EEOC Sues Airline Over Requiring Pilot To Attend Religious AA Program

The EEOC this week filed a lawsuit against United Airlines charging that it did not adequately accommodate the religious beliefs of a Buddhist pilot.  In its press release, the EEOC said in part:

United operates a program for its pilots with substance abuse problems that provides them treatment and sponsors them to obtain new medical certificates from the FAA. One of the requirements of United’s program is that pilots regularly attend Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”). The pilot, who is Buddhist, objected to the religious content of AA and sought to substitute regular attendance at a Buddhism-based peer support group. United refused to accommodate his religious objection and, as a result, the pilot was unable to obtain a new FAA medical certificate permitting him to fly again, the agency charged....

 “Employers have the affirmative obligation to modify their policies to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs,” said EEOC New York Regional Attorney Jeffrey Burstein. “Despite this obligation, United was inflexible and refused to make a modest change its program that would have caused them no hardship.”

Paddle Your Own Kanoo reports on the suit.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Clark v. Curry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67162 (MD AL, May 23, 2016), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67312, April 20, 2016) and dismissed plaintiff's objections to allegedly required participation in a faith-based Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program as a condition of his suspended sentence.

In Smith v. Fischer, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67403 (WD NY, May 23, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint about a 9-day delay in receiving a kosher diet.

In Powlette v. Morris, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67796 (SD NY, May 23, 2016) a New York federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds plaintiffs' complaint that prison authorities replaced the Rastafari holiday of Negus Day with the Battle of Adwa Victory in the 2013 DOCCS Religious Calendar.

In Riley v. Muhammad, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68766 (WD PA, April 4, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation and dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was not allowed to have his pants legs rolled up in violation of his religious beliefs, his complaint over the way prison authorities calculated the beginning of Ramadan, and his complaiant that he was not furnishes halal meat.

In Muhammad v. Douglas, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70000 (SD NY, May 25, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed by placing him in keeplock for refusing to have his beard removed.

In Hoffman v. Lassen Adult Detention Facility, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70086 (ED CA, May 26, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended allowing plaintiff to proceed with his claim for damages for an initial denial of his request for a kosher diet.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Ford v. Bureau of Prisons, (3d Cir., June 30, 2014), the 3rd Circuit dismissed the complaint of a Nation of Islam inmate that he was not provided a meal after his fast on two holy days. The court also rejected his claim that discipline for a radical sermon he gave was retaliation.

In Lackey v. Midget, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87289 (ED VA, June 25, 2014), a Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that on one evening he received an incomplete Ramadan meal.

In Lewis v. Hirsh, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84648 (ED CA, June 20, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge gave an inmate 30 days to amend his pleadings, or else face dismissal of his complaint that  prison authorities are attempting to cause him to violate his Christian Science faith by classifying him as a high medical risk.

In Spight v. Davidson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85671 (MD TN, June 23, 2014), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed a suit by a Seventh Day Adventist inmate who complained that officials would only allow him a vegetarian diet, and not a kosher diet that includes meat.

In Mingo v. Fischer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87231 (ND NY, June 26, 2014), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate’s complaint that a prison staff member made disparaging remarks about his religion.

In Tate v. Dickinson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86577 (ED CA, June 24, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Muslim inmate's complaint that he is limited to purchasing only 5 pre-selected fragrances of prayer oils.

In Joe v. Nelson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87560 (MD GA, June 27, 2014), a Georgia federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that unsanitary conditions in his cell meant that he had to wipe the floor before his daily prayers and on one day he could not perform 4 of his 5 daily prayers because of water flooding his cell.

In Johnson v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87978 (SD CA, June 23, 2014), a California federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's complaint that the assistant warden would not authorize him to participate in the Ramadan fast.

In Mohamad v. Wenerowicz, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89225 (ED PA, June 30, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was unable to pray on a single day when he was kept in handcuffs for over two hours.

In Taylor v. Pearson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87657 (SD AL, June 27, 2914), an Alabama federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88358, June 2, 2014) and dismissed without prejudice a suit by an inmate claiming his free exercise rights were infringed when he was required to cut his hair and sideburns in an unsanitary barbering facility. The dismissal was a sanction for plaintiff's failure to list in his application for in forma pauperis status 6 prior suits he had filed.

