Title VII Religious Exemption Does Not Protect Against Suit Over Sexual Orientation Discrimination

 In Starkey v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (SD IN, Oct. 21,2020), an Indiana federal district court held that a former Catholic school guidance counselor who was fired because of her same-sex marriage may bring a discrimination claim under Title VII. The court rejected the school's contention that the religious institution exemption in Title VII applies. The court said in part:

Sexual orientation is a protected class under Title VII, and the language and legislative history of Title VII indicate Congress intended that religious institutions remain subject to Title VII's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of a protected class. To be sure, this case requires a careful balancing of religious liberty and an employee's right to be free from discrimination. The proper balance is to interpret Title VII's religious exemption to allow a religious employer to make hiring decisions in favor of coreligionists without facing claims of religious discrimination, but to allow a plaintiff to bring claims of other forms of Title VII discrimination. The religious exemption does not bar Starkey's Title VII claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, retaliation, and hostile work environment....

So, the question then becomes: Does a religious reason for an employment decision bar a plaintiff's Title VII claim when the religious reason also implicates another protected class?  The exemption under Section 702 should not be read to swallow Title VII's rules. It should be narrowly construed to avoid reducing Title VII's expansive rights and protections.

 Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

Student Sues Over Ban On Shirt With Anti-Gay Message

Suit was filed in a Tennessee federal district court last week by a high school student and her father challenging a public school's interpretation of a Policy in its Student Handbook that bars clothing with offensive messages, including sexual connotations.  The school insisted that the Policy prohibits plaintiff from wearing a shirt featuring the message "homosexuality is a sin-- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10".  The suit contends that this violates plaintiff's free exercise and free speech rights. The complaint (full text) in B.A.P. v. Overton County Board of Education, (MD TN, filed 10/16/2020), alleges in part:

Plaintiffs have a personal belief in the Biblical mandate to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Plaintiff B.A.P. engages in activities, for the purpose of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that are prohibited by the [school's] Policy.

WZTV reports on the lawsuit.

USCIRF Hearing On Hate Speech Targeting Religious Groups

Yesterday the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom held a hearing on Combatting Online Hate Speech and Disinformation Targeting Religious Communities.  The USCIRF website has a video of the full hearing and transcripts of witnesses' testimony.

Pope Francis Endorses LGBT Civil Union Laws

Catholic News Agency reported yesterday that in a newly released documentary titled Francesco, Pope Francis called for the passage of civil union laws covering same-sex couples. This is inconsistent with the positions of prior Popes and with the views of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In a portion of the documentary devoted to pastoral care for LGBT individuals, the Pope said:

Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it....

What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.

Colorado Limits On Worship Services Enjoined

In Denver Bible Church v. Azar, (D CO, Oct. 15, 2020), a Colorado federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against two churches of portions of Colorado's COVID-19 restrictions on worship services. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim for a simple reason. Having decided that the risk of allowing various activities to be exempt from the strictest Safer at Home rules is justified on the basis that those activities are critical and necessary, the State cannot decide for Plaintiffs what is critical and necessary to their religious exercise. With each exception Colorado makes for secular institutions, the failure to make the same exemption for houses of worship becomes increasingly problematic.... So Colorado’s failure to offer a compelling reason why houses of worship are subject to greater restrictions than warehouses, schools, and restaurants violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion....

Note well that the implications of this conclusion aren’t as broad as some might hope or others might fear. Plaintiffs will still be subject to the neutrally applicable rules and prohibitions in Public Health Order 20-35. They will, for example, have to enforce sanitization requirements, maintain social distancing between individuals, and not permit shaking hands.... All in all, based on their bona fide religious need to do so, Plaintiffs will be allowed to open their sanctuaries subject to the same capacity, social distancing, and masking rules that are applicable to other critical businesses, and will be able to permit congregants to remove their masks if and when it is necessary to carry out their religious exercise.

