County Settles Religious Harassment Lawsuit

Today's Craig (CO) Daily Press reports that the Moffat County (CO) Commission agreed last Tuesday to settle for $15,000 a lawsuit filed by a former employee who charges that she was subjected to religious harassment by his supervisor in the Parks and Recreation Department. Plaintiff Penny Doolin claims that her direct supervisor, Tammy Seela, questioned her "in an aggressive manner" about her religious practices and beliefs. Seela says she was fired by the county Human Resources Director after complaining about the situation. The county denies any wrongdoing, but says it is settling on the recommendation of its insurance company.

Court Bars Illinois Enforcement of Pharmacy Rule Pending Trial

Last December, in Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, (IL Sup. Ct., Dec. 18, 2008), the Illinois Supreme Court held that two pharmacists and 3 corporations that own pharmacies had stated a justiciable challenge to a State Board of Pharmacy rule (68 Ill. Adm. Code §1330.91(j)) that requires them to dispense the "morning after pill." (See prior posting.) After reaching this conclusion, it remanded the case to the trial court. Yesterday, according to the Springfield (IL) State Journal-Register, the Sangamon County Circuit Court granted a temporary restraining order to prevent the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation from enforcing the rule against the two pharmacists while the case is being heard. Plaintiffs claim that the administrative rule violates the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, as well as plaintiffs' 1st Amendment rights. The state contends that the pharmacists are not covered by the Right of Conscience Act. Meanwhile, it is unclear whether the state will also cease enforcing the rule against other pharmacists during the pendency of this challenge.

Historic Landmark Limits Are Not Substantial Burden Under RLUIPA

In Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church v. City of Peoria, Illinois, (CD IL, March 31, 2009), an Illinois federal district court rejected a church's RLUIPA claim. The Church, some years ago, purchased an adjacent building which was subsequently designated as an historic landmark. Now the city refuses to permit the Church to tear down the building to build a Family Life Center. The court held that the limitations on tearing down or renovating the building because of its historic status do not constitute a substantial burden on the Church's exercise of religion. Law of the Land blog reported on the case yesterday. [Thanks to Bob Tuttle for the lead.]

Iowa Supreme Court Invalidates Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Today Iowa joined Connecticut and Massachusetts in recognizing same-sex marriage. In Varnum v. Brien, (IA Sup. Ct., April 3, 2009), the Iowa Supreme Court held that the Iowa statute (IC Sec. 595.2) that limits marriage to unions between opposite-sex partners violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6). Conducting a lengthy analysis of equal protection precedent, the court concluded that "legislative classifications based on sexual orientation must be examined under a heightened level of scrutiny...." Finding that the same-sex marriage ban cannot survive intermediate scrutiny, the court did not need to decide whether a strict scrutiny analysis should be applied instead. Near the end of its opinion, the Court focused on the question of religious opposition to gay marriage:

[We] give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views.
A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.

New York Times reports on the decision. Americans United issued a release praising the decision and saying it "has reaffirmed religious liberty." On the other hand, a release from the Traditional Values Coalition complains about judicial activism and warns of possible losses and mandates that it says could be imposed on religious groups.

Air Force Officer Cleared In Inspirational E-mail Investigation

Stars and Stripes reported Wednesday that the Air Force has cleared Col. Kimberly Toney of violating Air force policy requiring religious neutrality. Toney sent an e-mail to thousands of personnel in her 501st Combat Support Wing in Europe urging them to view an inspirational video on Catholic website. (See prior posting.) In closing the investigation last Monday, an Air Force spokesman said: "After a thorough consideration of the facts, the Third Air Force has concluded Colonel Toney acted inadvertently and unintentionally and did not willfully violate Air Force policy or (Equal Employment Opportunity) guidelines." [Thanks to Christian Fighteer Pilot for the lead.]

Judges Nominated For 4th and 2nd Circuit Vacancies

Yesterday the White House announced that nominations for two vacant circuit judgeships have been submitted to the Senate. AP, reporting on the nominations, says that there are currently 17 vacancies on federal appeals courts.

