Religion Clause

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Conversion Therapy Victims Can Recover Treble Damages Under New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

In Ferguson v. JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing), (NJ Super., June 6, 2014), a New Jersey trial court held that plaintiffs who paid defendant for counseling and other methods to purge unwanted same-sex attractions can recover treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Sec. 56:8-19 for money spent on therapy to repair the damage done by JONAH's original conversion therapy. The court concluded that those costs constitute the kind of "ascertainable loss" required by the statute before treble damages may be recovered. The Southern Poverty Law Center issued a press release announcing the decision.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

9th Circuit: Suit To Claim Nazi Confiscated Artwork Can Proceed

In Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, (9th Cir., June 6, 2014), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that the sole living heir of a Jewish family whose art collection was forcibly "purchased" for a fraction of its value by Nazi leader Herman Goring can proceed with a suit to recover two of the paintings presently in a California art museum. The majority held that the suit. brought under California law, is not in conflict with U.S. foreign policy. Judge Wardlaw dissented.

Czech Court Wipes Away 45 Year Old Convictions of 4 Jehovah's Witnesses

In the Czech Republic last Friday, a court in Pizen entered an order of judicial rehabilitation wiping away the 1969 convictions of four Jehovah's Witnesses who were fined for visiting people and speaking with them about the Bible. At that time, the Communist regime in the country combated all churches. According to yesterday's Prague Post, Judge Iveta Zítková said that the rehabilitation gives "a sort of moral satisfaction" to the four who are now in their 60's and retired.

Suit Challenges North Dakota's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Religion News Service reports that on Friday, a federal lawsuit was filed challenging North Dakota's state constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage. Up to now, North Dakota had been the last state with an unchallenged gay marriage ban. The complaint (full text) in Ramsay v. Dalrymple, (D ND, filed 6/6/2014) challenges both the ban on same-sex marriages in the state and the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. It contends that the bans violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment, and that the non-recognition of out-of-state marriages infringes on the fundamental right to travel. According to Freedom To Marry, there are now ongoing court challenges to same-sex marriage bans and/or non-recognition requirements in 31 states and Puerto Rico. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia already have full marriage equality.

Court Rejects Challenge To New York Vaccination Requirements

In Phillips v. City of New York, (ED NY, June 4, 2014), parents who object to vaccinating their children on religious grounds challenged New York's law that allows religious exemptions. Even though most of the children involved received an exemption, plaintiffs complain that the state requires them to detail their religious beliefs in order to qualify. Schools also apparently require unvaccinated children to remain home when any classmate contracts a vaccine-preventable disease. The court dismissed plaintiffs' free exercise, substantive due process and equal protection challenges to the law.

Monday, June 09, 2014

Pope Hosts Prayer Summit With Israeli, Palestinian Presidents

As reported by the New York Times, yesterday Pope Francis hosted a "prayer summit" in the Vatican bringing together Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, head of Orthodox Christians, also attended the ceremony held in a garden behind St. Peter’s Basilica. Vatican Radio has the full text of the remarks of the Pope, President Abbas and President Peres.

Suit Charges Religious Discrimination, Claims Retaliation For Complaining About Training Video Using Nazi Images

Reuters reports on a $40 million federal religious discrimination lawsuit filed Friday in New York by Jean-Marc Orlando, a former managing director at BNP Paribas North America. Orlando, an Orthodox Jew, claims he was fired after 18 years with the bank because he complained about Nazi imagery in a video he and other managers were shown in 2011 at a training session in Amsterdam. The video was a parody on the depiction of the final days of the Hitler regime, and portrayed BNP's competitor Deutsche Bank as Hitler.

Judge's Religious References In Sentencing Did Not Prejudice Defendant

In State of North Carolina v. Earls, (NC App., June 3, 2014), a North Carolina appellate court held that a defendant who was convicted on charges of rape, incest and taking indecent liberties with a child was not prejudiced by the trial judge's references to the Bible and divine judgment in sentencing him to 45 to 55 years in prison. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Sunday, June 08, 2014

Pro-Marriage Group Entitled To Actual Damages For Erroneous IRS Release of Donor Data

In National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. United States, (ED VA, June 3, 2014), a non-profit organization whose purpose is "to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it" sued the federal government under 26 USC Sec. 7431 for damages growing out of the IRS's unauthorized release in 2011 of Schedule B of the organization's Form 990. Schedule B lists donors of over $5000 to the organization and should have been redacted before releasing the Form 990 in response to a media request. The Schedule B was ultimately published by the Huffington Post along with an article focusing on the fact that it showed a $10,000 donation by a political action committee associated with Mitt Romney. The court held that plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, but not to punitive damages for willful disclosure or gross negligence. The court also dismissed plaintiff's unauthorized inspection claim.

European Court Says Turkey Mistreated Jehovah's Witness Conscientious Objectors

In Buldu and Others v. Turkey, (ECHR Second Section, June 3, 2014) (full text in French), the European Court of Human Rights held that Turkey violated the European Convention on Human Rights Art. 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) and Art. 9 (freedom of thought conscience and religion) in its prosecution and conviction of four Jehovah's Witnesses who were conscientious objectors to military service. It also held that Turkey violated Art. 6, Sec. 1 (fair trial) as to one of the petitioners who complained that he had had to appear as a civilian before a court made up exclusively of military personnel. The court (in an appealable Chamber Judgment) awarded substantial amounts in damages to each petitioner. More information on the decision is available in the Court's English language press release, and from Law & Religion UK blog.

Supreme Court Review Sought In NY Pregnancy Service Center Case

On Friday, the American Center for Law and Justice filed a petition for certiorari (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court in Evergreen Association, Inc. v. City of New York. In the case, the 2nd Circuit upheld a portion of a New York City ordinance requiring pregnancy service centers to make certain disclosures to potential clients in waiting rooms, in advertisements and in telephone conversations. The Second Circuit in its Jan. 17, 2014 opinion (full text) upheld (by a 2-1 vote) the requirement to disclose whether or not there is a licensed medical provider on staff. The circuit court unanimously struck down the requirements to disclose whether or not the center provides or refers out for abortion, emergency contraception and prenatal care, and a requirement to disclose that the New York health department encourages women who may be pregnant to consult a licensed medical provider.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Hailes v. Collier, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76127 (SD OH, June 3, 2014), an Ohio federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a complaint by Seventh Day Adventist inmate that he was retaliated against for not reporting for snow removal duty on his Sabbath.

In Watts v. Allen, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76402 (MD GA, June 5, 2014), a Georgia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76763, May 14, 2014) and dismissed an inmate's complaint that he is being denied a vegan diet.

In Parkell v. Morgan, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76989 (D DE, June 6, 2014), a Delaware federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was denied a kosher diet.

In Mead v. Palmer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77011 (ND IA, June 6, 2014), an Iowa federal district court dismissed a complaint by plaintiff, an involuntarily committed patient at a civil commitment sexual offender unit, that he was not provided a Pentecostal minister to meet with.

