Cranston Schools Go Back To Calendar With Religious Holdiays Off

As previously reported, this current year the Cranston, Rhode Island School Committee changed their traditional calendar that had school off for Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Good Friday. This generated a lawsuit by teachers who, under the revised policy, did not qualify for taking Good Friday off with pay.  On Friday, the Providence Journal reported that the Cranston School Committee has now decided to reinstate its traditional policy. It adopted a 2015-16 school calendar that again has Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Good Friday as school holidays.

Interim Arrangement Gives Rhode Island Teachers Good Friday Off This Year As Lawsuit Advances

The Providence Journal reported ysterday the Cranston, Rhode Island School Department has reached a short-term settlement with the Cranston Teachers' Alliance in a lawsuit over teachers' right under the collective bargaining contract to take off for Good Friday. (See prior posting.) Teachers who put in their requests by Wednesday can take Good Friday off this year.  When the court ultimately interprets the collective barganing contract, teachers could be forced to pay the district back for the day off.

Suit Challenges School System's Refusal To Give Teachers Good Friday Off

In Cranston, Rhode Island, this year for the first time the school committee eliminated Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah and Good Friday as school holidays.  Instead, it negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that allows teachers to take up to two days off each school year if they are required to attend religious services during the school day.  AP reports that on Monday the union filed suit because the school system has denied requests from some 200 teachers to take Good Friday off, even though they allowed teachers who requested it to take Rosh Hashanah off last fall. School Superintendent Judith Lundsten  says that the Good Friday requests are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement because Good Friday does not require attendance at religious services during school hours.  According to the Cranston Patch, the suit claims that the discriminatory denial of religious leave here is a breach of the collective bargaining agreement and a violation of the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Louis J. Sirico, Benjamin Franklin, Prayer, and the Constitutional Convention: History as Narrative, (Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD, Vol. 10, 2013).
• Jeff Redding, Querying Edith Windsor, Querying Equality, (Villanova Law Review, Vol. 59, 2013).
• Avishalom Westreich & Pinhas Shifman, A Civil Legal Framework for Marriage and Divorce in Israel, (The Metzilah Center for Zionist, Jewish, Liberal and Humanist Thought, Ruth Gavison, ed, May 2013).
• Tamir Moustafa, Judging in God's Name: State Power, Secularism, and the Politics of Islamic Law in Malaysia, (Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 2, (2013)).
• Audrey Macklin, Multiculturalism Meets Privatisation: The Case of Faith-Based Arbitration, (International Journal of Law in Context, 9,3 pp. 1-23 (2013)).
• Bernard M. Levinson & Jeffrey Stackert, Between the Covenant Code and Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty: Deuteronomy 13 and the Composition of Deuteronomy, (Journal of Ancient Judaism 3 (2012): 123-140).
• Claudia E. Haupt, Active Symbols, (55 Boston College Law Review (forthcoming 2014)).
• Hamid Harasani, Islamic Law of Wills: An Overview, (October 1, 2012).
• William Baude, Interstate Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage after Windsor, NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 8, 2013, Forthcoming. 

From SmartCILP:

• Hanna Lerner, The Political Infeasibility of "Thin" Constitutions: Lessons from 2003-2006 Israeli Constitutional Debates, [Abstract], 22 Journal of Transnational Law &Policy 85-121 (2012-2013).
• Bashar H. Malkawi, Shari'ah Board in the Governance Structure of Islamic Financial Institutions, [Abstract], 61 American Journal of Comparative Law 539-577 (2013).
• Daniel W. Morton-Bentley, Seeing Isn't Believing: Ahlquist v. City of Cranston and the Constitutionality of Religious Displays under the Establishment Clause, [Abstract], 18 Roger Williams University Law Review 172-199 (2013).
• Symposium on Overlapping Jurisdictions: What Role for Conscience and Religion?, Foreword by Michael J. DeBoer; articles by John Witte, Jr., Joel A. Nichols, Robert L. McFarland and Elizabeth Sepper; responses by Paul Horwitz, Jonathan F. Will and Jeffrey B. Hammond. 4 Faulkner Law Review 299-444 (2013).

