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.

7th Circuit: Protestant Inmate's Prayer Oil Claim Dismissed In Part

In Greene v. Teslik,(7th Cir., March 2, 2023), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that a Protestant inmate's complaint under the Free Exercise clause about the denial of prayer oil should be dismissed, but remanded his Establishment Clause claim.  The court said in part:

Greene ... contends that, by denying his request ... for the same prayer oil allowed to Muslims and Pagans, the defendants violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause.... [W]e need not answer whether Greene was substantially or unjustifiably burdened when the defendants denied him prayer oil because we agree with the district court that the doctrine of qualified immunity prevents liability on the Free Exercise Clause claim....

Greene cites no case (nor can we find one) clearly establishing that denying access to a prayer accessory akin to a scented oil makes the practice of religion effectively impracticable. Qualified immunity was therefore appropriate....

Greene also claims that the defendants violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment....

[D]efendants contend that in 2013 it was not clearly established that, by denying Greene prayer oil, they would substantially burden his religion.... But that is not the right inquiry under the Establishment Clause. It has long been clearly established that “the Establishment Clause may be violated even without a substantial burden on religious practice.”... It thus “could not reasonably be thought constitutional,”...for prison staff to treat prisoners differently based on their religion—unless they present evidence that Greene was insincere or a security threat....The defendants did not do so....

[A]ny potential recovery is limited to nominal damages only. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), Greene may not recover compensatory damages for emotional or mental injuries from a constitutional violation unless a physical injury also occurred....

Poll Worker Loses Free Exercise Challenge to Vaccine Mandate

In Wolfe v. Logan, (CD CA, Jan 25, 2023), a California federal district court in an In Chambers proceeding granted Los Angeles County officials' motion to dismiss numerous challenges by plaintiff to the county's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for poll workers. Rejecting plaintiff's Free Exercise challenge, the court said in part:

The policy, as alleged by Wolfe, is neutral and generally applicable. It does not directly target religious expression; the burden that a vaccination requirement places on religious practice is incidental. Wolfe alleges that the vaccination requirement is "without exception."... Because there are no exceptions, there is no individualized exemption process that might invite religious discrimination. Moreover, the vaccine requirement makes no distinction between secular or religious objections people might have to the vaccine; everyone is required to get one if they wish to act as a poll worker.... The policy could hardly be more neutral and generally applicable, and it is therefore not subject to strict scrutiny.

10th Circuit: Abortion Clinic Sidewalk Demonstrators Lose Challenge to Disturbing-the-Peace Ordinance

In Harmon v. City of Norman, Oklahoma, (10th Cir., March 1, 2023), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's dismissal of challenges to the city's disturbing-the-peace ordinance brought by abortion clinic sidewalk demonstrators who preach to clinic visitors in an attempt to persuade them against abortion. The court said in part:

The demonstrators filed a three-count complaint, seeking relief from the City and Officer Jeff Robertson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint asserted as-applied and facial challenges to the ordinance under the Free Speech Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and further alleged that Norman failed to train its police officers. The complaint also requested preliminary and permanent injunctions to stop the City from enforcing the ordinance....

We hold that § 15-503(3) is constitutional under the Free Speech Clause as applied to the demonstrators. The demonstrators have not shown that the subsection was content-based, insufficiently tailored, or fatal to their sidewalk ministry....

The district court determined that rational-basis deference applied [to the Free Exercise claim] because the demonstrators presented no evidence that § 15-503(3) was religiously motivated. We agree....

The court went on to conclude that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring facial challenges to several portions of the Ordinance. It also concluded that the Ordinance's ban on "loud or unusual sounds" is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

ACLU Launches Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative

The ACLU announced this week that it is launching an Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative. It is offering legal representation, or assistance in finding a lawyer, for individuals facing criminal investigation or prosecution related to abortion care. Its Intake Page says that its focus is on those targeted because they obtained an abortion from a doctor or other health care professional, because they helped someone else get an abortion, or were an abortion provider.

West Virginia Legislature Passes Religious Freedom Act

The West Virginia legislature yesterday gave final passage to the Equal Protection for Religion Act (full text). The bill bars state action that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion unless there is a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means are used. It also prohibits treating religious conduct more restrictively than other conduct of reasonably comparable risk, or more restrictively than comparable conduct for economic reasons. It provides for injunctive or declaratory relief and recovery of costs and attorneys' fees. Among other things, the bill does not "protect actions or decisions to end the life of any human being, born or unborn..." The bill which now goes to Governor Jim Justice for his signature passed the Senate in accelerated fashion after it voted 30-3 to suspend its rules that normally require three readings. AP and the legislature's Wrap Up blog report on the bill's passage.