In Williams v. Emmons, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76528 (MD GA, June 5, 2014), a Georgia federal district court, rejecting in part a magistrate's recommendation (2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77342, May 8, 2014), refused to permit a Muslim inmate to proceed with his claim for compensatory damages despite his weight loss and headaches stemming from the failure to provide him with vegan meals. The court concluded that plaintiff had not alleged more than de minimis physical injury as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. However the court permitted plaintiff to proceed with his claim for nominal damages.

Saturday, June 07, 2014

Mexican Destination Wedding Using Internet-Ordained Clergy Did Not Create Lawful New York Marriage

In Ponorovskaya v. Stecklow, (NY County Sup. Ct., May 29, 2014), a New York state trial court dismissed a divorce action, finding that the parties were never legally married. At issue was what the court described as:

a license-less marriage supposedly solemnized in what can only be described as a "pseudo-Jewish" wedding ceremony conducted at a Mexican beach resort by a New York dentist who became a Universal Life Church minister on the internet solely for the purpose of performing weddings for friends and relatives.

The wife who was suing for divorce claimed that even though the ceremony was invalid under Mexican law, the parties were still married because New York Domestic Relations Law §25 provides in part:

Nothing in this article ... shall be construed to render void by reason of a failure to procure a marriage license any marriage solemnized between persons of full age....

However the court held that "DRL § 25 should be construed to apply to weddings that take place outside of New York State only under the most extraordinary of circumstances."

The court went on to discuss, but not decide, whether the marriage was properly solemnized:

These provisions call into question whether a person like Dr. Arbeitman, the dentist/Universal Life Church minister who conducted the ceremony here, is a "clergyman" or "minister" under New York law and thus authorized to officiate at weddings.....

Whether the ULC is a church or not, and whatever its belief system may be, compared to other online "religions" that enable people to pay a small fee, obtain a certificate of ordination and then perform religious wedding ceremonies, it seems practically mainstream. There is, for instance, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a religious group comprised of atheists, which, upon the payment of a $20 fee, will make an online applicant a "pastafarian minister." Then there is Dudeism, also referred to the Church of the Latter Day Dude, which portends to be a religious philosophy based on the protagonist in the Coen Brothers' cult classic The Big Lebowski. One can be ordained online for free and be authorized to perform weddings as a Dudeist Priest.

Fortunately, this court need not wade into the treacherous waters of attempting to determine what is a "real" religion and what is not, something that would seem to "necessarily involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine or practice".... Given the finding that ... the parties' purported marriage is invalid because it was "an absolute nullity" under the law of the jurisdiction where it took place, it is not of great moment whether Dr. Arbeitman was legally entitled under New York law to solemnize the marriage.

Egyptian Government Decree Bars Unapproved Imams From Preaching Publicly

Reuters reports that today the Egyptian government issued a decree allowing only state approved clerics to preach in mosques or other public places:

According to the decree, "only designated specialists at the Ministry of Religious Endowments and authorized preachers from al-Azhar shall be permitted to practice public preaching and religious lessons in mosques or similar public places."

Only al-Azhar officials and graduates as well preachers from the ministry or the grand mufti's office will be allowed to wear the trademark "turban" - a red hat with a white cloth band - and robes that designate an al-Azhar cleric, it said.

Unauthorized preachers face fines jail terms up to a year and fines up to 50,000 Egyptian pounds ($7,000). Wearing or denigrating al-Azhar garments in any way will carry similar penalties, it added.

The decree is another step in the government's attempt to prevent mosques from being used as recruiting grounds for Islamist political parties.

Wisconsin's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down; Marriages Begin Ahead of Motion To Stay Court's Order

Yesterday in Wolf v. Walker, (WD WI, June 6, 2014), a Wisconsin federal district court, in an 88-page opinion, struck down Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage. Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in part:

I conclude that the Wisconsin laws prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples interfere with plaintiffs’ right to marry, in violation of the due process clause, and discriminate against plaintiffs on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the equal protection clause.... To decide this case in favor of plaintiffs, it is not necessary, as some have suggested, to “cast all those who cling to traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools,”.... Rather, it is necessary to conclude only that the state may not intrude without adequate justification on certain fundamental decisions made by individuals and that, when the state does impose restrictions on these important matters, it must do so in an even-handed manner.

This case is not about whether marriages between same-sex couples are consistent or inconsistent with the teachings of a particular religion, whether such marriages are moral or immoral or whether they are something that should be encouraged or discouraged.... Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.

As reported by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the court's decision does not make clear whether counties may begin to immediately issue marriage licenses. The court declared the state constitutional and statutory provisions barring same-sex marriage unconstitutional and gave the parties until June 16 to submit proposed language for an injunction. The paper reports:

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democrat, began issuing marriage licenses at 5 p.m. Friday as gay couples were married there throughout the night. He said state Department of Justice officials advised him not to issue the licenses but McDonell moved forward despite that.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a news release announcing that he will file emergency motions in federal courts seeking a stay of the district court's order. Yesterday Van Hollen also issued a statement in a series of nine Tweets saying that his office will continue to defend the constitutionality of "our traditional marriage laws."

Friday, June 06, 2014

Another Temporary Stay For Same-Sex Couples Married In Utah During Gap Period

As previously reported, on May 19 in Evans v. Utah a Utah federal district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages solemnized under Utah marriage licenses on the 17 days between a federal district court decision striking down Utah's ban on same-sex marriages, and the U.S. Supreme Court's stay of that order. However the district court postponed the effectiveness of its order for 21 days to give the state time to decide how to proceed. The 21-day period would expire on Monday. Yesterday the Utah Attorney General's office announced that it has filed a notice of appeal and a request for a stay with the 10th Circuit in Evans. In response, within hours, the 10th Circuit issued a temporary stay and ordered plaintiffs to respond by June 12 to the motion for a stay pending appeal. (AG office announcement.)

House-Passed Version of Defense Authorization Bill Impacts Chaplains, Religious Expression

The text of HR 4435, the "Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015" as it passed the House of Representatives on May 22 is finally available online. The bill contains three provisions impacting military chaplains and religious expression by service members:

Section 507 allows the Secretary of Defense to defer the retirement of a chaplain beyond age 68 if necessary for the needs of the military.
Section 525 authorizes chaplains "called upon to lead a prayer outside of a religious service ... to close the prayer according to the traditions, expressions, and religious exercises of the endorsing faith group."
Section 528 requires the Department of Defense to revise Instruction 1300.17 (DOD's January 2014 policy on accommodation of religious practices-- see prior posting) "to ensure that verbal and written expressions of an individual’s religious beliefs are protected by the Department of Defense as an essential part of a the free exercise of religion by a member of the Armed Forces." Section 528 also requires a similar revision in Air Force Instruction 1-1 (the Air Force's Aug. 2012 policy on free exercise and government neutrality-- see prior posting).

Religious Exemption From Vaccination Policy Requires Acceptance of Secular Reasons As Well

In Valent v. Board of Review, Department of Labor, (NJ App., June 5, 2014), the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division held that a nurse employed by a hospital was entitled to unemployment compensation after she was fired for refusing to obtain a flu vaccination as required by the hospital's policy. The hospital policy allowed exemptions for religious or medical reasons, however here the nurse's objections were based on secular non-medical concerns. The court wrote in part:

By exempting employees who can produce religion-based documentation, the employer's flu vaccination policy is clearly not exclusively driven by health-related concerns. The Board cannot therefore accept the policy as a proper basis to find appellant committed an act of insubordination of sufficient magnitude to render her disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b)....

