Kawaljeet Tagore, a Sikh American, ... claims that the IRS discriminated against her by prohibiting her from wearing a kirpan, a mandatory article of faith, on her job as a revenue agent at the Mickey Leland Federal Building in downtown Houston.... Tagore was fired in July 2006 because she refused to remove her kirpan.... The kirpan commonly resembles a sword, and is intended as a constant reminder to its bearer of a Sikh's solemn duty to protect the weak and promote justice for all....The full text of the complaint in Tagore v. United States, (SD TX, filed 1/6/2009) seeks a declaratory judgment, injunction, reinstatement and back pay. The suit was filed by the Becket Fund and the Sikh Coalition.
The lawsuit claims that the IRS's termination of Tagore violates both the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) and Title VII religious employment discrimination rules. It alleges that the IRS banned the kirpan as a so-called "dangerous weapon," even though the government allows hundreds of sharp knives and box cutters in the Leland Building. The edge of Tagore's kirpan is three inches long and is not sharp.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Suit By Former IRS Agent Says Bar On Kirpan Was Religious Discrimination
Petitions For Cert. Filed In Two 9th Circuit Cases
AP reports that several Indian tribes are seeking Supreme Court review in Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service. In an 8-3 en banc decision in the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not bar the Forest Service from approving the use of recycled waste water to make artificial snow at Arizona's Snowbowl ski resort, which operates on federal land that the tribes consider sacred. (See prior posting). [Thanks to Blog from the Capital for the lead.]
School Board Says Clergy Cannot Minister To Students At Lunch
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
California Church Loses Challenge To Rezoning Denial
In the absence of a showing that the City acted arbitrarily in ways suggesting actual discrimination, the fact that there may be no other properties available to which the Church can expand its operations in the specific way it wants does not mean that the City's zoning code imposes a substantial burden on the Church. Moreover, the evidence provided by ICFG to support its claim that no other suitable properties exist is not sufficient to create a triable issue as to substantial burden.The court rejected the church's claim that RLUIPA's "equal terms" provision was violated by the zoning code's differentiation between "assembly uses" and uses for commercial recreation and entertainment activities, saying: "ICFG cites to nothing in the legislative history indicating the intent of Congress that the legislation abrogate all local zoning regulations that distinguish between private or nonprofit assemblies and institutions, and commercial or for-profit gatherings of multiple persons." The court also concluded that: "ICFG cannot maintain a claim under the 'total exclusion' provision [of RLUIPA] based simply on the fact that the Church has decided that the only property that will suit it is one that the City will not zone for assembly use." (See prior related posting.)
Hearing Set For January 15 In Challenges To Inauguration Ceremony
Labor Department Issues Guidance On RFRA Exemption For Grantees
In Nepal, Clergy Challenge Government's Power To Appoint Hindu Priests
Cert. Petition Filed In Case Challenging Jurors' Use of Bible
Repressive Religion Law Signed By President of Nagorno-Karabakh
Yesterday Forum 18 reported that on December 24, President Bako Sahakyan of the unrecognised Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh in the South Caucasus (between Armenia and Azerbaijan) signed a "repressive" new Religion Law. The statute, many of whose provisions were taken from Armenia's Religion Law, will go into effect ten days after its official publication later this month. Forum 18 says:
The main restrictions in Karabakh's new Law are: an apparent ban on unregistered religious activity; state censorship of religious literature; the requirement for 100 adult citizens to register a religious community; an undefined "monopoly" given to the Armenian Apostolic Church over preaching and spreading its faith while restricting other faiths to similarly undefined "rallying their own faithful"; and the vague formulation of restrictions....
Although the Law does not specifically ban unregistered religious activity, Article 25 requires all religious organisations to register or re-register within six months of the new Law coming into force.