Mississippi Governor Signs Ban on Gender Transition Procedures for Minors

Yesterday Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed into law House Bill 1125, the Regulate Experimental Adolescent Procedures Act (full text). The new law bans providing gender transition procedures (including puberty blockers, hormonal treatments and surgery) for persons under the age of 18.  It also prohibits use of public funds and Medicaid coverage for such procedures and prohibits state income tax deductions for expenses of the procedures.  In a press release announcing his signing of the bill, Governor Reeves said in part:

At the end of the day, there are two positions here. One tells children that they’re beautiful the way they are. That they can find happiness in their own bodies. The other tells them that they should take drugs and cut themselves up with expensive surgeries in order to find freedom from depression. I know which side I’m on.

Department of Labor Rescinds Trump Administration Rule Broadening Religious Exemptions from Non-Discrimination Rules

The Department of Labor published in today's Federal Register a release (full text) rescinding a Trump Administration rule that defined expansively the religious exemption in the agency's rules imposing anti-discrimination requirements on government contractors and subcontractors. According to DOL:

 [T]he 2020 rule increased confusion and uncertainty about the religious exemption, largely because it departed from and questioned longstanding Title VII precedents..... 

Commenters who supported rescission overwhelmingly agreed that the 2020 preamble raised a serious risk that the rule would be implemented to permit contractors to discriminate against individuals based on protected classes other than a preference for persons of a particular religion.....

OFCCP emphasizes that, absent strong evidence of insincerity, OFCCP would accept a religious organization’s own assertions regarding doctrinal questions. However, OFCCP believes it is important to clarify that it is not appropriate to construe the Executive Order 11246 religious exemption to permit a qualifying religious organization to discriminate against employees on the basis of any protected characteristics other than religion.

Bloomberg Law reports on the rule change, (See prior related posting.)

Court Rejects Free Exercise Claim of Judge Who Was Not Reappointed Because of Vaccination Status

In Donlon v. City of Hornell, (WD NY, Feb. 27, 2023), a New York federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction requiring the city to appoint plaintiff to another term as an assistant city court judge. Plaintiff was denied a religious exemption from the New York court system's COVID vaccination mandate.  This meant that she was unable to conduct in-person hearings and could not maintain a criminal calendar while working virtually. The court said in part:

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the City’s alleged reasons for denying her reappointment were either “non-neutral or not generally applicable.”... 

In her papers, Plaintiff has a tendency to conflate her vaccination status with her religious beliefs, but the two are distinct....

Plaintiff acknowledges that the City’s concern was not her religious beliefs about vaccination, but the fact that her vaccination status interfered with her “ability to do [her] job while barred from the courtroom.”...

The City’s preference for a candidate who could hold proceedings in person and maintain the criminal caseload required of the position is “religion[] neutral.”... The City is free to prefer such a candidate, and Plaintiff is not, “under the auspices of her religion, constitutionally entitled to an exemption,”... or to “preferential . . . treatment.”... Furthermore, Plaintiff presents no evidence that the City’s preference was not generally applicable—i.e., that the City relied on this preference in a selective manner, imposing “burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief.”... There were only two candidates for the position, and, in accordance with its “religion-neutral” preference, the City selected an attorney who was vaccinated and could therefore conduct proceedings in person.

Cert. Petition Filed in Suit by Christian College Over Gender Identity Discrimination Under Fair Housing Act

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in The School of the Ozarks v. Biden. In the case, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian college lacks standing to challenge a memorandum issued by an acting assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The memorandum directs the HUD office that enforces the Fair Housing Act to investigate all discrimination complaints, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The school maintains single-sex residence halls and does not permit transgender individuals to live in residence halls that do not match their biological sex. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition.

11th Circuit: Plaintiff Can Move Ahead with Claims Stemming from Denial of Kosher Meals in Jail

In Ravan v. Talton, (11th Cir., Feb. 27, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that plaintiff who is Jewish should have been able to move ahead with RLUIPA claims against a food service and 1st Amendment free exercise claims against two food service workers for denial of kosher meals on seven different occasions while he was in a county detention center. The court said in part:

[I]ndividual defendants argue that depriving Ravan of a handful of meals over a period of months doesn’t constitute an impermissible burden on his religion. But the number of missed meals is not necessarily determinative because being denied three Kosher meals in a row might be more substantial of a burden on religion being denied three meals in three months, and for a diabetic, the denial of one meal may be a substantial burden. And the record is (at best) muddled about the number and timing of Kosher meals that Ravan was denied....

