Two Recent Cases Charging Religious Discrimination In Employment

Two recent lawsuits charging religious discrimination in employment are in the news.  In Bowling Green, Kentucky, a former firefighter sued claiming questioning and harassment over his atheist beliefs as well as over his non-conformity to gender norms.  The complaint (full text) in Queen v. City of Bowling Green, (KY Cir. Ct., filed 8/10/2016) contends that plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of his religious beliefs in violation of Kentucky law. WKU Herald reports on the lawsuit.

Separately, in Dallas, Texas, last Wednesday an Orthodox Jewish woman filed suit against the county after her job offer as data manager with the Dallas County sheriff's office was rescinded.  The sheriff's office acted after plaintiff, Isabel Balderas, told them that she would need an accommodation allowing her to leave 30 minutes early on Fridays during the winter months in order to be home for the beginning of the Sabbath. The sheriff's office said that the data manager position requires that the person be on call 24/7. Dallas News reports on the lawsuit.

Texas AG Cleared of Ethics Charges Over Reaction To Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Texas Tribune reports that in an Aug. 3 notice, the State Bar of Texas announced that it is dismissing an ethics complaint signed by over 200 Texas lawyers claiming that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton "violated his own official oath of office" last summer when he issued an Opinion and statement on the right of public officials to assert religious objections to issuing marriage licenses or performing same-sex marriages. According to the notice: "The Chief Disciplinary Counsel has determined that there is no just cause to believe that [Paxton] has committed professional misconduct."

Texas Muslim Teen-- Alarm Clock Inventor-- Sues For Discrimination

As reported by the Dallas Observer, a lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court by teenager Ahmed Mohamed who made news last September when his Irving, Texas school teacher mistook an alarm clock Mohamed had constructed for a bomb. Police were called in and both an arrest and school discipline followed. As summarized by plaintiffs' lawyer:

Despite the fact that (the Irving police) knew it wasn't a bomb, that he never threatened anyone, never alarmed anyone, they yanked him out of his chair, put him in handcuffs and arrested him. There was no cause for arrest. Even after the police acknowledged it didn't look like a bomb, the school suspended him. So yes, those are violations of his civil rights.

The complaint (full text) in Mohamed v. Irving Independent School District, (ND TX, file 8/8/2016), asking for damages and an injunction, alleges in part:

The IISD has a long and ugly history of race struggles up to and including the Board of Trustees. Additionally, the State of Texas, including the IISD, has a history of discrimination against Muslims in Texas curriculum and schools. 

Texas Proposes Rule Change On Handling of Fetal Tissue

As reported by Catholic News Agency, on July 1 the Texas Health and Human Services Commission proposed rule amendments (full text) that would change the way in which health care facilities dispose of fetal tissue from an abortion or miscarriage.  Fetal tissue, regardless of how early in a pregnancy, would need to be disposed of by cremation or burial, instead of being treated in the same way as other pathological waste. The proposed change comes less than one week after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas' restrictive regulation of abortion clinics. (See prior posting.)

Texas Supreme Court: Challenge To Home-School Rules Does Not Require Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

In McIntyre v. El Paso Independent School District, (TX Sup. Ct., June 24, 2016), the Texas Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision held that parents of home-schooled children were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before they challenged the constitutionality of state law provisions mandating curricular standards for home schools.  The parents alleged that their rights to due process, equal protection, and free exercise of religion under the Texas Constitution and U.S. Constitutions were infringed, along with their right to privacy under the Texas Constitution. According to the majority:

The McIntyres claim that the District and its attendance officer unconstitutionally investigated them and filed criminal complaints against them. They do not claim to be aggrieved by the school laws.

The dissent by Justice Green, joined by Justices Johnson and Brown argued:

[T]he Court today ignores our rules of statutory construction and holds that homeschool parents can avoid that exhaustion requirement simply by cloaking their school-law claims in constitutional language.

According to a Christian Science Monitor report on the decision, the parents stopped teaching their children a standard curriculum because they believed they would soon be "raptured."

County Settles Lawsuit By Removing Cross Decals From Sheriff's Cars

Austin American-Statesman reports that last week Brewster County, Texas commissioners approved a settlement in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Brewster County, Texas, which had been filed in federal district court in March.  In the case, FFRF sued challenging 8-inch tall Latin cross decals placed by the sheriff on six county law enforcement vehicles. (See prior posting.)  Three weeks after the suit was filed, the county Commissioners Court approved a ban on all political, religious, commercial and personal symbols and messages on county vehicles. In the proposed consent decree (full text) embodying the settlement, the court will enjoin the county from displaying Latin cross decals on Sheriff's Office vehicles, order defendants to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and cost totaling slightly over $22,000, and award nominal damages of $1 each to two individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Settlement of Lawsuit Clears Way For Construction of Tallest Cross In the U.S.