The religion exemption merely discriminates against an employee's right to refuse to be vaccinated based only on purely secular reasons. Our Supreme Court has clearly cautioned that "[g]overnment may not, under the First Amendment, prefer one religion over another or religion over non-religion but must remain neutral on both scores.".... Under these circumstances, by denying appellant's application to receive unemployment benefits based only on her unwillingness to submit to the employer's religion-based policy, the Board violated appellant's rights under the First Amendment.

AP reports on the decision.

Court Grants Preliminary Injunction To For-Profits and Non-Profits Challenging Required Contraceptive Coverage

In Catholic Benefits Association LCA v. Sebelius, (WD OK, June 4, 2014), an Oklahoma federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the contraceptive coverage mandate against both non-profit and for-profit members of the Catholic Benefits Association, a third-party administrator of health insurance plans for Catholic employers. As to for-profit employers, the court was bound by the 10th Circuit's decision in Hobby Lobby. Finding that the non-profit employers also suffered a substantial burden on their religious exercise by completing the opt-out form that results in contraceptive coverage directly from the third-party administrator, the court said in part:

the Court’s inquiry is focused upon how the plaintiffs themselves measure their degree of complicity in an immoral act, not whether a reasonable observer would consider the plaintiffs complicit in such an act.... Here, Plaintiffs sincerely believe that in executing the form and providing it to their issuers or TPAs, they play a central role in the provision of contraceptive services to their employees—something Plaintiffs find morally repugnant. This is where the Court’s inquiry ends, as it is not the Court’s role to say Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are mistaken.

The court concluded, however, that as to the Archdioceses of Oklahoma City and of Baltimore, no substantial burden on religious exercise existed because they are totally exempt from the contraceptive coverage mandate. AP reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Thursday, June 05, 2014

Cert. Petition Filed In Challenge To Navy Chaplain Corps Procedures

The Rutherford Institute announced yesterday that it has filed a petition for certiorari (full text) in In re Navy Chaplaincy. In the long-running case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a preliminary injunction in a challenge to the Navy's procedures for promoting members of the Navy Chaplains Corps. Petitioners argue that the current procedures favor Catholics and liturgical Protestants over various non-liturgical denominations.

Supreme Court Denies Stay In Oregon Same-Sex Marriage Case

In May, an Oregon federal district court struck down Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) The state declined to appeal, but the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has been seeking to intervene as a plaintiff so it can appeal the decision. So far it has been unsuccessful. Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court, in a one-sentence order, denied NOM's request for a stay of the district court's order while NOM appeals the district court's denial of its motion to intervene. All the pleadings in the complex procedural battle by NOM are here. The Oregonian reports on the Supreme Court's action, as does SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday, June 03, 2014

Israel's Justice Minister Officiates At Same-Sex Jewish Wedding; Marriage Not Legally Recognized

In Israel yesterday, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni officiated at a same-sex wedding ceremony, even though the marriage will not be recognized by the Israeli government. Jerusalem Post reports that Livni conducted the ceremony for Tsach Sa'ar, a former aide to a member of the Knesset, and Guy Arad, an attorney. The ceremony used a traditional huppah (wedding canopy), and the traditional breaking of a glass by the groom used two glasses, one for each man to break. Posting pictures on her Facebook page, Livni wrote that the ceremony was not intended to be a provocation against Judaism, but instead respected Jewish tradition. She added, "In our eyes, Judaism is open, accepting and respects all people who were created in God's image."

Baptist, Jewish Groups Join As Plaintiffs In Challenge To North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Ban

The United Church of Christ announced today that two national religious bodies and a number of individual clergy have joined as plaintiffs in its lawsuit that contends that North Carolina law makes it a criminal offense for a member of the clergy to conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony. This, they argue, infringes the free exercise and expressive associational rights of clergy whose religious teachings and beliefs embrace same-sex marriage. The national groups joining the lawsuit are the Alliance of Baptists and the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

In Modified Opinion, Court Dismisses Some Diocesan Contraceptive Coverage Claims

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sebelius, (ND GA, May 30, 2014), a Georgia federal district court in part granted the government's motion to reconsider its March 26 decision. That decision, invoking RFRA, had permanently enjoined the government from requiring Catholic Education of North Georgia and Atlanta Catholic Charities to comply with the self-certification requirements to opt out of contraceptive coverage. In that decision, the court refused on mootness grounds to grant summary judgment to the Atlanta Archdiocese and the Savannah Diocese because they are totally exempt from the contraceptive coverage mandate. In its May 30 opinion, the court completely dismissed these claims by the Diocesan plaintiffs, as well as dismissing the non-RFRA claims by all the plaintiffs. The court however refused to reconsider its conclusion that the health plans involved are "church plans" under ERISA.

7th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Several Milwaukee Archdiocese Bankruptcy Issues

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in two cases relating to the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. The first is Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Listecki (audio of oral argument). It involves a number of complex legal issues growing out of a trial court decision that $50 million in a cemetery perpetual care trust fund is unavailable to creditors, including abuse victims, in the Archdiocese's bankruptcy reorganization. (See prior posting.) Among other issues is the question of whether RFRA can be raised as a defense to action taken by a Creditors' Committee in bankruptcy. The case on appeal also involves the refusal of the trial court judge to recuse himself in the case. (See prior posting.)

The second case is Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee (audio of oral argument). It involves the question of whether the bankruptcy court was correct in dismissing the claim of a sexual abuse victim who had signed a settlement agreement with the Archdiocese after mediation. The victim contends that he was fraudulently induced to sign the agreement. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports on yesterday's arguments.

Monday, June 02, 2014

Supreme Court Denies Review In Murfreesboro Mosque Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Fisher v. Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission, (Docket No. 13-1214, cert. denied, 6/2/2014). (Order List). In the case, a Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's holding that Rutherford County had given inadequate public notice of a meeting which approved the site plan for the controversial Murfreesboro mosque. (See prior posting.) The Tennessee Supreme Court denied review. The first portion of the planned Islamic center was completed and occupied in August 2012. Today's Tennessean has more details.

Government Says There Is No Controversy In Unusual Contraceptive Mandate Case

An unusual lawsuit involving the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate was filed in April by Media Research Center (MRC) with little notice given to it, at least until a May 15 press release. MRC is the parent of CNSNews. In dozens of other cases, religious non-profits have sued objecting to the requirement that they complete the self-certification form to opt out that will lead to contraceptive coverage being furnished directly by the insurer or third-party administrator. The complaint (full text) in Media Research Center v. Sebelius, (ED VA, April 11, 2014), on the other hand, alleges that plaintiff has filed the self-certification form and has sought assurance from the government that it qualifies as an "eligible organization" entitled to avail itself of the opt out. It alleges that the government has refused to provide such assurance, and asks the court to issue a declaratory judgment that Media Research Center is an "eligible organization".

