TRO Granted To 2 Military Members Denied Religious Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate

In Navy Seal I v. Biden, (MD FL, Feb. 2, 2022), a Florida federal district court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the military from enforcing its COVID vaccination mandate against two individual service members until Feb. 11 in order to maintain the status quo until a hearing on a preliminary injunction is held.  The service members faced imminent removal from command positions for refusing vaccination. The court said in part:

The record in this action establishes that the two service members are very likely to prevail on their claim that their respective branch of the military has wrongfully denied a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccination. The record creates a strong inference that the services are discriminatorily and systematically denying religious exemptions without a meaningful and fair hearing and without the showing required under RFRA (while simultaneously granting medical exemptions and permitting unvaccinated persons to continue in service without adverse consequence).

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Health Care Company Will Pay $75,000 To Settle Christian Nurse's Religious Accommodation Claim

The EEOC announced yesterday that Wellpath, a provider of health services in correctional institutions, has agreed to settle a religious discrimination claim brought by the EEOC on behalf an Apostolic Pentecostal Christian nurse who was hired for a Texas jail.  According to the EEOC:

Before reporting to work, the nurse told a Wellpath human resources employee that her religious beliefs require her to dress modestly and to wear a scrub skirt instead of scrub pants while at work. In response, Wellpath denied the request for her religion-based accommodation and rescinded the nurse’s job offer.

Under the settlement agreement, Wellpath will pay the nurse $75,000 in back pay and damages, and will provide anti-discrimination training and notice of rights to employees.

Ashram Loses RLUIPA "Equal Terms" Challenge

In Divine Grace Yoga Ashram Inc. v. County of Yavapai, (D AZ, Jan. 31, 2022), an Arizona federal district court rejected a RLUIPA claim by an Ashram that objects to the county's insistence it obtain a Conditional Use Permit to continue to operate its retreats and daily meditations on a 12.6 acre ranch property next to the Coconino National Forest.  Plaintiff contends that the Permit requirement violates the "equal terms" provision of RLUIPA because public and charter schools in the same area zoned Residential Single Family are exempt from the requirement.  The court concluded however that public and charter schools are not similarly situated to plaintiff.  State law prohibits localities from imposing zoning restrictions on such schools. That makes them different.

Court Rejects Religious and Other Challenges To Takeover Of Abandoned Homes

Honkala v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,  (ED PA, Jan. 31, 2022) involves an unsuccessful challenge to the Philadelphia Housing Authority's (PHA) attempted eviction of homeless families who took over abandoned vacant housing owned by PHA.  A community activist and the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign staged a series of such takeovers.  Among the challenges raised by plaintiffs were religious freedom claims under RFRA and RLUIPA. The court explains:

[Plaintiffs assert] they are “currently possessed of ethical, moral, humanitarian and/or religious belief(s) and action(s), including but not limited to those rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition of caring for the least and most needy amongst us, which federal law therefore respects and identifies as a ‘religious belief’ pursuant to the definition thereof as set forth in 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-5.”... Plaintiffs allege that their work “building and/or repairing and/or converting real property, such as the public housing property at issue…is therefore considered a ‘religious exercise,’ and Defendants are unable to satisfy their “burden of proving that eviction is the least restrictive means of fostering any compelling interest it may otherwise invoke.....

The Pennsylvania federal district court rejected plaintiffs' RFRA claim because RFRA applies only to actions of the federal government and not to that of states and municipalities.  While PHA holds the property in trust for HUD, HUD did not cause their injuries.  The court also rejected plaintiffs" RLUIPA claim because the claim does not involve a zoning issue and because plaintiffs have no property interest in the house.  The court additionally rejected several other legal theories put forward by plaintiffs, but said in part:

As a means of focusing attention on governmental failure to make effective use of assets available to reduce homelessness, this action succeeds. And if principles of natural law provided the controlling standard, Plaintiffs would have a compelling moral argument: “In cases of need, all things are common property, so there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2.2, Question 66, Article 7. But civil law is not designed to answer such ultimate moral questions.

Cert. Filed In Synagogue Picketing Case While Plaintiffs Are Ordered To Pay $158K Attorneys' Fees Of Picketers

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed recently in Brysk v. Herskovitz, (Sup. Ct., filed Jan. 19, 2022). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit by synagogue members against anti-Israel pickets who have picketed services at the Beth Israel Synagogue in Ann Arbor, Michigan every week since 2003.  A majority held that the picketers were protected by the First Amendment. (See prior posting.)