But we reach a different conclusion as to Summit Food Service. To state a claim against Summit Food Service, Ravan had to plead that the company had a custom or policy of not providing Kosher meals, or acquiesced in or ratified its employees’ doing so..... Ravan has not done so...

[I]nstitutions that receive federal funding are liable for monetary damages for violating RLUIPA.... But individual defendants aren’t.... We therefore reverse the dismissal of Ravan’s claim against Summit Food Service and affirm the dismissal of Ravan’s claims against the individual defendants.

2nd Circuit: Expressive Association Challenge to NY "Boss Bill" Can Move Ahead

In Slattery v. Hochul, (2d Cir., Feb. 27, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court should not have dismissed an expressive association challenge to New York's "Boss Bill," a law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of reproductive health choices made by the employee or a dependent. Plaintiffs are anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers and the president of one of them. The court said in part:

[W]e conclude that Evergreen plausibly alleged that § 203-e imposes severe burdens on Evergreen’s right to freedom of expressive association. The statute forces Evergreen to employ individuals who act or have acted against the very mission of its organization.... The right to expressive association allows Evergreen to determine that its message will be effectively conveyed only by employees who sincerely share its views....

Still, “[t]he right to associate for expressive purposes is not … absolute. Infringements on that right may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.”...

We hold that at this stage of the litigation, New York has not shown that § 203-e satisfies this standard....

It may be the case that preventing discrimination based on one’s choice to engage in certain, legally authorized conduct is a compelling state interest. But we need not decide that question here. Even if we answer in the affirmative, that interest cannot overcome the expressive rights of an association dedicated to outlawing or otherwise opposing that specific conduct....

The court went on to affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs' free speech, free exercise of religion and vagueness challenges. Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Texas Supreme Court Dismisses Defamation Actions Brought Against Anti-Abortion Proponents

In Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity v. Dickson, (TX Sup. Ct., Feb. 24, 2023), the Texas Supreme Court in two companion cases ordered trial courts to dismiss defamation actions brought against Mark Lee Dickson and Right to Life East Texas.  At issue were statements Dickson made on his own and on Right to Life's Facebook pages describing plaintiffs, two pro-choice organizations, as "criminal organizations" and saying that the organizations "exist to help pregnant Mothers murder their babies." The postings were part of a campaign to convince other Texas cities to enact anti-abortion ordinances similar to one enacted in 2019 by Waskom, Texas. The court, concluding that defendants' postings were expressions of opinion rather than fact, and that the suits should be dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, said in part:

A reasonable person, equipped with the national, historical, and temporal context, and informed by the overall exhortative nature of his posts, could not understand Dickson as conveying false information about the plaintiffs’ underlying conduct, as opposed to his opinion about the legality and morality of that conduct. A reasonable person would understand that Dickson is advancing longstanding arguments against legalized abortion, in the context of an ongoing campaign to criminalize abortion, on public-discourse sites regularly used for such advocacy. 

The plaintiffs argue that opinion based on a false assertion of fact can be actionable defamation. In other words, they argue that Dickson’s advocacy declaring them to be “criminal” goes beyond mere opinion....

Notable is what Dickson does not say in his statements. He does not refer to the Penal Code nor to any Texas criminal law. He does not falsely claim that the plaintiffs have been arrested or prosecuted, or otherwise indicate to the reasonable person that the plaintiffs have been convicted of crimes based on specific conduct. To the contrary, Dickson invokes a moral premise, calling for his readers to change existing law to match that moral premise....

A subjective belief, even when sincerely held by a speaker, is not the standard for determining whether a statement of opinion is defamatory. The touchstone is the reasonable reader’s reception, not the speaker’s self-serving statements of intent or interpretation.

Justice Devine, joined by Justice Blacklock, filed a concurring opinion saying in part:

I join in full the Court’s well-reasoned and thorough opinion. But it is regrettable that it took the courts of our State so long to dismiss the Funds’ obviously meritless lawsuits that were filed to silence their political adversaries. Defamation law must never become a weapon of intimidation against opponents, no matter the party or the side of a political issue.