Then in a second count, it seeks an injunction against enforcement of the mandate and a declaratory judgement that the regulations allowing religious non-profits to opt out violates the Establishment Clause:

89. Determining which entities qualify as "religious employers" or "eligible organizations" requires the Government to determine (1) whether the organization truly seeks to inculcate "religious values," (2) whether an objection to the Contraception Mandate is truly "religious", and (3) whether an entity truly holds itself out as a "religious" organization.

90. The Contraception Mandate thus makes the Government the arbiter of which organizations are, or are not, sufficiently "religious" to qualify for exceptions to the Contraception mandate.

91. This entails an unconstitutionally invasive inquiry into an organization's religious purpose, beliefs, and practices.

92. Furthermore, the regulations are framed to value the activities of traditional religious groups (e.g, churches, ministries, and proselytizing organizations) more highly than non-traditional religious organizations (like MRC, which defends traditional American Judeo-Christian beliefs by exposing the hypocrisies and fallacies of media attacks on those beliefs).

The government in its Memorandum In Opposition (May 23, 2014) (full text) argues that there is no controversy present:

There is no dispute that MRC has determined that it is eligible for an accommodation and has executed the self-certification. There is also no dispute that MRC has now done everything that the regulations require in order to avail itself of an accommodation. Defendants have not disputed MRC’s status as an eligible organization, and have not suggested that they have any intent or reason to do so in the future. In fact, there is no dispute of any kind relevant to the instant motion....

Qualification for an accommodation depends on a self-certification—it does not require the government to make any determination at all. Nothing in the regulations or elsewhere suggests that defendants will undertake any sort of inquiry regarding MRC’s determination. Indeed, defendants refused to make a definitive pronouncement on MRC’s eligibility for an accommodation in this case because the government cannot possibly be in the business of making the type of individualized determination that MRC seeks for every potentially eligible organization. To agree to do so here would be to open the floodgates for such requests, which could quickly overwhelm defendants’ resources.

Sunday, June 01, 2014

Fired Principal of Seventh Day Adventist School Can Pursue Her Claim

In Galetti v. Reeve, (NM App., May 28, 2014), the New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the church autonomy doctrine does not require dismissal at this time of a damage claim by a former principal and teacher at a Seventh Day Adventist school who was fired from her position. Plaintiff claims that she was harassed by by her supervisor and was fired in retaliation for filling a complaint about it. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing her breach of contract, retaliatory discharge, intentional interference with contract, civil conspiracy, and defamation claims, saying:

The First Amendment does not immunize every legal claim against a religious institution or its members, but only those claims that are rooted in religious belief.

It added that if later it becomes apparent that any of the claims turn on matters of doctrine or church governance, summary judgment may be proper then.

Colorado Civil Rights Commission Affirms Initial Decision In Gay Wedding Cake Case

According to the Denver Post, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on Friday affirmed the Initial Decision of an administrative law judge in Craig v. Masterpiece Cake Shop. The initial decision rejected free speech and free exercise claims, and held that a bakery and its owner illegally discriminated against a same-sex couple on the basis of sexual orientation in refusing to sell them a wedding cake. (See prior posting.) To prevent future discrimination, in Friday's decision the Commission required bakery owner Jack Phillips to submit quarterly reports for two years on steps taken to change company policies and train employees. The bakery must also disclose the names of any clients who are turned away. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Funtanilla v. Williams, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71354 (ED CA, May 22, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge allowed a Seventh Day Adventist inmate housed at a substance abuse treatment center to move forward against most of the defendants with his complaint that he was not permitted to place a copy of the Ten Commandments above his door, get his meals for the Sabbath ahead of time or delivered, and attend worship services.

In Rivera v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72325 (WD MI, May 28, 2014), a Michigan federal district court permitted Moorish Science inmate to proceed against certain of the defendants for an injunction to require recognition of Moorish Science Temple of America-1928 as a separate religious group from Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc., (1934 Portion).

In Smart v. Aramark Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73106 (D NJ, May 29, 2014), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed an inmate’s complaint that prison rules requiring inmates who work in the kitchen to shave their facial hair discriminates against Muslim, Jewish and Christian inmates who wear beards for religious reasons.

In Free v. Ellis, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73118 (D NJ, May 29, 2014), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed without prejudice an inmate’s claim that he was not allowed to attend religious services for a 15-month period.

Saturday, May 31, 2014

New Teacher Contracts In Cincinnati Archdiocese Create Controversy

CNN reports today that controversy surrounds the new teacher contracts that must be signed by all teachers in the schools of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Going beyond the general language of the past that requires teachers to adhere to Catholic doctrine, the new contracts spell out some specifics. They bar cohabitation or sex outside of marriage, using in-vitro fertilization, living a gay "lifestyle," or publicly supporting any of these. The new contracts also add the title "minister" to all teachers, regardless of subjects taught-- presumably to allow the Archdiocese to invoke the ministerial exception doctrine if sued for employment discrimination. Cincinnati Catholic Schools Superintendent Dr. Jim Rigg says the contracts do not add any new requirements; they just explain in clear language some of the principles of the Church. Teacher Roger Rosen commented:

Jesus always acted out of love. Never out of fear, and we're all being asked to act out of fear because the lawyers have taken over.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Court Lets Fired Catholic School Administrator Continue Discrimination Suit

LifeSite News reports that a Washington state trial court judge last week refused to dismiss an employment discrimination lawsuit against Seattle's Eastside Catholic High School filed by Mark Zmuda, its former vice principal. Zmuda was forced to resign after he married his same-sex partner. Zmuda claims that the school violated its own anti-discrimination policy, while the school says Zmuda breached the morality clause in his contract that requires him to publicly uphold the teachings of the Catholic faith. The school had given Zmuda the option to divorce his spouse and enter a civil commitment ceremony if he wanted to keep his position.

The court rejected the school's argument that the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion protections deprived the court of jurisdiction over the dispute. King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer wrote in part: "The Federal and Supreme Courts have made it clear that an employee can sue regardless of ministerial doctrine." Zmuda's suit alleges violation of Washington's law against discrimination, breach of implied contract, wrongful termination, violation of the consumer protection act, and tortious interference. (See prior related posting.)

Houston Passes Controversial Equal Rights Ordinance

As reported by CultureMap Houston, on Wednesday the Houston, Texas City Council by a vote of 11-6 passed the controversial Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (full text). The new law protects against discrimination in public accommodations, employment and housing on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy. A provision that would have protected transgender persons in bathroom choice was removed after particularly strong objections from conservative and religious leaders. Religious organizations are exempted from various provisions of the Ordinance. According to MSNBC, before passage of this ordinance, Houston was the largest U.S. city without local anti-discrimination laws. Opponents of the measure are attempting to collect the needed 17,000 signatures to put repeal of the Ordinance on the ballot in November's election.