Meanwhile, a Michigan federal district court ordered plaintiffs in the case to pay defendants' attorneys' fees of $158,721.75. Gerber v. Herskovitz, (ED MI, Jan. 25, 2022). The court said in part:

The Court is aware that awarding attorney fees to defendants under §1988 may have a chilling effect on the willingness to bring legitimate civil rights claims, and it acknowledges that “awarding attorney fees against a nonprevailing plaintiff in a civil rights action is ‘an extreme sanction, and must be limited to truly egregious cases of misconduct.’” ... However, this is that rare case where such an award is appropriate and warranted. Plaintiffs failed to allege a basic element for each of their claims; their claims were groundless from the outset. As Judge Clay observed, it is “clear that [Plaintiffs brought] this suit to ‘silence a speaker with whom [they] disagree,’” which the First Amendment does not permit....

MLive and JTA report on the decision.

Church Challenges City's Limits On Its Offering Meals To Homeless

Suit was filed last week in an Oregon federal district court by a church challenging a city's ordinance that limits it from offering free meals to the needy more than two days per week.  The complaint (full text) in  St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church v. City of Brookings, (D OR, filed 1/28/2022), says that the new limits were imposed after city residents complained of the homeless gathering around the church. It contends that the restrictions violate RLUIPA as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments, saying in part:

Plaintiffs believe that God and scripture have directed them to continue serving their community by offering St. Timothy’s meal program more than two days per week to ensure that people in need can have access to at least one hot, nutritious meal every day of the week.

... The City’s land use and zoning regulations ... deny and restrict, and will deny and restrict, Plaintiffs’ religious use of St. Timothy’s’ property, is not supported by a compelling government interest, and is not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling governmental interest.

Reason reports on the lawsuit.

High Schooler Sues Over Suspension For Religiously Motivated Anti-Gay Remarks

 A Michigan high school student sued this week for injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages contending that his 3-day suspension violated his free speech rights as well as various other rights under state law and the Michigan and U.S. constitutions.  The school contended that the student had violated the school's Bullying/ Cyberbullying/ Harassment policy.  The complaint (full text) in Stout v. Plainwell Community Schools, (WD MI, filed 1/27/2022), alleges that:

Plaintiff is a Christian, who adheres to the historic and traditional Christian doctrine contained in the Bible regarding all life issues, including homosexual conduct....

According to the complaint, school officials told plaintiff's parents that their student:

was accused of “laughing” at some racial and homophobic “jokes” that other kids had told during the summer band camp months ago; that he had participated in an off campus, private group chat/text session during which he texted that God would not accept homosexual conduct because it is a sin; and that he had private, on campus conversations regarding religious beliefs with friends in the band that, while not directed towards any particular person, was overheard by another student.

MLive reports on the lawsuit.

Part Of Texas Anti-BDS Law Held Unconstitutional

In A & R Engineering and Testing, Inc. v. City of Houston, (SD TX, Jan. 28, 2022), a Texas federal district court held unconstitutional a portion of the Texas statute requiring companies entering contracts with governmental entities to certify that they do not, and will not during the term of the contract, boycott Israel. The court said in part:

[Plaintiff] denies any anti-Jewish motivation and testified that his desire to boycott has nothing to do with Jewish people (American or Israeli) but is focused on the acts of the Israeli government.... Nevertheless, the legislation at issue did not originate in an historical vacuum.... [A]nyone with a basic knowledge of modern history knows that one of the first anti-Jewish acts taken by the Nazis after they took power in Germany was the boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933.

The court found a portion of the law unobjectionable:

[T]he court agrees that the mere refusal to engage in a commercial/ economic relationship with Israel or entities doing business in Israel is not "inherently expressive" and therefore does not find shelter under the protections of the First Amendment.

However the court went on to find a First Amendment problem with the provision in the statute that requires businesses also to refrain from "otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations" with Israel or Israeli entities.  The court said in part:

[A]ctions intended to penalize or inflict economic harm on Israel could include conduct protected by the First Amendment, such as giving speeches, nonviolent picketing outside Israeli businesses, posting flyers, encouraging others to refuse to deal with Israel or Israeli entities, or sponsoring a protest which encourages local businesses to terminate business activities with Israel.