The Texas Supreme Court has links to the briefs and oral arguments in the case.  Jonathan Turley discusses the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Andrew M. Koppelman, Madison's Non Sequitur: A Comment on Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Religious Liberty and the American Founding, (American Political Thought: A Journal of Ideas, Institutions, and Culture , forthcoming).
• Leah Litman, Disparate Discrimination, (Michigan Law Review, Vol. 121, No. 1, 2022).
• C'Zar Bernstein, The Constitutional Personality of the Unborn, (October 8, 2022).
• Dara E. Purvis, Transgender Students and the First Amendment, (February 18, 2023).
• Jeremiah A. Ho, Colonizing Queerness, (February 21, 2023).
• R. George Wright, University Missions and Legal Limitations on Campus Speech, (February 18, 2023).
• Benjamin Eidelson, The Etiquette of Equality, (51 Philosophy & Public Affairs (2023)).
• Melissa J Ganz, Corporate Persons, Collective Responsibility, and the Literary Imagination, (Critical Analysis of Law: An Interdisciplinary and International Law Review 9, no. 2 (Fall 2022): 46-5).
• Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Nonprofits, Taxes, and Speech, (56 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (Forthcoming)).

From SmartCILP:

• Ruth L. Okediji, Is the Public Domain Just?: Biblical Stewardship and Legal Protection for Traditional Knowledge Assets, 45 Columbia Journal of Law & Arts 461-524 (2022).
• Nicole Stelle Garnett & Patrick E. Reidy, Religious Covenants, 74 Florida Law Review 821-878 (2022).
• Francesco Seatzu, Extraditing Persons from Italy to Vatican City: Chimera or Real Possibility, 32 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 515-530 (2022).

Nuns' Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Claims Can Move Forward

In Brandenburg v. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, (SD NY, Feb. 23, 2023), a New York federal district court held that it can proceed to adjudicate hostile work environment and some of the retaliation claims brought by two nuns against the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and several of its clergy members. The nuns claimed that Father Makris, the school's director of student life and their "spiritual father" subjected them to unwanted sexual attention for 13 to 14 years. According to the court:

[T]he ministerial exception flows from the plaintiff’s status as a “minister.” In this case, however, Defendants’ argument has nothing to do with the fact that Plaintiffs were sanctified nuns; instead, it flows from Father Makris’s status as minister and the alleged rationale for his conduct.... 

These and other cases make plain that the First Amendment does not shield all decisions by religious institutions, whether or employment-related or otherwise, from review. Instead, a court is barred from adjudicating a dispute involving a religious institution “only where resolution of the dispute will require the Court or a jury to choose between competing religious views or interpretations of church doctrine or dogma in order to resolve the dispute.”... 

Defendants do ... assert a religious rationale for ... one relatively minor aspect of Father Makris’s conduct: his kissing of Plaintiffs..... [T]he fact that Defendants proffer a religious rationale does not mean that Defendants should be granted immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims. It merely means that Plaintiffs “may not offer a conflicting interpretation of the teachings of the [Greek Orthodox] Church or canon law to rebut [Defendants’] proffered religious reason.”... [H]owever, Plaintiffs are entitled to offer evidence and argument that Defendants’ proffered religious rationale was not the true rationale for Father Makris’s behavior.

FBI Agents Have Qualified Immunity in Suit by Muslims Placed on No-Fly List for Refusing to Spy on Their Communities

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court (see prior posting), a New York federal district court in Tanvir v. Tanzin, (SD NY, Feb. 24, 2023), held that FBI agents who placed or kept plaintiffs on the federal no-fly list in retaliation for their refusal to act as informants on their Muslim communities have qualified immunity in a suit for damages under RFRA. Plaintiffs contend that gathering information on fellow Muslims contravenes their religious beliefs.  The court concluded that FBI agents had not violated a clearly established law, saying in part:

The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs, who claim that, despite never posing a threat to aviation security, they were, for years, unable to visit ailing loved ones outside of the United States, burdened financially with the loss of job opportunities which required them to travel, and repeatedly forced to endure the basic indignity of being denied boarding passes for flights to which they had legitimately purchased tickets. Accepting their allegations as true, Plaintiffs were subjected to this treatment by way of the FBI’s misuse of the No Fly List simply because they were Muslim, and because they refused to spy on other members of their faith. 

Nevertheless—and notwithstanding varied criticisms of the doctrine of qualified immunity, the Court is required to apply the law faithfully to the issues before it....

At the time of Defendants’ alleged activity, no federal court had addressed claims—let alone actually held—that law enforcement pressuring individuals to inform on members of their religious communities through retaliatory or coercive means substantially burdened their religious exercise in violation of RFRA. Plaintiffs point to four cases in an attempt to make out their claim of clearly established law at the time of the alleged violations, but each of those cases are plainly distinguishable.....