Rhode Island High School Gets New Secular Mural

In 2012, a Rhode Island federal district court in a high profile Establishment Clause case ordered Cranston (RI) High School to take down a prayer mural that had hung in the school's auditorium for 50 years.  (See prior posting.) Last week, to celebrate its 50th reunion, the Class of 1963 that had presented the original mural to the school replaced it with a new one that eliminates all religious references.  According to Friday's Providence Journal, the new mural contains seven lines to guide students, in the form of an acrostic with the first letter of each line spelling "Falcons". The Class also presented a new banner containing the school creed to replace the old one that had also hung in the auditorium.

UPDATE: The Cranston Patch (9/23) reports that there has been a delay in hanging the new mural because of typos discovered in it. Also it needs to be confirmed that they comply with the fire code.

Florist Sued For Discrimination After Refusing To Deliver Flowers To Winning Establishment Clause Plaintiff

Following up on a right-to-sue letter it obtained from the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights (see prior related posting), the Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a state court lawsuit against a florist who refused to deliver flowers ordered by FFRF for a successful plaintiff in an Establishment Clause case.  The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Plowman, (RI Super. Ct., filed 1/25/2013), grows out of FFRF's sending of congratulatory flowers to 16-year old Jessica Ahlquist who successfully challenged a prayer mural that hung in the auditorium of Cranston West High School. (See prior posting.) The florist refused to deliver the order, and defended the decision publicly as the right to free speech, saying that an independent owner can choose his customers. The complaint alleges that the refusal violates RI Gen. Stat. Chap. 11-24, Rhode Island's ban on denial of equal access to public accommodations based on religion, or, in this case, based on non-belief. FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenges High School Graduation Prayer Policy

The Freedom From Religion Foundation announced Wednesday that it, along with one of its members who is a graduating senior at Irmo High School, has filed a federal lawsuit suit against a South Carolina school district challenging the district's policy that allows a student vote each year on whether or not to have prayer at the high school graduation ceremony.  The complaint (full text) in Nielson v. School District Five of Lexington & Richland Counties, (D SC, filed 5/30/2012), alleges that the policy violates the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The district superintendent had told plaintiff, when he complained about the policy: "while I am a staunch supporter of the separation of Church and State, I do not believe that Freedom of Religion should be interpreted as requiring Freedom from Religion within the public schools." Cranston Patch reports on the lawsuit.

Late Motion To Intervene In School Prayer Mural Case Is Frivolous

In January, a Rhode Island federal district court ordered Cranston West High School to remove a prayer mural that had hung for many years in the school auditorium. (See prior posting.) The school complied, the Cranston School Committee decided not to appeal the decision, the parties agreed on attorneys' fees and on March 7 the court signed the final judgment in the case. On that same day, a group of seven individuals moved to intervene in the case, asking the court to stay and reconsider its decision.  In Ahlquist v. City of Cranston, (D RI, April 12, 2012), the court refused, finding the motion to intervene untimely and holding that movants had made no showing they have standing in the matter. The court wrote:

As Alexander Pope, an English poet and essayist, once wrote, "A little learning is a dangerous thing." In essence, Movants argue that, not just this Court's January 2012 ruling, but virtually all Supreme Court rulings on the Establishment Clause dating back to the Supreme Court's [1947] decision in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Township... have been wrongly decided.... In particular Movants cite "the Aitken act of 1872 authorizing the use of bibles in all schools in America." ....

The Court characterizes this argument as frivolous because Movants concede ... that this Court's decision is in line with a half-century of Supreme Court precedent. This Court is not merely guided, but is bound, by Supreme Court precedent. 

Religious Discrimination Claimed As Florist Refuses To Deliver To Successful Establishment Clause Plaintiff

A Rhode Island federal district court's Establishment Clause decision handed down last week is spawning new legal controversy.  In Ahlquist v. City of Cranston, the court held that in installing and maintaining a prayer mural in a high school auditorium, the Cranston School Committee violated the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) The Freedom from Religion Foundation wanted to congratulate the plaintiff in the case, 16-year old Jessica Ahlquist. However, as an FFRF press release and a turnto10 report indicate, three Cranston florists refused to deliver flowers to Ahlquist. Ultimately FFRF had to use a Connecticut florist.  In a formal complaint (full text) filed yesterday with the Rhode Island Commission on Human Rights, FFRF alleges that one of the florists in Cranston violated Rhode Island's Public Accommodations statute by discriminating on the basis of religion in refusing to fill FFRF's order.  FFRF alleges the discrimination was a result of plaintiff's atheism and FFRF's support of her.