In Williams v. Roberts, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89015 (ED CA, June 27, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when a commissioner at his parole hearing questioned his repeated changes in religious belief. Plaintiff had failed to follow through on either Alcoholics Anonymous or an Islam-based program for rehabilitation.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Crump v. Unknown Patrick, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16807 (WD MI, Feb. 18, 2011), a Michigan federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's free exercise, RLUIPA and equal protection claims. Plaintiff claimed that on two occasions he was mistakenly given pork meals and on a third occasion a food worker's neglect in changing gloves cross contaminated his food with pork. Among other things, plaintiff alleged that his prayers to Allah were not answered for 40 days because of his eating the pork products.

In Smith v. Sisto, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17133 (ED CA, Feb. 15, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge recommended rejecting an inmate's claim that his rights under the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses were infringed when he was denied parole in part for failure to attend faith-based Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous programs. The court found that the parole board, while mentioning the programs, did not indicate plaintiff was required to attend, and plaintiff never told the board that the programs conflicted with his religious beliefs.

In Koenig v. Maryland Division of Corrections, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16992 (D MD, Feb. 22, 2011), a Maryland federal district court rejected a Mormon inmate's complaint that Mormons were not granted a full 90 minutes of religious services each week and that he was not permitted to retain more than four religious items.

In Newman v. Brandon, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16976 (ED CA, Feb. 14, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge rejected plaintiff's claim that his free exercise and RLUIPA rights were violated when prison authorities spilled coffee on his Bible.

In Sanders v. Swarthout, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17646 (ED CA, Feb. 22, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge recommended denying an inmate's habeas corpus application, finding that while the parole board discussed petitioner's participation in AA, it did not indicate he was required to participate in any faith-based substance abuse program to be eligible for parole. Also petitioner never told the parole board that his religious beliefs conflicted with participation in AA.

In Gordon v. County of Rockland, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17305 (SD NY, Feb. 18, 2011), an inmate claimed that a jail chaplain distributed to the inmate population copies of two pamphlets defamatory to the Muslim faith. A New York federal district court dismissed the claim against the chaplain in her official capacity but allowed plaintiffs to proceed in their personal capacity free exercise claims and their claims of lack of administrative remedies in the jail.

Establishment Clause Claim From Required AA Treatment Is Dismissed

In Davis v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78031 (EDNY, Sept. 28, 2007), a police officer in the NYPD alleged a number of constitutional and statutory violations stemming from police officials forcing her into treatment for alcoholism. One of her claims-- that the city violated the Establishment Clause by placing her in a religious-based Alcoholics Anonymous program-- was dismissed because plaintiff alleged only that the AA program was "religious-based", and did not allege that she was forced to pray or worship any god. (See prior related posting.)

Another NYPD Police Officer Loses Case Challenging His Placement In AA Program

A previous posting discussed three cases in which a New York federal district court dismissed complaints by New York City police officers that the Establishment Clause was violated when they were forced into an Alcoholics Anonymous program. Now another opinion released on the same day, and reaching the same result, has become available. It holds that plaintiff alleged only that the AA program was "religious based," but did not indicate whether he was forced to pray or acknowledge God, or whether there were any references to God at all in the program. The case, Herlihy v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29231 (EDNY, March 30, 2007), also rejects plaintiff's claim that his speech rights were infringed when city officials retaliated against him for criticizing the NYPD order that he seek substance abuse therapy.

3 NYPD Officers Fail To Plead That AA Infringed Rights; One Pleads Enough

In four separate cases decided on March 30 by the federal district court for the Eastern District of New York, the court considered claims by New York City police officers that the Establishment Clause was violated when they were forced into participating in Alcoholics Anonymous. In three of the cases, the court held that plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead that their First Amendment rights were infringed. They alleged only that the program was "religious based," but did not indicate whether they were forced to pray or acknowledge God, or whether there were any references to God at all in the program. The cases are Bueno v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24766 ; MacShane v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25014; and Miller v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25016. However, in a fourth similar case decided the same day, the court held plaintiff's allegations that his rehabilitation program made "references to God" to be sufficient to state a claim for a violation of his freedom of religion because a reference to any god is a preference of "religion to irreligion." McNamara v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25015. [Revised.]