No Problem With School's Rejection of Tattooed Jesus Jumbotron Ad

In Little Pencil, LLC v. Lubbock Independent School District, (ND TX, May 29, 2014), a Texas federal district court rejected the free speech and free exercise claims by an organization that unsuccessfully sought to display a religious ad on a high school football field jumbotron. The ad depicted a tattooed Jesus and a website URL. The ad was part of a marketing concept using a new way to share the Bible's teachings. The court, finding that the school had created a "limited public forum" in selling ad space, and that its rejection of plaintiff's ad was reasonable. First it implemented the school's broader policy against visible tattoos. Second, the ad risked creating an Establishment Clause violation because it might be perceived as being endorsed by the school. The Lubbock Advance-Journal reports on the decision.

Top South African Judges Speak At Law and Religion Conference

IOL News and Ecumenical News report on a controversial speech by South Africa's Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng at the University of Stellenbosch's second Annual African Law and Religion conference earlier this week. According to IOL:

Mogoeng decried the levels of maladministration, crime and corruption, and “the extremely low levels to which morality has degenerated… the dishonesty as well as the injustices that have permeated all facets of society - price-fixing and fronting included”.

These, he argued, “in my view would effectively be turned around significantly if religion were to be factored into the law-making process”.

Here is a video of his entire speech. Mogeng, a lay preacher in the Pentecostal Winners' Chapel, has been controversial since his appointment in 2011. (See prior posting.)

Former South African Constitutional Court Judge Albie Sachs also spoke at the Conference, emphasizing the need for different worldviews to co-exist. Here is a video of his full speech.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

House Holds Religious Freedom Hearing on "Countries of Particular Concern"

On May 22, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations held a hearing on " Protecting Religious Freedom: U.S. Efforts to Hold Accountable Countries of Particular Concern." The committee's website has a video archive of the full hearing as well as transcripts of the statements of the four witnesses.

Another ACA Contraceptive Coverage Challenge Filed By Catholic Diocese

Suits challenging the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate continue to be filed by religious non-profits. The Catholic Diocese of Greensburg, Pennsylvania announced that on Tuesday it filed suit in a Pennsylvania federal district court challenging the requirement that its Catholic Charities and Catholic elementary schools sign a self-certification form that triggers contraceptive coverage being provided by their health plan's third-party administrator. Pittsburgh Tribune reports on the case.

2nd Circuit OK's "In God We Trust" On Money

In Newdow v. Peterson, (2d Cir., May 28, 2014), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected challenges to 31 U.S.C. §§ 5112(d)(1) and 5114(b), which require that the national motto "In God We Trust" be placed on all coins and currency. The court agreed with 4 other Circuits that the statutory provisions do not violate the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, or RFRA, saying in part:

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated in dicta, the statutes at issue in this case have a secular purpose and neither advance nor inhibit religion.....

Appellants argue that ... using currency ... requires them “to bear on their persons . . . a statement that attributes to them personally a perceived falsehood that is the antithesis of the central tenant of their religious system.”... Appellants also contend that using money forces them to proselytize.... We respectfully disagree.... As the Supreme Court has previously indicated, the carrying of currency, which is fungible and not publicly displayed, does not implicate concerns that its bearer will be forced to proclaim a viewpoint contrary to his own.

RNS reports on the decision.

Court Rejects Jurisdictional Defenses In IRS 501(c)(3) Policy Challenge

In Z Street, Inc., v. Koskinen, (D DC, May 27, 2014), the D.C. federal district court rejected a number of jurisdictional and procedural defenses raised by the Internal Revenue Service in a viewpoint discrimination suit brought by a conservative pro-Israel group challenging the IRS's "Israel Special Policy." Plaintiff alleges that the IRS has a policy of sending applications by Israel-related non-profit organizations seeking 501(c)(3) status to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine if the organization's policies differ from those of the Obama administration. Applications by such groups are allegedly subjected to additional review procedures not applied to others. In rejecting the IRS's motion to dismiss, the court said:

Defendant struggles mightily to transform a lawsuit that clearly challenges the constitutionality of the process that the IRS allegedly employs when it determines the tax-exempt status of certain organizations into a dispute over tax liability as a means of attempting to thwart this action’s advancement. But the instant complaint, which in no way seeks an assessment of the taxes to be paid or even a determination of the Plaintiff’s Section 501(c)(3) status, is not so easily deterred.

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Nigeria's National Conference Adopts Recommendations On Religion

In Nigeria, The National Conference has been meeting since March 17. The National Conference grew out of a recommendation from a 13-member Presidential Advisory Committee on National Dialogue. The Conference is considering the reports of its 20 committees on different critical national issues. The Daily Times of Nigeria reports on yesterday's consideration of the report from the Committee on Religion. The National Conference adopted the Committee's recommendation that the government should no longer use public funds to sponsor any program, particularly religious pilgrimages. Instead the top religious bodies in the country should handle all matters relating to pilgrimages through Pilgrims Commissions managed under a law to be passed by the National Assembly.

The Conference has not yet passed on another recommendation of the Committee on Religion-- the proposed creation of a Religious Equity Commission authorized to advocate, and to enforce constitutional religious rights such as freedom of religion and freedom to acquire land for religious purposes.

While many applauded the work of the Committee on Religion, others criticized it for avoiding the issue of mission schools and the issue of regulating the location of worship centers.

Canadian Muslim Group Sues Prime Minister's Office For Defamation

The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) announced on Monday that it has commenced a defamation lawsuit against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Jason MacDonald, the Prime Minister’s Communications Director. After NCCM sent a letter to the Prime Minister's office in January objecting to the inclusion of a particular rabbi on the Prime Minister's visit to Israel, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said that NCCM is "an organization with documented ties to a terrorist organization such as Hamas." On Jan. 28, NCCM initiated a libel notice against the Prime Minister's Office. Since there has been no retraction, NCCM filed suit. OnIslam reports on the lawsuit.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Neo-Pagan Religion Gets Formal Recognition In Siberian Republic

The Moscow Times reported yesterday that after 18 years of trying, the neo-pagan faith Aar Aiyy has finally received formal recognition as a "religious organization" in the Siberian Russian Republic of Sakha. Russia's Law On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations sets out the procedure for obtaining recognition. Under Russian law, religious organizations have greater rights than unrecognized religious groups.

Israel's High Court of Justice Invalidates A Stipend Program For Orthodox Yeshiva Students

Times of Israel reports on a decision handed down Sunday by a 7-judge panel of Israel's High Court of Justice invalidating a government program that awards 4-year Orthodox Jewish yeshiva students stipends designed to assure that they receive the equivalent of the minimum wage. The court ruled that, like another scholarship program it struck down in 2010, the stipends perpetuate favoritism toward yeshiva students and discriminate against "other groups, including women, those of other faiths, students belonging to other Jewish denominations and university students." It said that the program does not appear to carry out the government's goal of encouraging yeshiva students to enter the workforce after 4 years. The stipend cut-off takes effect next year. A separate program that aids longer-term yeshiva students was upheld by the Court.

