Religious Organizations Challenge City's New Anti-Discrimination Law

Five churches and a Christian radio station filed suit last week in a Wisconsin state trial court challenging a De Pere city anti-discrimination ordinance that does not clearly exempt religious organizations.  The complaint (full text) in Hope Lutheran Church v. City of De Pere, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 2/22/2018) says that the city has not been willing to assure churches and religious organizations that they will be exempt from the employment and public accommodation provisions of the law that takes effect next month.  The complaint contends:

As a result, the ordinance is likely to be imposed on churches and other religious organizations in a manner that would mandate government orthodoxy in core religious functions, communication, and conduct.

While the law does permit religious organizations to hire on the basis of religion, it does not exempt them from prohibitions on hiring on the basis of sex, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity.  Fox 11 News reports on the law suit.

7th Circuit: Hebrew Teacher Covered By "Ministerial Exception" Doctrine

In Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., (7th Cir., Feb. 13, 2018), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ministerial exception applies to prevent a former Hebrew teacher in a Jewish day school from suing for her firing in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  Plaintiff taught first and second graders. In concluding that plaintiff should be classified as a "ministerial" employee, the court said in part:

... it is sufficient that the school clearly intended for her role to be connected to the school’s Jewish mission....  Milwaukee Jewish Day School expected Grussgott to follow its expressly religious mission and to teach the Tal Am curriculum, which is designed to “develop Jewish knowledge and identity in [its] learners.”.... This, combined with the importance of Grussgott’s Judaic teaching experience in her being hired, confirms that the school expected her to play an important role in “transmitting the [Jewish] faith to the next generation.”.... Even if Grussgott did not know this, the purpose of the ministerial exception is to allow religious employers the freedom to hire and fire those with the ability to shape the practice of their faith. Thus, it is the school’s expectation—that Grussgott would convey religious teachings to her students— that matters.

Public Accommodation Law Does Not Apply To Photographer Without Business Store Front

Earlier this year a Madison, Wisconsin creative photographer, Amy Lynn, filed suit in Wisconsin state court challenging local and state public accommodation provisions that impeded her ability to rely on her Christian religious beliefs in her client selection. (See prior posting.)  Now, according to an ADF press release, at an August 1 hearing the court announced that it will issue an order declaring that the local and state public accommodation laws do not apply to individuals like Lynn who do not have a physical store front as part of their business.  The court said that the city and state agree that the public accommodation laws do not apply in such cases.

Settlement Reached In Suit Over University Service Learning Credit For Religious Activity

A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit against the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire (see prior posting) over its refusal to count religious teaching to children as a permissible type of community service to satisfy university students' service learning requirement. Credit was give for various sorts of non-religious teaching.  Under the settlement agreement (full text) in Liebl v. Schmidt, the University agreed to remove language from its Service Learning Guidebook and from as University Senate motion that had disallowed credit for "time spent directly involved in promoting religious doctrine, proselytizing or worship." The University also agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys fees of $15,000.  Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with the Wisconsin federal district court on July 6.  ADF issued a press release announcing the settlement.

7th Circuit Upholds Transgender Student's Bathroom Rights

In Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, (7th Cir., May 30, 2017), the U.S. 7th Circuit court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction requiring a Wisconsin high school to permit 17-year old Ash Whitaker, a transgender male, to use the boys' rest rooms.  Summarizing its holding, the court said in part:

Ash has sufficiently demonstrated a likelihood of success on his Title IX claim under a sex‐stereotyping theory. Further, because the policy’s classification is based upon sex, he has also demonstrated that heightened scrutiny, and not rational basis, should apply to his Equal Protection Claim. The School District has not provided a genuine and exceedingly persuasive justification for the classification.

Rejecting the school's privacy arguments, the court said in part:

What the record demonstrates here is that the School District’s privacy argument is based upon sheer conjecture and abstraction.... A transgender student’s presence in the restroom provides no more of a risk to other students’ privacy rights than the presence of an overly curious student of the same biological sex who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates.

The Hill reports on the decision.

Hebrew Teacher's ADA Suit Barred By Ministerial Exception Doctrine

Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., (ED WI, May 30, 2017), a Wisconsin federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a suit by a teacher in a Jewish Day School who claims she was fired in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  The court concluded that plaintiff, who taught Hebrew to second and third graders, and had taught an integrated Hebrew-Jewish Studies curriculum, qualifies as a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception doctrine.  In rejecting her argument that her teaching of Hebrew was cultural, not religious, the court nevertheless commented that "a religious organization could abuse this deference by claiming that certain apparently secular activities are actually religious."