Christian Today reports that in Corpus Christie, Texas, construction will move ahead on a 210-foot high cross, to be built along a major highway on property owned by Abundant Life Fellowship Church. Apparently the cross will be the largest in the English-speaking world.  Construction was at a standstill after atheist Patrick Greene had filed suit challenging the cross as a violation of Texas Constitution, Art I, Sec 6 that provides:

No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship.

In response to the lawsuit, the Church's pastor filed a motion for sanctions under Texas' anti-SLAPP law.  In a court order approving a settlement agreement (full text) in Greene v. Milby, (TX Dist. Ct., May 23, 2016), the court found that Greene's lawsuit was vexatious and meritless. In the agreement both parties dropped all their claims, and Greene promised to not file additional vexatious litigation.

Dispute Over Selection of New Pastor Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Mouton v. Christian Faith Missionary Baptist Church, (TX App., May 24, 2016), a Texas state appeals court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a dispute between two groups in a church over who should be its new pastor.  The court said in part:

Appellants contend that their claims arise solely from the church’s failure to abide by non-ecclesiastical terms of the church’s bylaws and, therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case under neutral principles of law.  According to appellants, the questions they raise—including whether appellees complied with church bylaws in electing Wilson as pastor and whether appellees properly expelled appellants from church membership—are non-ecclesiastical because they are governed by non-ecclesiastical provisions in the church’s corporate documents. We conclude that the trial court correctly granted the plea to the jurisdiction because appellants’ claims are inextricably intertwined with inherently ecclesiastical issues

City Sells Religious Monument In Park To Church To Counter Complaints

Christian News reports today that the city of Port Neches, Texas has fended off complaints from the Freedom From Religion Foundation about a 10-foot high Latin cross in a public park by selling the cross and the land surrounding it to a local church.  The 20 foot by 20 foot parcel of land in Riverfront Park was sold to the First United Methodist Church for $100.  FFRF, while applauding the sale, is looking further into whether the sale price was artificially low.

Student's Complaint Over Expulsion From Catholic High School Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In In re St. Thomas High School, (TX App., May 1, 2016), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a breach of contract lawsuit against a Catholic high school brought by a 16-year old student who was expelled and by his parents. The expulsion came after the parents sent the school a letter about the handling of a grade dispute.  The letter complained that the teacher involved had not called the parents as they had requested.  It alleged that when the teacher told the student the reason for failing to call-- he was too busy preparing for a romantic night with his wife to celebrate their wedding anniversary-- that this amounted to engaging in a discussion with the student "in a sexually harassing fashion."

The school concluded that the false accusations of sexual harassment against the teacher, made it impossible for other teachers to teach the student without fear of similar charges. The court said in part:

we conclude that St. Thomas’s status as a Catholic high school does not place it outside the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine’s reach. No less than a Catholic church, St. Thomas is a religious institution enjoying First Amendment protection for the free exercise of religion....

This record belies any contention that spiritual standards and religious doctrine play no role in the parties’ dispute. Plaintiffs expressly relied on the Catholic nature of a St. Thomas education to justify their demands....  In addition ... this record also demonstrates impermissible interference with St. Thomas’s management of its internal affairs and encroachment upon its internal governance.

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. 

5th Circuit: Texas Prisons' Grooming and Headwear Policies Violate RLUIPA

Reflecting the approach taken last year by the U.S. Supreme Court in Holt v. Hobbs (see prior posting), yesterday the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ali v. Stephens, (5th Cir., May 2, 2016) held that the Texas prison system's grooming and headwear policies violate a Muslim inmate's rights under RLUIPA.  The court affirmed the trial court's grant of declaratory and injuctive relief to allow an observant Muslim inmate to grow a 4-inch beard and wear his kufi throughout the prison facility.

Texas Supreme Court Dismisses Attempt To Void Early Same-Sex Marriage

As reported by the Austin Statesman, the Texas Supreme Court today unanimously dismissed as moot a petition for mandamus filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to invalidate a same-sex marriage performed in the state four months before the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Obergefell case creating marriage equality throughout the United States.  However in the Texas case, In re State of Texas, (April 15, 2016), Justice Willett in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Devine (full text) took the lower court to task for ignoring a procedural statute in Texas that requires Texas courts to notify the attorney general of state constitutional challenges and give the state 45 days to weigh in before the case is decided. Justice Brown in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Devine (full text) argued that the trial court procedurally should not have used the device of a temporary restraining order to allow the same-sex marriage to go forward, after which plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Qualified Immunity For Commissioners Asking Religious Questions To Constable Candidate

In Lloyd v. Birkman, (WD TX, April 1, 2016), a Texas federal district court held that members of the Williamson County (Texas) Commissioners' Court enjoyed qualified immunity in a suit by an unsuccessful candidate for County Constable.  The position was normally an elected one, but the current Constable resigned and the next election was over one year away. Thus under state law the Commissioners had the power to appoint a new Constable to serve until the next general election.  During interviews for the position, Commissioners asked candidates about their church membership, views on gay marriage and abortion, and political ideology. Plaintiff contended that these questions violated his rights of free expression and association, as well as the free exercise and establishment clauses. The court, however, concluded that there was not "clearly established law" that this line of questioning was improper in the context of private interviews for an interim appointment to a normally elective position. (See prior related posting.)