Challenge To Oklahoma 10 Commandments Monument Can Move Forward

In American Atheists, Inc. v. Thompson, (WD OK, May 22, 2014), an Oklahoma federal district court refused to dismiss an Establishment Clause challenge to a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma state capitol. Even though the monument is identical physically to the one upheld in 2005 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Van Orden v. Perry, the court said that the physical setting and context in which it is displayed is different. The court also refused to dismiss plaintiffs' claim that the monument and the state's moratorium on other monuments violates the Equal Protection clause. The court however did dismiss one of the several plaintiffs for lack of standing. An American Atheists press release has more background.

Monday, May 26, 2014

Michigan Appeals Court: Ecclesiastical Proceedings Toll Statute of Limitations; Hierarchical Structure Poses Factual Question

In Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan v. Schuchman, (MI App., May 22, 2014), a Michigan appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a suit brought by Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan in its property dispute with a local Chabad organization. Plaintiff claimed that property of Bais Chabad Torah Center of West Bloomfield should have been titled in the name of the Michigan parent entity rather than in the name of the local organization. The property claim was apparently first raised in a rabbinic panel proceeding as a counter-claim after the head of the West Bloomfield Chabad center filed complaints against the rabbi who heads the Michigan parent organization. The dispute has already been the subject of five decisions by Jewish rabbinic panels, all of which ruled that title should be in the name of the parent group. However the West Bloomfield Chabad center refused to comply and the rabbinic court gave the parent body permission to file this civil suit.

The court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine would require it to defer to the decision of the Chabad rabbinic determinations if Chabad-Lubavitch is a hierarchical organization. The court concluded, however, that "there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Chabad-Lubavitch is hierarchical in regard to property matters, and thus, whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies in this case."

In the course or reaching this conclusion, the court made interesting rulings on defendants' statute of limitations defense. It held that "the applicable statutes of limitation were equitably tolled during the time that the parties were engaged in the mandatory ecclesiastical dispute resolution process." It ruled that prior precedent refusing to toll statutes of limitation while parties are engaged in voluntary arbitration does not apply because the parties were involved in Chabad-Lubavitch's mandatory ecclesiastical procedure. But that left the question of when tolling ended:

[D]efendants dispute the date that the ecclesiastical dispute resolution process was concluded. Plaintiff maintains that the process was not complete until it received permission to bring a lawsuit in civil court.... Defendants maintain that plaintiff should have sought permission earlier so as to comply with the applicable statutes of limitations..... However, the parties’ dispute regarding when the internal procedure was final constitutes a factual question that is not appropriate for resolution by this Court on appeal. Moreover, resolution of the parties’ disagreement about when the internal dispute resolution process was final would require this Court to interpret religious doctrine or polity. Engaging in such an interpretation would be improper because the First Amendment “requires that civil courts defer to the resolution of issues of religious doctrine or polity by the highest court of a hierarchical church organization.” ... Accordingly, we are required to defer to plaintiff’s claim that the procedure was not final until it received permission to file a civil lawsuit.... Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint was timely filed.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Two Recent Religious Discrimination Suits In New York

Two interesting religious discrimination suits filed in New York have been reported on in recent days by the media. TMZ (May 21) reports that Nicole Johnson, a devout Muslim, is suing TV talk show host Bill Cunningham for mental anguish. She claims that when she showed up in the audience for a taping of Cunningham's show wearing her hijab (head scarf), show employees forced her to leave her front row seat and sit in the back. She says she was also prohibited from asking a question during the show.

The New York Post (May 25) reports that Mollie Fermaglich, a New York University faculty member, has sued claiming that after 20 years at NYU and a successful television career, she has been repeatedly passed over for promotion in favor of younger, male, non-Jewish faculty. She says that when she protested working on Passover, a colleague asked her: "Just how Jewish are you?" NYU says there is no basis for her claims.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Sutton v. City of Philadelphia, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70242 (ED PA, May 21, 2014). a Pennsylvania federal district court, while dismissing a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was sometimes not served his vegetarian meals, allowed him to move to trial on his claim that the food service company maintained a discriminatory religious alternative meal system that provided kosher meals that sometimes included meat, but only vegetarian halal meals.

In Covington v. Mountries, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69204 (SD NY, May 20, 2014), a New York federal district court concluded that a Muslim inmate had adequately pled that a lock down which prevented him from attending weekly Jumu'ah services substantially burdened his religious exercise, but failed to allege defendant's involvement. The court gave plaintiff 45 days to amend his complaint.

In Gilmore v. Augustus, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69296 (ED CA, May 19, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge refused to allow a Muslim inmate to amend his complaint to allege that he was unable to fully enjoy his religious worship because of pain and suffering from excessive force used against him by a correctional officer.

In Shehee v. Anlin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69290 (ED CA, May 19, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a civil detainee's complaint that while he was granted a religious vegan diet, often servers ran out of food that met his dietary requirements.

In Price v. White, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70133 (WD KY, May 21, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity and mootness grounds a challenge by a Jewish inmate to grooming standards that required him to cut his hair.

In Leishman v. Patterson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69909 (D UT, May 20, 2014), a Utah federal district court dismissed damage claims by an inmate who was an adherent of Asatru who was not permitted to possess rune tiles made of wood or conduct Blot ceremonies.

In Harris v. Sawyer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70349 (D AZ, May 22, 2014), and Arizona federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's claim that on two occasions he was not allowed to attend religious services.

In Pressley v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2014 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 308 (PA Commnw. Ct., May 23, 2014), a 3-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth court dismissed 1st Amendment but not RLUIPA claims by a Muslim inmate who had requested a kosher diet because prison authorities were not cleaning cookware and serving utensils properly before using them for preparing halal meals.

In Williams v. Madrid, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55826 (ED CA, April 21, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed without prejudice a complaint by an uncommitted civil detainee being held as a sexually violent predator that the Establishment Clause was violated when he was required to participate in the Better Lives Treatment Program.

Pope Visits Holy Land; Presses On Peace Efforts

Pope Francis is on a 3-day visit to the Holy Land, originally described by the Vatican as follows:

The Holy Father will travel to the Holy Land from Saturday, 24 May to Monday, 26 May, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the historic embrace between Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in Jerusalem on 5 January 1964.

The trip takes the Pope to Jordan, the Palestinian territories and Israel. the Full text of all the Papal addresses during the trip and all Vatican media reports on it are on a special Holy Land Pilgrimage website.

AP reports today that the Pope became heavily involved in encouraging Middle East peace efforts by inviting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres to a summit in the Vatican next month to discuss the peace process. Both presidents have accepted. According to AP:

Peres has been a fervent support of Mideast peace efforts, and the independent-minded Israeli president, whose job is largely ceremonial, risks upsetting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the move.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

South Dakota Suit Challenges Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

On Thursday, six couples filed a lawsuit in federal district court in South Dakota challenging the constitutionality of South Dakota's constitutional and statutory ban on same-sex marriage. The complaint (full text) in Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, (D SD, filed 5/22/2014), contends that the ban violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, and that the refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere also violates plaintiffs' right to travel. As reported by AP, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley says that he is obligated by law to defend the state's ban. With the filing of this lawsuit, only North Dakota with a ban on same-sex marriage that has not been challenged in the courts.