Oklahoma AG Withdraws Opinion Permitting Sectarian Charter Schools

As previously reported, last December Oklahoma Attorney General John M. O'Connor issued Attorney General Opinion 2022-7 concluding that the ban in Oklahoma law on publicly funded charter schools being sectarian or religiously affiliated is unconstitutional. On Feb. 23, current state Attorney General Gentner Drummond withdrew that Opinion issued by his predecessor.  In a letter to the Executive Director of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board (full text) explaining his action, the AG said in part:

Without binding precedent clearly addressing whether charter schools are state actors, this office is not currently comfortable advising your board members to violate the Oklahoma Constitution's clear directive: "Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control...." Okla. Const. art I, §5 (emphasis added). Likewise, without clear precedent, this office is not comfortable advising you to violate the Legislature's clear directive that "[a] charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations." 70 O.S. §3-136(A)(2) (emphasis added).

Noting that Opinion 2022-7 was issued in anticipation of a Charter School application by St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, Drummond's letter pointed out:

[A]pproval of the SISCVS application will create a slippery slope. While many Oklahomans undoubtedly support charter schools sponsored by various Christian faiths, I doubt most Oklahomans would want their tax dollars to fund a religious school whose tenets are diametrically opposed to their own faith. Unfortunately, the approval of a charter school by one faith will compel the approval of charter schools by all faiths, even those most Oklahomans would consider reprehensible and unworthy of public funding. Consequently, I urge your board members to use caution in reviewing the SISCVS application.

Virginia Legislature Passes Law Protecting Houses of Worship from Discriminatory Restrictions During Emergencies

Yesterday, the Virginia General Assembly gave final passage to HB 2171 (full text). The bill, which is a reaction to restrictions imposed during the COVID pandemic, provides:

No rule, regulation, or order issued by the Governor or other governmental entity pursuant to this chapter shall impose restrictions on the operation of a place of worship that are more restrictive than the restrictions imposed on any other business, organization, or activity.

Virginia Mercury, reporting on the bill's passage, says that Gov. Glenn Youngkin is expected to sign the bill. It quotes a proponent of the bill as saying: "This bill means the governor’s not gonna open liquor stores and close churches."

Seattle Becomes First U.S. City To Outlaw Caste Discrimination

Seattle, Washington this week became the first U.S. city to add "caste" discrimination to its anti-discrimination laws. The Ordinance (full text), enacted on Feb. 21, in Section 14.04.030 defines caste as:

a system of rigid social stratification characterized by hereditary status, endogamy, and social barriers sanctioned by custom, law, or religion.

The Ordinance begins with some two-dozen "Whereas" clauses. They assert in part that:

... caste discrimination is based on birth and descent, and occurs in the form of social segregation, physical and psychological abuse, and violence; and

... caste discrimination manifests in employment, education, and housing....

 Time has a lengthy background article on the new legislation.

Christian Teacher Did Not Show That Her Removal Was Retaliation for Protected Speech or Beliefs

In Barr v. Tucker (SD GA, Feb. 21, 2023), a Georgia federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to plaintiff whose position as a substitute elementary school teacher was terminated after she complained to her own children's teachers and to the principal about the school librarian's reading aloud to classes a book that contains illustrations of same-sex couples with school-age children. The court explained:

Plaintiff told Defendant Tucker [the school principal] that she believed the book was '"inappropriate for young children, conflicted with her Christian faith, and appeared to bean effort to indoctrinate young children into a progressive ideological agenda[]" and asked that her children be excused from the read-aloud program.

Plaintiff contended that the school had retaliated against her for her exercising her free speech and free exercise rights. The court disagreed, saying in part:

... Plaintiff's inquiries principally addressed her personal concerns about exempting her children from the read-aloud program, and the context of her speech suggests she spoke on a matter of private or personal interest.

Accordingly ... Plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success in showing she spoke on a matter of public concern .... As a result. Plaintiff has also failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment [free speech] retaliation claim....

The Court accepts, as Plaintiff alleges, that her sincerely held religious beliefs include ''that God created marriage to be between one man and one woman, and that family formation should occur within the confines of heterosexual marriage."... However, at this stage. Plaintiff has not established that she is substantially likely to succeed on showing that Defendants substantially burdened her religious beliefs by terminating her.

It is not clear that Defendants called for Plaintiff's removal due to her religious beliefs....

Defendants maintain they removed Plaintiff due to her inappropriately timed interactions with her children's teachers and concern about how she would support students or parents that identify as gay, not because of her beliefs about marriage and family formation.