The court issued a preliminary injunction limited to this plaintiff, refusing a state-wide injunction or one covering other businesses.  Arab News reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Michael J. Broyde & Shlomo Pill, Building the Set Table: An Introduction to the Jurisprudence of Rabbi Yehiel Mikhel Epstein’s Arukh ha-Shulhan in Contrast to the Mishnah Berurah, (33 Dine Israel 1 (2020)).
• Sofia Dash, Decoding Female Genital Mutilation through A Sociological Lens, (January 17, 2022).
• Chad G. Marzen, The Gospels and American Jurisprudence,       (January 20, 2022).
• Barbara P. Billauer, JOB and Justice: The Tortious Liability of God for Wrongful Interference, (December 5, 2021).
  Antony Kolenc, Religious Liberty in the Age of COVID, (UNT Dallas College of Law, Accessible Law 2021).
• Pritam Baruah, Human Dignity in Indian Constitutional  Adjudication, (Jimmy Chia-Shin Hsu (ed.) Human Dignity in Asia: A Dialogue Between Law and Culture (Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming 2023)).
• Richard W. Garnett, et. al., Roe and Casey Were Grievously Wrong and Should Be Overruled, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 17, 2021).
• Guha Krishnamurthi & Peter Salib, Bostock and Conceptual Causation, (Yale J. Reg. Notice & Comment (July 22, 2020)).
• Raphaela Andres & Olga Slivko, Combating Online Hate Speech: The Impact of Legislation on Twitter, (ZEW - Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 21-103 (2021)).
• Zahra Takhshid, Kidney, Money, and the Shī‘ah Implementation of the Rule of Necessity, (UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2021).

Court Refuses To Enjoin Medical Campus' Vaccination Mandate

In Jane Does 1-11 v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, (D CO, Jan. 27, 2022), a Colorado federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction against the COVID vaccination requirements of the University of Colorado's Medical Campus.  Under a revised policy, employees are entitled to a religious accommodation if the accommodation would not unduly burden the health and safety of others.  Medical students are not entitled to religious accommodations.  The court found the policy neutral and generally applicable, and so subject only to rational basis review.  The court said in part:

[T]he Court does not see how offering employees the opportunity to request a religious accommodation could amount to treating comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise. For one thing, Plaintiffs have not shown that employees and students are comparable in this context....

[A]lthough the University has determined it can accommodate some employees by allowing them to work remotely, Plaintiffs have made no showing that a similar accommodation for students is practicable.  And ... the ... Policy treats employees and students differently because of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects the former but not the latter....

The court also concluded that the presence of medical exemptions does not prevent the Policy from being generally applicable.

Michigan Settles Suit Over Placement Policy Of Catholic Adoption Agency

 A Michigan federal district court this week in Buck v. Hertel,(WD MI, Jan. 26, 2022), issued an Order implementing a settlement agreement between the state of Michigan and St. Vincent Catholic Charities which is a licensed child placement agency placing children for foster care and adoption. The Order provides in part:

MDHHS shall not take any action against St. Vincent’s CPA license or terminate or not renew the Contracts because St. Vincent does not: i. certify or approve a same-sex or unmarried couple as a foster parent or adoptive parent, or ii. conduct a home evaluation for a same-sex or unmarried couple, or iii. place a foster child with a same-sex or unmarried couple for foster care or adoption.

Under the settlement, the state also agreed to pay St. Vincent's attorneys' fees of $550,000. As reported by Fox 47 News, the state agreed to the settlement after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

Delivery Service Settles EEOC Suit Charging Failure To Accommodate Church Attendance

The EEOC announced yesterday that Tampa Bay Delivery Service, an Amazon delivery provider, has settled a religious discrimination suit brought by the EEOC on behalf of a driver who was fired for refusing Sunday shifts in order to attend church services. The company will pay $50,000 in damages, will provide training on religious discrimination to managers and dispatchers, and will designate a religious accommodation coordinator.

Transit System's Rejection Of Religious Ads Violates Synagogue's Free Speech Rights

In Young Israel of Tampa, Inc. v. Hillsborough Regional Transit Authority, (MD FL, Jan. 20, 2022), a Florida federal district court held that the free speech rights of an Orthodox Jewish synagogue were violated when the local transit system (HART) refused to accept its display ad promoting its "Chanukah on Ice" event. HART refused the ad under its rule against advertisements that primarily promote a religious faith or religious organization. The court said in part:

Here, HART’s Advertising Policy constitutes viewpoint discrimination.... HART allowed advertisements for a secular holiday event with ice skating and seasonal food ..., but it disallowed an ice skating event with seasonal food that was in celebration of Chanukah. Thus, HART’s ban ... targets the “specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker.”

The court added that even if HART's policy were viewpoint neutral, it does not have objective, workable standards for applying it.

Trial Set On Why Street Preachers Were Removed From Gay Pride Event

In Waldrop v. City of Johnson City, Tennessee,(ED TN, Jan. 26, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court, in a case on remand from the 6th Circuit, set for trial a suit by two street preachers who were removed from a Pride event. The court said in part:

A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the officers removed Plaintiffs from Founders Park, and if so, whether they did so for a content-neutral or content-based reason.