Friday, May 23, 2014

More Indictments In Kidnappings To Obtain Jewish Divorces From Recalcitrant Husbands

Yesterday the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey announced a new series of grand jury indictments in the investigation that began in 2011 of kidnappings and assaults to force recalcitrant Orthodox Jewish husbands to give their wives a religious divorce document (get). (See prior posting.) Yesterday's indictments charged four Orthodox Jewish rabbis and one of their sons with kidnapping and conspiracy. They face maximum sentences of life in prison. According to AP, the attorney for Rabbi Jay Goldstein, one of those charged, said that the case was "overcharged" and that prosecutors failed to take into account the individual circumstances of the women who were aided in obtaining divorces. Attorneys for other defendants called the charges false.

UPDATE: Jewish Voice reports that on May 24, FBI agents made two more arrests on kidnapping charges growing out of a 2009 abduction of a man in order to force him to give his wife a get. The two were charged in a criminal complaint, taken before a magistrate and released on $500,000 bail plus home detention and electronic monitoring. The two who were charged are David Epstein (who was also name in the indictment described in the main posting) and Chaim Rubin.

Russian Court Imposes Sanctions On Library of Congress For Failure To Return 7 Religious Books On Loan

Last year, a D.C. federal district court held the Russian government and three of its agencies in civil contempt for not complying with a 2010 default judgement ordering them to return two expropriated collections of valuable Jewish religious books and manuscripts to Chasidei Chabad of United States. The court imposed civil sanctions of $50,000 per day until defendants comply with the court's order. (See prior posting.) In response, the Russian government filed suit in a Russian court to force the U.S. Library of Congress to return seven books from one of the two collections that were loaned to it. (See prior posting.) Now, according to The Forward, a Moscow arbitration court ruled yesterday that the Library of Congress must pay $50,000 in fines for every day the seven books are not returned. Russia claims that the books were loaned to the Library of Congress in 1991 for 60 days, but have never been sent back to Russia.

10th Circuit OK's Discipline of Police Officer Who Refused Order On Attendance At Mosque's Police Appreciation Event

In Fields v. City of Tulsa, (10th Cir., May 22, 2014), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a civil rights complaint filed by Tulsa, Oklahoma police captain Paul Fields who refused to comply with an order requiring him to arrange for two officers and a supervisor from his shift to attend a law enforcement appreciation day held at the Islamic Society of Tulsa. Fields objected that the order required him to enter a Mosque. The department suspended Fields for 10 days without pay and transferred him to a less attractive shift because of his refusal. Fields sued, claiming violations of the free exercise clause, establishment clause, his right to freedom of association and the equal protection clause. The court rejected all of these claims. The court held there was no free exercise violation because Fields wan not personally required to attend under the order. The event was a thank you from the Islamic community to the police department and did not require anyone to participate in religious activities. Tours of the mosque and discussions of Islam at the event were purely voluntary.

The court also upheld the refusal to allow Fields to amend his complaint to allege retaliation for filing the lawsuit in violation of his free speech rights. It concluded that the police department had a compelling interest that outweighed any restriction on speech. The Tulsa World reports that Fields lawyer says he will seek en banc review of the decision.

Washington Supreme Court Says Anti-Discrimination Law Requires Reasonable Accommodation of Religious Beliefs

In Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., (WA Sup. Ct., May 22, 2014), the Washington state Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that Washington's Law Against Discrimination implies a requirement that employers reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices. It went on to hold that the employees of an airport food service company stated a prima facie claim for failure to reasonably accommodate their religious dietary needs. For security reasons the employees could not bring their own food to work or leave for lunch, so the company furnished meals. However employees allege that the beef-pork meatballs served did not meet their religious requirements, and that when they informed the company it initially deceived them into eating food that violated their religious beliefs and then refused to accept any of the employees' proposed accommodations. The majority found that the employees had also adequately stated claims for disparate impact, battery, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Justice Madsen's dissent argued that implying a cause of action for reasonable accommodation improperly encroaches on the legislature's function. Even if it is implied, it should not be applied on these facts because there was no actual or threatened adverse employment action taken against the employees.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Suit Claims High School Teachers Indoctrinated Girls Into Religious Cult

A lawsuit filed last Monday in Connecticut federal district court claims that three Spanish teachers and a guidance counselor at Connecticut's Avon High School engaged in "unlawful and predatory religious indoctrination of students." The 64-page complaint (full text) in Doe v. Mastoloni, (D CT, filed 5/19/2014), alleges 24 separate causes of action against the teachers, counselor, the Avon school district and Wellesley College. Brought by the parents of 3 daughters who were allegedly indoctrinated, and one of the daughters who broke free of the indoctrination, the complaint alleges:

6. All three girls experienced sudden and severe personality changes. They became flat and distant, reclusive, secretive, and non-communicative. They lost their humor and their empathy. They began speaking in a bizarre new language. They became unable to think critically or independently. They became dependent on the school teachers and guidance counselor who had indoctrinated them, especially Defendant Tanya Mastoloni.

7. On information and belief, the two older Doe sisters were indoctrinated into a religious cult that promotes martyrdom, and celebrates death. This has caused the elder Doe sisters to experience fantasies of suicidal ideation and martyrdom.

8. The youngest Doe daughter, J.D., was targeted to be indoctrinated into the same belief system, but she eventually broke free. J.D. has now joined her parents as a Plaintiff in this case.

9. The other two Doe daughters have, at the urging of Defendants Mastoloni, Kessler, Esposito, and Sullivan, cut off all of their communications with the rest of the Doe family, including extended family. They have also cut off all of their communications with their friends.

10. Defendants Mastoloni, Kessler, Esposito, and Sullivan pose a serious threat to the Avon community and the public at large. They each exert significant influence over the impressionable high school students who have been entrusted to their care. There is an obvious power differential between students and their teachers and guidance counselors.

11. Defendants Mastoloni, Kessler, Esposito, and Sullivan have consistently targeted minors and pursued them until they were of age in order to complete the conversion to martyrdom. Because of that, Defendants Mastoloni, Kessler, Esposito, and Sullivan pose a serious danger to students, students' families, and the public at large.

Courthouse News Service reports on the case.

UPDATE: Responding to the lawsuit, the Avon school superintendent said that the district had not previously been contacted about the allegations and the complaint has been turned over to counsel for review.

UPDATE 2: AP reported on March 5, 2018 that a settlement has been reached in the case.

RLUIPA Suit Challenges City's Refusal To Allow Homeless Ministry To Continue

A suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by the Stanford Law School Religious Liberty Clinic on behalf of a church in San Buenaventura, California that was denied a permit to continue to operate its ministry to the homeless in its current location. The complaint (full text) in Harbor Missionary Church Corp. v. City of San Buenaventura, (CD CA, filed 5/14/2014), contends that the church's rights under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA were violated when the city refused to recognize that the current permit to operate as a church was sufficient to allow the church to continue to offer meals, clothing, laundry and shower facilities, Bible study and prayer to the homeless, and then refused to issue the church a conditional use permit to allow the ministry to continue. Here is Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Courthouse News Service reports on the case. [Thanks to Paul Harold for the lead.]