Maryland U.S. District Court Judge Andre M. Davis has been nominated by President Obama for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2000, Davis had been nominated by President Clinton for the 4th Circuit, but the Senate did not consider the nomination prior to Clinton's leaving office.

In 2000, Judge Davis decided Concerned Citizens of Carderock v. Hubbard, 84 F. Supp. 2d 668 (SDNY, 2000) [LEXIS link], holding that a Montgomery County, Maryland zoning ordinance did not violate the Establishment Clause. In the case, homeowners challenged the grant of a building permit to a synagogue, arguing that a zoning provision permitting "churches . . . and other places of worship" in areas zoned for single-family residences, but not allowing charitable institutions or private clubs there, amounts to an endorsement of religion. Judge Davis wrote: "the operative characteristic in the Ordinance is not religion, non-religion or any particular system of beliefs, but the County Council's reasonable, and thus legitimate, judgment about presumed compatibility with single family residential use."

New York U.S. District Court Judge Gerard E. Lynch has been nominated for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. From 1992-97, Lynch served as vice-dean of Columbia Law School. Judge Lynch's decisions include two in which he ruled against complaints from Muslim prisoners.

In Pugh v. Goord, 184 F. Supp. 2d 326 (SD NY, 2001) [Lexis link], Lynch denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed claims brought by Shi'ite Muslim inmates who wanted to be able to hold services separate from Sunni Muslim prisoners. However the judgment was vacated and the case remanded by the Second Circuit on the ground that plaintiffs did not have notice that the court was considering entirely dismissing the case. (Pugh v. Goord, 345 F.3d 121 (2d Cir., 2003) [Lexis link].

In Jones v. Goord, 435 F. Supp. 2d 221 (SD NY, 2006) [Lexis link], inmates objected to New York's administration of a program for double-celling in maximum-security prisons. Part of the claim was on behalf of Muslim prisoners who argued that double-celling prevents them from practicing their religion. There is not enough room to pray in a double cell, a cellmate may render a cell unclean and therefore unfit for prayer, certain prayers and rituals require solitude, and the morning call to prayer could disturb a sleeping cellmate. Judge Lynch wrote: "plaintiffs offer no alternative solution that would accommodate their religious needs, nor do they attempt to explain how the requested exemption could be applied without compromising the legitimate penological interest in distributing the burden of double-celling equally among prisoners."

Files On Clergy Sexual Abuse Ordered Released, Implementing Settlement

Implementing a 2006 settlement with 25 victims in a clergy sexual abuse case, yesterday a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ordered the Franciscans to release hundreds of pages of personnel files and other documents. AP reports that Judge Peter D. Lichtman ordered the release to be made within 21 days, after ruling on specific documents where objections to public release were raised. It is expected that the documents will reveal when the Catholic order learned of the alleged abuse and how it dealt with those accused.

UPDATE: According to an April 30 report by Canadian Press, the the Franciscan Friars of California Inc. have filed an appeal of the order to release these documents.

Lighted Cross On City Fire Tower Is Center of Dispute

In Reading, Pennsylvania, for at least 50 years the city has displayed a large lighted cross on the city-owned Fire Tower during the Easter season, and a lighted star at Christmas. Now, according to reports in the Reading Eagle and WPVI News, the ACLU and the Appignani Humanist Legal Center wrote the city's mayor threatening to sue if the light grid was turned on this year. (WMVZ has links to the full text of 2 letters sent by AHLC.) Mayor Tom McMahon, nevertheless, continued the decades-old tradition this year, lighting up the cross Feb. 26 at the beginning of Lent. It will remain on until Easter. However, McMahon has asked city attorneys to look into leasing the Fire Tower to a private group that oversaw its renovation a few years ago, or selling it to the group for a nominal amount with a right of first refusal for the city to buy it back if it is ever sold. He thinks this might prevent an Establishment Clause challenge to the display, though he in not sure whether City Council would support the move.