CBSN Denver reports on the decision.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Important Clergy Abuse Case

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on oral arguments before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court yesterday in an important case on Catholic Church liability for priest sexual abuse occurring many years ago:

At issue is the claim by plaintiff Renee Rice of Altoona that the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown conspired to cover up abuse by priests including that of her own alleged assailant — the Rev. Charles Bodziak — in the 1970s and 1980s. She sued the diocese for alleged fraud and concealment, saying that it was not until a 2016 statewide grand jury report that she learned of “a massive, systemic conspiracy of coverup to allow … children to be abused repeatedly,” attorney Alan Perer said.

But in repeated questioning, some of the justices echoed the argument of the diocese’s own attorney — that a plaintiff has an obligation within the statute of limitations to investigate the source of her injury and those who may have been responsible for it.

Plaintiff argues that it should be up to a jury to decide if she should have investigated sooner.

Jail's "God-Pod" Program Violates Establishment Clause

 In Young v. Newton, (ED VA, Oct. 16, 2020), a Virginia federal district court, while rejecting a number of claims by Muslim inmates, held that the Riverside Regional Jail Authority (along with its superintendent and the program chaplain) violated the Establishment Clause when they created the Christian-based Life Learning Program (known as the "God Pod"). Participating inmates lived in a separate pod and had access to a microwave and initially were able to single-bunk. The court said in part:

The LLP was unquestionably based on Christian principles and the Bible, which ... is a Christian book. The administration of that program demonstrated a preference for Christianity over other religions and extended benefits to those who subscribed to that preference. Any secular purpose of the LLP, such as to teach skills related to intellectual, emotional, spiritual, relational, occupational, and financial success, was pursued through religious, specifically Christian, teachings, which had the primary effect of advancing Christianity at the Riverside Regional Jail.

CAIR issued a press release announcing the decision.

Pastor Was Validly Demoted and Terminated

In Kim v. Kwon, (CA App., Oct. 19, 2020), a California state appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision that plaintiffs are validly elected directors of Irvine Baptist Church and that they validly demoted and then terminated senior associate pastor David Kwon. The court said in part:

The [Ordained Deacons Committee] ... acted within the scope of its authority under the Church Constitution when it demoted and terminated Kwon....

True, the trial court did not determine whether the ODC had valid grounds to demote or terminate Kwon based on his performance of his ministerial duties. But this is a different question than whether it had the authority to do so. And the court was right to tread lightly there. “The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as its California counterpart (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4), precludes civil courts from adjudicating [civil or] property disputes based on religious doctrine.” 

Russia Continues To Prosecute For Failure of Religious Groups To Display Full Official Names

 Forum 18 reported yesterday:

Religious organisations in Russia continue to be prosecuted for not showing their full official names on literature, online, and most frequently of all, on their buildings – despite a lack of clear guidance in law on how and where names should be displayed.

According to available court records, 98 prosecutions reached court between the beginning of January 2019 and the end of June 2020. These involved 76 registered religious organisations and 22 individuals. Most resulted in guilty verdicts and fines, with a conviction rate across the 18-month period of 72.5 per cent....

Forum 18 found 14 cases in 2019-20 in which judges ordered the confiscation of religious literature which had allegedly been "distributed as part of missionary activity" and should therefore have been bearing the religious organisations' full official names. In six of these cases, the books, magazines, CDs, or newspapers were also ordered destroyed.

More Litigation Developments In Religious Institution Challenges To COVID-19 Restrictions

Suit was filed last week in an Oregon federal district court challenging Oregon's COVID-19 Orders and guidance that grant small public schools, but not small private or religious schools, an exemption from the ban on in-person instruction. The complaint (full text) in Hermiston Christian Center v. Brown, (D OR, filed 10/16/2020) asserts various 1st and 14th Amendment claims, including the charge that the Orders unlawfully target religious schools. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Becket announced that it filed suit last week in Lebovits v. Cuomo, (ND NY, filed 10/15/2020). The suit is brought on behalf of two young women and their Orthodox Jewish school.  It challenges New York City's lock down in zip codes in which there are micro-clusters of COVID-19.

Amistad Project announced that it filed suit over the weekend in Libertas Classical Ass'n v. Whitmer, (WD MI), on behalf of a K-12 Christian school in Hudsonville, MI. According to the press release:

... [T]he Whitmer Administration has made repeated, unreasonable demands on the school since September 4, including that kindergarteners always wear masks while in school, including during chapel and outdoor recess....

