testing and several days of safety-mask testing. No one else in the army has been subjected to this kind of testing.  According to the complaint, "the Army’s discriminatory testing and regulations expose Captain Singh to serious consequences of military discipline and the loss of his career for his religious exercise." The complaint alleges violations of RFRA as well as of the 1st and 5th Amendments.  Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UC Irvine Rejects Endowed Chairs in Religious Studies Because of Donor Restrictions

The University of California Irvine is rejecting some $6 million in contributions to create four endowed chairs relating to the religions and history of India. Inside Higher Ed reports that an Ad Hoc Committee on Endowed Chairs in the School of Humanities has recommended against the chairs because the agreements establishing them "include language that is not consistent with University policies related to religious and academic freedom."  (Full text of committee's report).  The report recommends rejection, regardless of agreement modifications, of two chairs proposed by the Dharma Civilization Foundation (DCF)-- one a chair in Indic and Vedic Civilization Studies and a second in Modern India Studies-- because "DCF is unusually explicit and prescriptive on appropriate disciplinary formations, what constitutes good or acceptable scholarship, and, indeed, what constitutes good or acceptable scholars."  According to Inside Higher Ed, The Dharma Civilization Foundation is:

a California entity that seeks to fund the academic study and teaching of Indian religions as a corrective to what it describes as widespread misrepresentations of Hinduism by scholars who do not practice the religion.

The Committee also recommended that two other proposed chairs endowed by families-- one chair in Jain Studies and one in Sikh Studies-- be returned to the dean's office for further review.  The Dean of the School of Humanities accepted all the recommendations.