Photographer Challenges Public Accommodation Law

Earlier this week a suit was filed in a Wisconsin state trial court challenging Madison City Code § 39.03(5) which makes it illegal for public accommodations to deny “equal enjoyment” because of someone’s sexual orientation or political beliefs or to publish “any communication” that denies facilities or that conveys a person’s patronage is “unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable” because of someone’s sexual orientation or political beliefs. It also challenges Wis. Stat. §106.52 that has similar provisions regarding sexual orientation. The complaint (full text) in Amy Lynn Photography Studio, LLC v. City of Madison, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 3/7/2017), contends that these legal provisions impede the ability of photographer Amy Lynn to rely on her Christian religious beliefs in deciding which clients to offer her visual storytelling service:

Amy loves to photograph and post about weddings so that others can see God’s love and character displayed in the beauty of marriage. Amy also wants to photograph for and post about pro-life pregnancy health clinics so that others can see God’s love and character displayed in the sanctity of life. These desires have grown as Amy has seen our culture increasingly question the value of marriage and the sanctity of human life.

To counteract that trend, Amy not only promotes certain content, she avoids certain content. Amy can hardly promote her beliefs while glamorizing contrary ideas. Amy therefore cannot photograph or write about things celebrating pornography, racism, violence, abortion, or any marriage besides marriage between one man and one woman, such as same-sex marriage. Nor can she photograph or write about organizations that promote those beliefs.

But Madison’s and Wisconsin’s public accommodation laws forbid that freedom.

An ADF press release announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges University's Service Learning Requirements

A suit filed yesterday in a Wisconsin federal district court challenges the constitutionality of the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire's service learning program.  All students must complete 30 hours of community service in order to graduate; however activities that directly involve promoting religious doctrine, proselytizing, or worship are not eligible for credit. The complaint (full text) in Liebl v. Schmidt, (WD WI, filed 11/10/2016), alleges that the two students who are bringing suit were not allowed to count time teaching religious education classes to children as community service, while students could receive service-learning credit for a variety of activities that involve non-religious instruction or non-religious persuasion and recruitment. The suit alleges that this policy violates plaintiffs' 1st and 14th Amendment rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Parents' Challenge To Ban on "Rod Discipline" of Their Children Rejected

In State of Wisconsin v. Caminiti, (WI App., April 7, 2016), a Wisconsin state appellate court rejected facial constitutional challenges by parents to the statutory ban on intentionally (subject to a "reasonable discipline" defense) causing bodily harm to their children.  Alina and Matthew Caminiti were convicted of regularly using "rod discipline" on their two young children beginning when the children were 2 to 3 months old. Matthew was an "elder" in a Christian church and believed that the Biblical injunction: "He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently" requires him to use a wooden spoon or wooden dowel to spank his children. The court rejected arguments that the intentional physical abuse ban unjustifiably interferes with the substantive due process rights of parents under the 14th Amendment , or with their free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment or their freedom of conscience rights under Wisconsin's constitution.

Amish Contempt Citation Upheld; Free Exercise Issue Avoided

A Wisconsin state appeals court this week, avoiding the free exercise issue that appellants attempted to raise, upheld the contempt judgment against members of an Old Order Amish family who failed to obtain building and sanitary permits for their residence.  In In re the Contempt in: Eau Claire County v. Borntreger, (WI App., Jan. 5, 2016), the court held that the state constitutional issue that the Borntregers want to raise was not the subject of the contempt decision under appeal, but of the earlier grant of summary judgment to the county which the Borntregers failed to appeal. The court explained appellants' contentions:

The Borntregers argued their decision not to pursue building and sanitary permits was protected by article I, section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The Borntregers subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on this ground, asserting the “county ordinance and the state statutes [the County] relies upon violate the defendants’ freedom of worship and liberty of conscience.” The Borntregers argued they would not sign any application, including those for building or sanitary permits, “that states they will adhere to building codes or adhere to all applicable codes, laws, statutes and ordinances.” The Borntregers reasoned that signing such a form would constitute a false statement because they had no intent to comply, and the making of false statements is prohibited by their religion.

However the trial court rejected their claim, concluding that the Borntregars' beliefs were not burdened by the application process.  The applications merely contained an acknowledgement that the proposed construction is "subject to" applicable codes. The court said that signing this merely confirms the applicant's awareness of the rules, and is not a promise to comply.

Meanwhile the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram yesterday reported that the Borntregars, as well as 20 other Old Order Amish families, have now obtained building permits after the Wisconsin legislature changed the applicable law. The state now allows Amish not to install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and to have simple plumbing.  However they still need permits for items like foundations, structure and entrances, and the Amish are willing to obtain these.

Restrictions On Anti-Gay Marriage Protester Upheld

In Braun v. Terry, (ED WI, Nov. 30, 2015), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected claims by an anti-gay marriage protester that his free speech, equal protection and due process rights were infringed when authorities restricted the area in which he could carry his signs.  The events at issue occurred on the first day that same-sex marriage licenses were issued and marriages were conducted at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.  Plaintiff complains that he was not permitted to enter the courthouse to protest, and that the area in the park outside the courthouse where he could protest was restricted. The court found the restrictions imposed reasonable, non-discriminatory and narrowly tailored.