Monday, January 05, 2009
California Supreme Court Says Episcopal Church Owns Property of Break-Away Parish
The court determined that the following test should be used in church property disputes under California law:
if resolution of a property dispute involves a point of [religious] doctrine, the court must defer to the position of the highest ecclesiastical authority that has decided the point. But to the extent the court can resolve a property dispute without reference to church doctrine, it should apply neutral principles of law. The court should consider sources such as the deeds to the property in dispute, the local church’s articles of incorporation, the general church’s constitution, canons, and rules, and relevant statutes, including statutes specifically concerning religious property, such as Corporations Code section 9142 [which provides that the governing instruments of a general church may impress a trust on property of a local church].The court also concluded that the suit was not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike under California law. A partial concurrence by Justice Kennard argued that Corporations Code sec. 9142 vests the property with the Episcopal Church because it imposes the principle that civil courts must accept decisions of the highest authority in an hierarchical church. She argues that the statute does not reflect a "neutral principles" approach, because it imposes a special rule on religious organizations that would not apply under general property law. The statute allowed imposition of a trust on church property without the congregation's agreement by a resolution adopted after it owned the property. [Thanks to John B. Chilton for the lead.]
Victoria AG Temporarily Refused Communion on Christmas Eve
Court Says Israel's Religion Ministry Discriminated Against Reform Synagogues
5 Catholic Adoption Agencies In Britain Comply With Equality Act
Recent Articles Of Interest
- Jeffrey Shulman, The Outrageous God: Emotional Distress, Tort Liability, and the Limits of Religious Advocacy, (Penn State Law Review, Vol. 113, p. 381, 2008).
- Jeffrey Shulman, What Yoder Wrought: Religious Disparagement, Parental Alienation and the Best Interests of the Child, (Villanova Law Review, Vol. 53, p. 173, 2008).
- Doug Ford, Inspiring and Inadequate: The Krstic' Genocide Conviction Through the Eyes of a Srebrenica Survivor, (HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCACY STORIES, Deena Hurwitz, Margaret Satterthwaite, & Douglas Ford, eds., Foundation Press, 2009.)
- Francis Joseph Mootz, Faithful Hermeneutics, (Michigan State Law Review, 2009).
- Sylvie Bacquet, Manifestation of Belief and Religious Symbols at Schools: Setting Boundaries in English Courts, (October 30, 2008).
- Cristine Soliz & Joseph, Harold, Native American Literature, Ceremony, and Law, (MLA Options For Teaching Literature and Law, Austin Sarat, Cathrine Frank, Matthew Anderson, eds., 2009).
From SmartCILP:
- Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., The Apostle, Mr. Justice Jackson, and the "Pathological Perspective" of the Free Exercise Clause, 65 Washington & Lee Law Review 1071-1089 (2008).
- Rene Reyes, Conscience Reexamined: Liberty, Equality, and the Legacy of Roger Williams, (Reviewing Martha C. Nussbaum, Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality.) 36 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 1-11 (2008).
- Symposium: Law and Religion. Lecture by Leslie C. Griffin; articles by Barbara L. Atwell, Bradley Aron Cooper, Karen Sandrik and Ian J. Silverbrand. 85 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 475-604 (2008).
Rahm Emanuel's Rabbi Talks About The New Chief-of-Staff
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Obama Transition Studying Faith-Based Funding Partnerships
New Policy On Comments
Court Rejects RFRA Defense To Charges of Illegal Importation of Animal Parts
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Professor Suggests Cremating Bodies of Mumbai Terrorists
9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Certification In Boy Scourts Case
Today, our court promulgates an astonishing new rule of law for the nine Western States. Henceforth, a plaintiff who claims to feel offended by the mere thought of associating with people who hold different views has suffered a legally cognizable injury-in-fact. No other circuit has embraced this remarkable innovation, which contradicts nearly three decades of the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence. In practical effect, the three-judge panel majority’s unprecedented theory creates a new legal landscape in which almost anyone who is almost offended by almost anything has standing to air his or her displeasure in court.Today's San Diego Union-Tribune reports on the decision.