Suit Against FAA By Employee Disciplined for Remarks About Gays Is Settled

A settlement stipulation (full text) has been filed with a Georgia federal district court in Dombrowski v. Federal Aviation Administration. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2006, alleges that the FAA violated a supervisory employee's speech, equal protection and due process rights, as well as his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, when it suspended plaintiff without pay for 10 days because of conversations he had with non-supervisory employees about religious denominations and about his views on homosexuality. His notice of suspension said that he expressed views, including stereotypes, inappropriate for the workplace. (Full text of complaint.) The settlement agreement calls for the FAA to distribute to all employees in its regional office a copy of Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Expression in the Workplace, originally issued by the White House in 1997. The FAA will also amend plaintiff's attendance records and will pay $9000 in attorneys fees for plaintiff. Alliance Defense Fund issued a release yesterday announcing the settlement.

Some Allegations Are Struck In Sex Abuse Suits Against Diocese

In four decisions on motions to strike portions of the pleadings in pending sexual abuse lawsuits against the Hartford Catholic Diocese, a Connecticut trial court has concluded that most of the allegations can be decided by applying neutral tort principles. The suits seek to hold the Diocese responsible for abuse carried out by two priests. However the court agreed with defendant that ruling on several of the allegations of negligence would involve a constitutionally impermissible examination of internal church governance and clergy employment decisions.

The court struck allegations that the Diocese failed to adequately evaluate the mental fitness of the abusers to serve as Catholic priests and that it induced the Catholic faithful to entrust their children's moral and spiritual well being and safety to priests and then failed to protect the children from sexual abuse. The court said that these claims would require the it to delve into Church doctrine or religious practices. The court also concluded that one child does not have a cause of action based on the Diocese's failure to report suspected abuse of another child. The cases, all decided by the Waterbury (CT) Superior Court on Feb. 24, 2009 are: Mallory v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 575; Cerninka v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 581; Mallory v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 560; and Mallory v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 590.

Court Enjoins Georgia's Ban on Sex Offenders As Church Volunteers

In Whitaker v. Perdue, (ND GA, March 30, 2009), a Georgia federal district court issued a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of provisions in Georgia's sex offender law to the extent that it restricts registered sex offenders from engaging in volunteer activities at churches. The court found that the prohibition in O.C.G.A. § 42-1-15(c)(1) against registered sex offenders being employed by or volunteering at any church is unconstitutionally vague. In particular, there is substantial confusion over what type of participation in church activities turns the individual into a "volunteer" under the statute. In deciding to grant the preliminary injunction, the court said that allowing registered sex offenders "to participate in their faith communities will further public safety by providing support, stability, and a grounded sense of right and wrong. Both the Board of Pardons and Paroles and the GDC recognize that encouraging people to be involved with faith-based programs will reduce recidivism."

Other portions of the court's 39-page opinion dealt with class certification and refused to dismiss plaintiffs' takings clause claims. Yesterday's Gainesville (GA) Times reported on the decision.

Ismaili Muslims Not A "Race" Under Section 1981

In Wilson v. Pepsi Bottling Group, (ND GA, March 30, 2009), a Georgia federal district court held that 42 USC Sec. 1981 was not violated when an association of convenience store owners limited its membership to Ismaili Muslims. Section 1981, enacted in the post-Civil War period, applies to racial discrimination in making or enforcing contracts. The court concluded that at the time of the enactment of Section 1981, Ismaili Muslims would not have been considered a separate race. Nor did plaintiffs prove that only Caucasian non-Ismalis were excluded. Convenience Store News reported on the decision yesterday.

Prayer At Community Policing Meetings Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

The Chicago (IL) police force, as part of its community policing efforts, holds regular "beat meetings" between police officers and community members in various neighborhoods so police and citizens can exchange information and discuss crime problems. In Kaplan v. City of Chicago, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25573 (ND IL, March 27, 2009), a former police officer complained that beat meetings she attended opened and closed with Christian prayers. An Illinois federal district court rejected her Establishment Clause challenge on a variety of grounds. It held that plaintiff failed to show that the prayers resulted from "state action" rather than the initiative of community members. She did not show that she was coerced to participate in the prayer or the meetings. Nor did she show that the police department endorsed, rather than merely tolerated, the prayer. Finally the court held that her suit against the city required her to show a municipal policy or custom leading to a Constitutional violation. The court also rejected plaintiff's Title VII claim. She had alleged that her removal from assignments to beat meetings because of her objections was an adverse employment action due to religious discrimination.