11th Circuit Undercuts State Attempt To Limit Inmate's Right To Sue

In a prisoner Free Exercise case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an opinion which bars a tactic by which prison officials might obtain dismissal of a prisoner suit without reaching the merits of the case.  The so-called "three-strike" provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) limits an inmate's ability to bring a suit in forma pauperis, i.e. without paying the usual filing fee, if the inmate has previously had three suits dismissed for lack of merit.  In Maldonado v. Baker County Sheriff's Office, (11th Cir., Jan. 25, 2022), a three-strike plaintiff (along with a co-plaintiff) filed suit in forma pauperis in Florida state court contending that they were prevented from attending Jummah prayer services. Defendants then removed the case to federal court and sought dismissal under the three-strike provision.  The court held

The plain and ordinary meaning of § 1915(g) is clear—it only applies to cases commenced in federal court by a prisoner who sought and was granted in forma pauperis status in that court.  As such, § 1915(g) does not apply to actions, like the one here, brought by a three-strikes litigant in state court that was removed to federal court by another party.

Nevada Prison's Ban On Prayer Oil Violates RLUIPA

In Johnson v. Baker, (9th Cir., Jan. 26, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Nevada prison system violated RLUIPA when it banned a Muslim inmate from possessing a small amount of scented oil in his cell for use when he prayed, saying in part:

Given that Nevada’s prison regulation prevents Johnson from praying according to his faith, it has substantially burdened his religious exercise. Nevada also fails to show that its regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interest....

Nevada argues that prison officials depend on their sense of smell to detect contraband and scented oil could be used to cover the smell of contraband, such as drugs....

Nevada’s prison regulations as to other scented products undermines the State’s argument. It’s undisputed that Nevada prisoners may keep many scented products in their cells....  [T]hese products all have “strong scents” and are available to purchase in larger quantities than the half-ounce of scented oil sought by Johnson.

Oregon Court Rejects Part Of Its Earlier Decision In Wedding-Cake Dispute

In Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (OR App., Jan. 26, 2022), the Oregon Court of Appeals, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, reaffirmed its prior decision in part in a challenge to the religious refusal by a bakery (Sweetcakes by Melissa) to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. The court reaffirmed its conclusion that the refusal violates the anti-discrimination provisions of the state's public accommodation law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It held that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia does not change its earlier conclusion, saying in part:

the Kleins have not demonstrated that Fulton alters our prior conclusion that ORS 659A.403 is a “generally applicable” law for purposes of Smith, nor our related conclusion that, under Smith, the application of the law to Aaron’s conduct of denying cake-making services based on sexual orientation does not violate the Kleins’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause.

The court however did set aside the damage order entered by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, finding that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, BOLI’s decision on damages violates the Free Exercise Clause.  The court said in part:

[T]he prosecutor’s closing argument apparently equating the Kleins’ religious beliefs with “prejudice,” together with the agency’s reasoning for imposing damages in connection with Aaron’s quotation of Leviticus, reflect that the agency acted in a way that passed judgment on the Kleins’ religious beliefs, something that is impermissible under Masterpiece Cakeshop.

The Oregonian reports on the decision.

Universal Life Church Can Move Ahead With Suit On Marriage Solemnization Right

In Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. McGeever, (WD PA, Jan. 25, 2022), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss a suit against Allegheny County, Pennsylvania court officials who refuse to allow Universal Life Church ministers to solemnize marriages. the court said in part:

[A[ live case or controversy exists. Universal has alleged that its ministers are being singled out as “illegitimate” and unworthy of solemnizing marriages in the Commonwealth. According to Universal, this “singling out” has chilled the exercise of its ministers’ First Amendment rights. This harm is ongoing and exists whether Defendants’ offices, in fact, refuse to issue licenses for marriages performed by Universal’s ministers.

Today Is International Holocaust Remembrance Day

Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day as designated by United Nations Resolution 60/7 (full text), adopted by the General Assembly in 2005.  January 27 is the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Yesterday, President Biden announced the names of 12 individuals he intends to appoint to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council.  As chair, he will appoint Stuart Eizenstat.

3rd Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Title VII Reasonable Accommodation Case

Yesterday, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Groff v. DeJoy.  In the case, a Pennsylvania federal district court (full text of district court opinion) dismissed Title VII claims brought by an Evangelical Christian postal worker who resigned after receiving warning letters and suspensions for refusing to work on Sundays. The district court rejected claims of religious discrimination and held that plaintiff had been offered shift swapping that met the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of Title VII.  The Third Circuit has not previously decided an issue on which the Circuits are split-- whether an employer must wholly eliminate a conflict between work and religion in order for an accommodation to be reasonable under Title VII. The district court concluded that complete elimination is not required.