This violates the First Amendment rights of assembly and religion for the school's 265 students, as well as parents and staff.

In Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshar, (6th Cir., Oct. 19, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow a church and its congregants to obtain an appellate court ruling on a dispute that had essentially become moot.  In March 2020, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear had barred all religious services as part of the state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal courts preliminarily enjoined the ban from going into effect and subsequently the Governor ended the ban. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

In Gish v. Newsom, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192714 (CD CA, Oct. 9, 2020), a California federal district court refused to reconsider its decision upholding the state's COVID-19 Orders that limit indoor religious services.

Native American Band Fails In Attempt To Halt Border Barrier Construction

 In Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Nation v. Wolf, (D DC, Oct. 16, 2020), in a suit by a Native American tribe the D.C. federal district court refused to enjoin construction on two barrier projects along the U.S.-Mexico border in California. The court said in part:

The Kumeyaay’s principal claim of injury is this: So long as construction at the Projects continues without proper consultation and mitigation measures, it will “unavoidably damage” cultural and religious sites and artifacts, as well as the natural setting and resources “on which the sacred nature of such sites depends.”... The Court does not doubt the significance of the region to the Kumeyaay’s religion. But they have not made a clear showing to support their contention for any of these alleged harms....

For starters, no Kumeyaay burial sites or remains have been identified within the narrow strip of federal land where construction is taking place, even after the Government surveyed and re-surveyed the land.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Samuel J. Levine, Hands-Off Religion in the Early Months of COVID-19, (October 1, 2020).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Legally White, Socially Brown: Racialization of Middle Eastern Americans, (Routledge Handbook on Islam and Race (ed. Zain Abdullah), Forthcoming).
• Michael Goodyear, Heaven or Earth: The Hagia Sophia Re-Conversion, Turkish and International Law, and Universal Religious Sites, (August 24, 2020).
• Joel Harrison, Christian Accounts of Religious Liberty: Two Views of Conscience, (Brigham Young University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Adam Shinar, Barak Medina & Gila Stopler, From Promise to Retrenchment? On the Changing Landscape of Israeli Constitutionalism, (18 International Journal of Constitutional Law (ICON) (2020)).
• Helen Dancer, Women in Law and Justice, (Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History. Oxford University Press. (2020)).
• Stefanus Hendrianto,The Last Testament of Justice Scalia: On Aquinas and Law, 34 Notre Dame Journal of Law Ethics & Public Policy 197-238 (2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Hieu The Le & Joan Catherine, The Intersection of Stem Cell Research, the Roman Catholic Church, United States Constitutional Law, and Public Policy, [Abstract], 23 Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 31-48 (2020).

New York's Zip-Code Targeted COVID-19 Limits Are Upheld

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, (ED NY, Oct. 16, 2020), a New York federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to the Diocese in its challenge to New York's COVID-19 cluster action initiative that targets specific zip codes. A TRO had previously been denied. (See prior posting.) Rejecting plaintiff's arguments, the court said in part:

[T]he excerpts from the Governor's public comments do not transform a neutral law into a religiously targeted one. The evidence shows that Governor Cuomo is clearly aware and concerned that EO 202.68 burdens religious practice, and particularly the religious practice of Orthodox Jews, but awareness that the burden of a law falls unequally does not establish that the law was designed to target religious groups. Indeed, as the Governor reportedly told a group of Jewish community leaders, although the policy is a "very blunt" instrument, its purpose is to "get the numbers down in the zip codes." ... The court reads the Governor's statement to say that EO 202.68 is targeted temporarily at all gatherings in the areas where there are spikes in COVID-19 positivity rates, not at religious gatherings in particular.

Church's Challenge To California COVID-19 Limits Rejected Again

 In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, (SD CA, Oct. 15, 2020), a California federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to a church that challenged California's current COVID-19 restrictions on worship services. The state limits plaintiffs’ indoor worship services to the lesser of 25% of building capacity or 100 people. The church had earlier unsuccessfully appealed a challenge to an earlier version of state restrictions all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. (See prior posting.) According to the district court:

Plaintiffs now argue ... that California’s “scientific pronouncements” are “largely baseless,” and that by “all reasonable scientific measurements,” the COVID-19 health emergency “has ended.” ... They also argue the State’s restrictions treat certain secular businesses more favorably than religious organizations and have been enforced in a discriminatory manner.