Church Gets TRO Permitting Use of After-School Space

In Prairie Valley Baptist Church v. Whitney Independent School District, (TX Dist. Ct., May 19, 2014), a Texas trial court granted a temporary restraining order requiring Whitney High School to provide a classroom for one hour a week after school for use by the Christian Worldview Ministry (CWM). According to the complaint (full text) in the case, the school permits several secular outside groups to use school facilities, but the school board denied CWM's request for a variety of reasons, one of which was that the activity was too sectarian. In granting the TRO, the court said that the school board's action substantially burdened plaintiff's free exercise of religion and deprived it of its fundamental right to freedom of speech, without furthering a compelling governmental interest or using the least restrictive means for doing so. A hearing on plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction is scheduled for May 30. Liberty Institute has links to all of the documents in the case. Christian News Network reports on the decision.

Son's Ashes Are Not Property Subject To Partition Between Parents

In Wilson v. Wilson, (FL App., May 21, 2014), a Florida state appellate court held that the cremated remains of 23-year old Scott Wilson, killed in a 2010 auto accident, are not "property" that is subject to partition between the young man's divorced parents. In the case, the parents could not agree on where the ashes should be buried, so the father asked to court to allow each parent to dispose of half the ashes as they wished. The mother objected on religious grounds.The appellate court, citing authority going back to Blackstone, agreed with the trial court that the ashes are not property. The case now goes back to the trial judge who has indicated that he will appoint a curator or other suitable person to decide how to dispose of the remains if the parents are unable to reach an agreement. The Broward-Palm Beach (FL) Sun Sentinel reports on the decision.

Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against ACA Contraceptive Mandate Enforcement Against Two Religious Colleges

In Dordt College v. Sebelius, (ND IA, May 21, 2014), an Iowa federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to two religiously-oriented colleges-- Dordt College (Christian Reformed Church) and Cornerstone University (Baptist)-- to prevent enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate rules against them. This is another of the many cases in which religious non-profits-- objecting to covering contraceptives that they believe to be abortifacients-- claim that their free exercise rights under RFRA are violated even under the government's compromise in which coverage is provided directly from their insurers or third-party administrators. (See prior related posting.) The court indicated that it was planning to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision to issue an opinion, but the mandate takes effect against Dordt College on June 1 and the 8th Circuit (which includes Iowa) has issued injunctions pending appeal in two challenges to the contraceptive coverage mandate by for-profit businesses. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision. Des Moines Register reports on the decision.

Christian Student Challenges University's Speech Code

A lawsuit was filed last week in an Oklahoma federal district court challenging the Expressive Activity Policy and Equal Opportunity Policy of Cameron University, a public university in Lawton, Oklahoma. The complaint (full text) in Harper v. McArthur, (WD OK, filed 5/14/2014), alleges that Daniel Harper, an evangelical Christian student at the University, was prevented from handing out a flyer criticizing the beliefs of a student organization, the World Mission Society. The university claims that Harper's flyer violates the university's prohibition on "offensive" and "discriminatory" speech. It allows literature to be handed out on campus only if it is from a student organization and has been approved for distribution by the University. The suit claims that the University speech code violates the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act. Alliance Defending Freedom announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Montana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Challenged

According to Lambda Legal, as of last week only 3 states which do not allow same-sex marriage had no litigation challenging the ban pending. Now that has dropped to two. The ACLU of Montana announced yesterday the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of four same-sex couples seeking to marry in Montana or to have their out-of-state same-sex marriage recognized in Montana. The complaint (full text) in Rolando v. Fox, (D MT, filed 5/21/2014), asks the court to declare that Montana's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. With the filing of this lawsuit, only North and South Dakota have marriage equality bans with no litigation pending.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

5th Circuit Rejects Religion-Related Income Tax Gimmick

In Gunkle v. Commissioner, (5th Cir., May 20, 2014), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Tax Court decision that rejected husband and wife taxpayers' attempted use of a "religion-related tax gimmick" to avoid income taxes. Initially the Gunkle's had created a 501(c)(3) non-profit, City of Refuge Christian Fellowship, Inc. They however heard a speaker at a church conference who claimed they could instead create a non-501(c)(3) "corporation sole," assign their income to it, deduct this as a charitable contribution without qualifying as a non-profit, and thus make their income non-taxable. They did this, and then signed a vow of poverty, assigned their residence to the corporation sole, and had the corporation sole agree to provide “all their needs as Apostles and as pastors of this church ministry." The 5th Circuit agreed with the Tax Court that payments of living expenses of the Gunkle's from the corporation sole's Pastoral Account were taxable income to the Gunckle's, and their assignment of income to the corporation sole did not qualify for a charitable deduction.

Court Rejects Atheists' Attack On Church Favoritism In Tax Code

In American Atheists, Inc. v. Shulman, (ED KY, May 19, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court dismissed claims by several atheist organizations that under the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations, churches and religious organizations are treated more favorably that other non-profits. The court identified five advantages enjoyed by churches, including fewer filings and tax advantages for clergy compensation. The court held that plaintiffs lack standing because they never applied for an exemption as a church or religious organization, pointing out that:

A review of case law establishes that the words “church,” “religious organization,” and “minister,” do not necessarily require a theistic or deity-centered meaning....

Thus, the Atheists’ assertion that they are subjected to unconstitutional discrimination and coercion due to their alleged inability to gain classification as religious organizations or churches under I.R.C. §501(c)(3) is mere speculation. At this point, the Atheists have no idea whether they could gain classification as a church or religious organization under I.R.C. §501(c)(3) because they have never sought such classification. Accordingly, the Atheists have not suffered a particularized injury which is fairly traceable to the actions of the Commissioner.

The court also held that plaintiffs had failed to state an equal protection claim. In addition, the court rejected a novel argument by plaintiffs that IRS action violates the No Religious Test Clause of Art. VI, cl. 3 of the Constitution. Plaintiffs had contended that modern-day 501(c)(3) organizations amount to "public trusts" as that term is used in Art. CI, cl. 3. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In Whitewood v. Wolf, (MD PA, May 20, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that the Pennsylvania's prohibition of same-sex marriage and its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages validly entered elsewhere violate the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses. The court concluded that "the fundamental right to marry is a personal right to be exercised by the individual" and rejected "Defendants’ contention that concepts of history and tradition dictate that same-sex marriage is excluded from the fundamental right to marry." In its lengthy equal protection analysis, the court concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation are quasi-suspect and applied intermediate scrutiny to find that Pennsylvania had not shown that the ban on same-sex marriage is substantially related to an important governmental interest.

The Washington Post reports that immediately after the court's ruling, same-sex couples hurried to obtain marriage licenses, fearing that Gov. Tom Corbett would appeal the ruling. County offices remained open late in Philadelphia to issue licenses, and the Pittsburgh office is taking marriage license applications online. Pennsylvania has a 3-day waiting period after issuance of a license before a person can marry, unless a court waives the waiting period. The Governor's office said it was studying the court's ruling. The Governor defended the state's ban in court after the state's attorney general refused to do so.

UPDATE: On May 21, Gov. Tom Corbett announced that the state will not appeal the court's decision.