High School Prayer Mural Violates Establishment Clause

In Ahlquist v. City of Cranston, (D RI, Jan. 11, 2012), a Rhode Island federal district court held that a high school student has standing to challenge on Establishment Clause grounds a prayer mural that hangs in her school's auditorium.  The mural contains the text of a School Prayer that was routinely recited by students before the practice was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court's school prayer decision in 1962. The mural, and another containing the school creed, were presented to the school by the Class of 1963. The court granted plaintiff a permanent injunction requiring immediate removal of the mural.  In finding that it violates the Establishment Clause, the court said in part:

The purposes of the Prayer when drafted, and the Prayer Mural, when installed, were clearly religious in nature.... No amount of debate can make the School Prayer anything other than a prayer, and a Christian one at that.

The Cranston Patch reports on the decision, as does the Boston Globe. (See prior related posting.)

UPDATE: The Humanist Examiner reports that the teenage plaintiff in the case has been bombarded with taunts and threats of physical violence, many through social media.

Suit Challenges Prayer Mural In High School

The ACLU of Rhode Island yesterday announced that it has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a high school student challenging an 8-foot high prayer mural that has been displayed on the wall in the auditorium of Cranston (RI) High School West and of a Cranston middle school for nearly 50 years. The complaint (full text) in Ahlquist v. City of Cranston, (D RI, filed 4/4/2011) says that the prayer was adopted as the official school prayer of Cranston West around 1960.  It begins by asking "Our Heavenly Father" to grant students the desire to do their best, to help them grow, be kind, be good sports, and the like.  The suit alleges that display of the prayer violates plaintiff's 1st and 14th Amendment rights.

UPDATE: Here is plaintiff's Trial Memorandum of Law, filed 9/9/2011.

Holiday Display Disputes Appear Muted This Year

With three weeks to go, so far this year the "Christmas wars" over municipal holiday displays seem somewhat muted. In Ft. Collins, Colorado, City Council voted 6-1 to permit colored lights and Christmas trees and wreaths on the exterior of city buildings and other city property, but only secular displays and messages inside buildings. It rejected a proposal by a broad-based task force that only white lights, bare garlands and secular symbols such as snowflakes be hung on city property beginning next year. (Tacoma, WA News Tribune, 12/1). On Saturday in Ft. Collins, about 200 people gathered to support Sheriff Jim Alderden who wants to keep religious symbols. Yesterday's Loveland (CO) Reprter-Herald says that the event focused on decorating a 10-foot tall planted Christmas tree. A small Nativity scene and a Menorah were also put on display, all paid for by donated funds. Sheriff Alderen commented: "A sheriff puts up a Christmas tree. Why is that a national news story?"

Meanwhile in Cranston, Rhode Island, backing away from past high profile controversies over religious symbols, new mayor Michael T. Napolitano has opted to merely put up 50,000 white lights and a Christmas tree in the foyer of City Hall. In past years, the City Hall display-- which led to litigation-- included a life-sized nativity scene, a menorah, an inflatable snowman, and 15 flamingos in Santa Claus hats representing the "Church of the Flamingos". (ACLU Release, 2003). (See prior related posting.) Local ACLU director, Steven Brown, said that Napolitano "is doing more to respect religion than the politicians who try to turn Christmas into a political issue."

1st Circuit Denies Standing In Challenge To Holiday Displays

Yesterday in Osediacz v. City of Cranston, the US First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to a holiday display policy in Cranston, Rhode Island, finding that plaintiff lacked standing. In 2003, the city allowed private parties to place "appropriate" holiday displays on City Hall lawn, subject to approval of the mayor. The trial court had rejected plaintiff's Establishment Clause challenge to the policy, but had found that the policy violated the First Amendment's speech clause by placing standardless discretion in the mayor to approve or disapprove displays. However the Court of Appeals held that because plaintiff had no interest in erecting a display, she would not be subject to the vagaries of the approval process. Because she had no personal interest beyond that of any resident or taxpayer, she lacked standing to maintain the challenge.