The court again rejected plaintiff's arguments, saying in part:

At bottom, Plaintiffs’ renewed motion asks the Court to second guess decisions made by California officials concerning whether COVID-19 continues to present a health emergency and whether large indoor gatherings with singing pose a risk to public health. Although not binding, the Court finds Chief Justice Roberts’s reasoning in this case to be compelling. The background set forth above shows the State and County “are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground.” ...  And the evidence demonstrates the COVID-19 pandemic remains an area “fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” where the State and County’s latitude “must be especially broad.”

Tennessee 48-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Struck Down

 In Adams & Boyle, P.C. v. Slatery, (MD TN, Oct. 14, 2020), a Tennessee federal district court struck down Tennessee's requirement that women seeking an abortion must receive specified information in person and then wait 48 hours before undergoing the procedure. The court, in a 136-page opinion, said in part:

The Court finds and concludes that the mandatory waiting period required by § 39-15-202(a)-(h) substantially burdens women seeking an abortion in Tennessee. Plaintiffs have demonstrated conclusively that the statute causes increased wait times, imposes logistical and financial burdens, subjects patients to increased medical risks, and stigmatizes and demeans women. These burdens are especially difficult, if not impossible, for low-income women to overcome, and the evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of women seeking abortions in Tennessee are low income. Further, plaintiffs have shown that the statute undermines the doctor-patient relationship and imposes operational and financial burdens on abortion providers....

Defendants have failed to show that the challenged mandatory waiting period protects fetal life or the health of women in Tennessee. It is apparent that this waiting period unduly burdens women’s right to an abortion and is an affront to their “dignity and autonomy,” “personhood” and “destiny,” and “conception of . . . [their] place in society.”

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Rockland County (NY) Synagogues Sue Over Targeted COVID-19 Order

Another lawsuit challenging New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's Oct. 6 Executive Order targeting Covid-19 hot spots was filed on Wednesday by three Hasidic Jewish congregations in Rockland County (NY).  The complaint (full text) in Congregation Yesheos Yakov v. State of New York, (SD NY, filed 10/14/2020), alleges that the Order was directed at "activities of specific minority religious communities during one of the most important religious holidays in their faith." Alleging numerous violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments, the complaint says in part:

2. The Governor freely and repeatedly admitted his decision was not driven by science, or data, but, by “fear.”

3. Based on this fear, and not on any epidemiological or other objective data, Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order No. 202.68 ... established colorcoded COVID-19 “hot-spot” zoning areas subject to gathering limits and restrictions that singled out as “hot-spots” known enclaves of the Hasidic and strictly-observant Jewish Orthodox communities.

PJ Media reports on the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Vermont School Voucher Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in A.M. v. French. In the case,  a Vermont federal district court refused to order the state to allow a student enrolled in a Catholic high school to participate in the Dual Enrollment Program that pays for high schoolers to take college courses. (See prior posting.) ADF (which represents plaintiffs) has a case page with links to some of the pleadings and other material on the case.

Amy Coney Barrett's Views On 1st Amendment Religion Issues Examined

Tuesday was Day 2 of the hearings on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court. Don Byrd at BJC has posted video clips of the exchanges between Barrett and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on church-state and religious liberty issues. Earlier this week BJC submitted a letter to the Committee (full text) reviewing Barrett's limited record on church-state and religious liberty matters.

Cert. Filed In Church's Challenge To Illinois COVID-19 Orders

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court in Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, (cert. filed 10/14/2020).  In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a church's challenge to Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's COVID-19 orders which restrict-- or in their latest form urge --restriction on the size of worship services. (See prior posting.)  Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for Supreme Court review.                

6th Circuit Hears Arguments On Kentucky COVID Orders Applicable To Churches

Yesterday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Maryville Baptist Church v. Beshear and Roberts v. Beshear. (Audio of oral arguments.) At issue are the constitutionality of Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear's orders limiting mass gatherings, including church services. See prior postings (1, 2). Courthouse News Service reports on yesterday's oral arguments.