7th Circuit Invalidates Same-Sex Marriage Bans In Indiana and Wisconsin

Yesterday the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Baskin v. Bogan, (7th Cir., Sept. 4, 2014), affirmed district court decisions striking down same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin. The unanimous opinion, written by Judge Posner in his unquely cogent style, takes on and counters each argument in favor of same-sex marriage bans put forward by each state. He particularly emphasizes the protection-of-children argument on which Indiana relied exclusively:

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction—that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage  because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents. The discrimination against same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional even if the discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny, which is why we can largely elide the more complex analysis found in more closely balanced equal-protection cases.

He derides Indiana's arguments, summarizing them as follows:

Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

Moving to Wisconsin's ban, Judge Posner, quoting (among others) Justice Holmes and John Stuart Mill, counters each of four additional justifications the state puts forward for banning same-sex marriage-- tradition, the need to move cautiously, respect for the democratic process and damage to traditional marriage. Posner describes the last of these as an argument that "allowing [homosexuals] to marry degrades the institution of marriage (as might happen if people were allowed to marry their pets or their sports cars)...."  He summarizes:

the grounds advanced by Indiana and Wisconsin for their discriminatory policies are not only conjectural; they are totally implausible.

As reported by the New York Times, yesterday's decision was handed donw only nine days after the court heard oral arguments in the case.

Recount Looming In Slim Primary Victory of Controversial Wisconsin House Candidate

The Hill reports that a likely recount in Wiconsin's Republican congressional primary has called into question Tuesday's initial apparent victory of state senator Glenn Grothman. As of Wednesday morning, Grothman was leading by only 214 votes. (Wis. Election Watch). Grothman, running for the Republican nomination for the U.S. House of Representatives in Wisconsin's 6th District, has become controversial because of his conservative social views.  According to The Hill:

Grothman recently said it was "unbelievable" that Secretary of State John Kerry criticized Uganda's harsh anti-gay laws, and has repeatedly called homosexuality a "sin," saying it "should not flourish" in American society. He's also attacked what he's called the "war on men" during a 2010 Tea Party rally, has said that "money is more important for men" as part of explaining why he opposed equal pay legislation, and has sponsored legislation that said that single parenting is a contributing factor to child abuse.

Order Stayed By Court After Enjoining Wisconsin's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

As previously reported, on June 6 a Wisconsin federal district court declared Wisconsin's constitutional and statutory provisions barring same-sex marriage unconstitutional and instructed the parties to submit proposed language for an injunction. Now in Wolf v. Walker, (WD WI, June 13, 2014), the court issued a carefully worded injunction against the governor, state registrar and three county clerks. However the court also stayed the injunction, as well as its earlier declaratory judgment, until the conclusion of any appeals or after the expiration of the deadline for filing appeals.  Judge Crabb wrote in part:

If I were considering these factors as a matter of a first impression, I would be inclined to agree with plaintiffs that defendants have not shown that they are entitled to a stay. However, I cannot ignore the Supreme Court’s order in Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S. Ct. 893 (2014), in which the Court stayed a district court’s order enjoining state officials in Utah from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage.....  [S]ince Herbert, every statewide order enjoining the enforcement of a ban on same-sex marriage has been stayed, either by the district court or the court of appeals, at least when the state requested a stay.....

It is true that the Supreme Court declined to issue a stay in a more recent case in which a district court in Oregon enjoined enforcement of that state’s ban on same-sex marriage. National Organization for Marriage v. Geiger .... (June 4, 2014). However, that order is not instructive because the district court’s injunction was not opposed by the state; rather, a nonparty had requested the stay. Thus, I do not interpret Geiger as undermining the Court’s order in Herbert.

Yesterday's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports on the decision.

Wisconsin's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down; Marriages Begin Ahead of Motion To Stay Court's Order

Yesterday in Wolf v. Walker, (WD WI, June 6, 2014), a Wisconsin federal district court, in an 88-page opinion, struck down Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage. Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in part:

I conclude that the Wisconsin laws prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples interfere with plaintiffs’ right to marry, in violation of the due process clause, and discriminate against plaintiffs on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the equal protection clause.... To decide this case in favor of plaintiffs, it is not necessary, as some have suggested, to “cast all those who cling to traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools,”....  Rather, it is necessary to conclude only that the state may not intrude without adequate justification on certain fundamental decisions made by individuals and that, when the state does impose restrictions on these important matters, it must do so in an even-handed manner.

This case is not about whether marriages between same-sex couples are consistent or inconsistent with the teachings of a particular religion, whether such marriages are moral or immoral or whether they are something that should be encouraged or discouraged....  Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.

 As reported by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the court's decision does not make clear whether counties may begin to immediately issue marriage licenses. The court declared the state constitutional and statutory provisions barring same-sex marriage unconstitutional and gave the parties until June 16 to submit proposed language for an injunction. The paper reports:

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democrat, began issuing marriage licenses at 5 p.m. Friday as gay couples were married there throughout the night. He said state Department of Justice officials advised him not to issue the licenses but McDonell moved forward despite that.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a news release announcing that he will file emergency motions in federal courts seeking a stay of the district court's order. Yesterday Van Hollen also issued a statement in a series of nine Tweets saying that his office will continue to defend the constitutionality of "our traditional marriage laws."