Suit Challenges Pastor's Invitation To Texas Mayor To Speak At Groundbreaking For Cross

The Corpus Christi Caller Times reported yesterday on a lawsuit against the pastor of a local church who invited Corpus Christi's mayor to speak at a groundbreaking ceremony for a 210-foot tall cross placed along an Interstate highway near the Texas city. Mayor Nelda Martinez spoke at the ceremony about her late father's dream for a cross at the helm of the Corpus Christi Bay.  The lawsuit filed in state court by Patrick Greene accuses the pastor, Rick Milby, of violating state law-- apparently Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas constitution-- when he invited the mayor and council leaders to the groundbreaking. The city attorney calls the lawsuit frivolous.

Suit Challenges Cross Decals On Sheriff's Office Patrol Cars

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit yesterday against a Texas sheriff who placed 8-inch tall Latin cross decals on six county law enforcement vehicles.  The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Brewster County, Texas, (WD TX, filed 3/2/2016), says that Sheriff Ronny Dodson placed the decals on patrol vehicles because he "wanted God’s protection over his deputies."  The suit contends that this violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as well as Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas Constitution.  FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments In Texas Abortion Regulation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in one of the most important abortion cases to reach it in some time, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt.  The full transcript of  today's oral arguments is now available. The case page from SCOTUSblog provides links to the cert. petition, all the briefs, the lower court decision and commentary on the case. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog also has an analysis of this morning's argument. At issue in the case are provisions in a 2013 Texas law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and requiring abortion clinics to meet standards for ambulatory surgical centers.

FFRF Sues Over Governor's Removal of Bill of Rights "Nativity" Display

As previously reported, last December Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, as chairman of the Texas State Preservation Board, forced the executive director of the Board to remove from the state capitol rotunda a previously-approved display by the Freedom From Religion Foundation of a Bill of Rights "nativity" scene.  The display included figures of the founding fathers and a sign about the Winter solstice. The Governor complained that the display mocks Christians and Christianity. Yesterday, FFRF filed a lawsuit challenging the governor's action and requesting a declaratory judgment, injunction and nominal damages. The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Abbott,  (WD TX, filed 2/25/2016), contends:

Defendants have violated the Plaintiff’s Free Speech, Equal Protection and Due Process rights, and ... have violated the Establishment Clause, by removing and excluding the Plaintiff’s protected speech, a display, from a public forum, because of the content of the Plaintiff’s speech.

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

Texas Lt. Gov. Seeks To Dispute Judicial Conduct Commission On Chaplaincy Program

In a press release yesterday, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick announced that he has requested a formal opinion from state attorney general Ken Paxton on the constitutionality of a volunteer Justice Court Chaplaincy Program created by Montgomery County Justice of the Peace Wayne Mack.  (Full text of request for AG Opinion and Brief in Support.)  Mack, who is also the County Coroner, created the chaplaincy program to help grieving family, friends and witnesses at death scenes to which the coroner is called.  To recognize these volunteer chaplains, Mack also invites them to give a brief prayer to open his justice of the peace court proceedings.  A complaint was filed against Mack with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Complaint was eventually dismissed, but the Commission urged Mack to end the chaplaincy program and to modify the opening prayer ceremony. Patrick hopes that an Attorney General's Opinion will clarify that the programs are constitutionally permissible.

Texas Supreme Court: Cheerleaders' Battle With School District Not Moot

In Matthews v. Kountze Independent School District, (TX Sup. Ct., Jan. 29. 2016), the Texas Supreme Court, without hearing or oral argument, held that a dispute between football cheerleaders and a local school system over run-through banners carrying religious messages is not moot.  Originally the school banned the religious verses, but after a trial court issued a temporary injunction allowing the cheerleaders to continue using the banners, the school reversed its ban and the court of appeals agreed with the school that this eliminated any live controversy. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court reversed, saying in part:

the District’s voluntary abandonment here provides no assurance that the District will not prohibit the cheerleaders from displaying banners with religious signs or messages at school-sponsored events in the future.

Justice Willett filed a concurring opinion, invoking analogies from the movie The Lion King. Justice Guzman filed a concurring opinion emphasizing that school officials need guidance on the extent to which limits on religious speech are permissible. AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Steven Jamar via Religionlaw for the lead.]