Consent Decrees Entered In EEOC Cases On Behalf of Muslim Workers

TMC News yesterday reported that a a Minnesota federal magistrate judge has given final approval to consent decrees settling two related cases involving failure to accommodate religous needs of Muslim workers employed by, or seeking employment with, a chicken producer with plants in Minnesota and Wisconsin. The settlement in EEOC v. Gold'n Plump Poultry, Inc., requires the company to add a paid break during the second half of each shift to accommodate Muslim employees who wish to pray in the course of the work day. The timing of the break will fluctuate during the year to coordinate with the required time for Muslim prayer, but all workers, regardless of religion, will be entitled to the break. Gold'n Plump will also pay damages totalling $215,000 to 128 Somali American Muslims who complained that they were disciplined or discharged for practicing their religion.

In the second case (EEOC v. The Work Connection) brought against an employment agency that recruited workers for Gold'n Plump, the consent decree requires an end to the practice of requiring applicants to sign a form stating that they will not refuse to handle pork products in the course of their work. Some 28 applicants previously turned away for refusing to sign the form will now be offered positions at Gold'n Plump, and they will share in a damage award totalling $150,000.

5th Circuit Hears Arguments On Santeria Slaughter Ban

Yesterday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Merced v. City of Euless (recording of full arguments). In the case, a Texas federal district court upheld a decision by the the City of Euless to deny Jose Merced a permit to sacrifice a goat. The animal slaughter was to be part of a Santeria religious ceremony. (See prior posting.) AP and a release from Becket Fund reported on the oral arguments. Becket Fund's Eric Rassbach, representing Merced, argued: "If Euless permits animal killing for hunting, fishing, meat production, pest control and euthanasia, it cannot ban it for religious reasons." The Becket Fund release also links to all the parties' briefs in the case.

Arizona Trespass Conviction Challenges Authority of Utah To Reform FLDS Trust

Yesterday's Deseret News reports on new legal complications in the ongoing attempt by a Utah court to restructure the United Effort Plan Trust that owns the land and homes of Fundamentalist LDS Church members in Colorado City, AZ and Hildale, UT. (See prior posting.) Isaac Wyler, who continues to live in Colorado City, is an employee of court-appointed trustee, Bruce Wisan. Wyler has posted eviction and tax notices on UEP-owned homes and is trying, at Wisan's request, to get FLDS members to sign occupancy agreements. Last month, a Mohave County Arizona judge convicted Wyler on two counts of criminal trespass for entering some of the homes without permission of their residents. It rejected Wyler's defense that he was acting under authority of a Utah court order. On Monday, the judge imposed a suspended 10-day jail sentence, two years probation and a fine of $400 on Wyler. The arrest of Wyler by the Colorado City Town Marshall reflects the decision last year by members of the polygamous FLDS Church to begin to challenge actions to reform the UEP Trust, instead of ignoring the Utah court proceedings as they had done since 2005. (See prior posting.)

Court Says Curfew Law Infringes Free Exercise, Speech Rights

In State of Idaho v. Doe, (ID Ct. App., March 31, 2009), an Idaho appellate court held that Wendell, Idaho's juvenile curfew ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad. Upholding a facial challenge to the law, the court said that:

by restricting minors' access to all public places during curfew hours, the ordinance severely inhibits the ability of minors to exercise their First Amendment rights for one-quarter of the day.... [They] are precluded from attending midnight church services unless accompanied by a parent or guardian or in possession of a permission slip. They cannot participate in City Council meetings that run late, political caucuses, or general gatherings related to political and social opinions. A minor's freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association are all curtailed by the curfew ordinance.

AP reports on the decision.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Thompson v. Williams, (9th Cir., March 26, 2009), the 9th Circuit rejected a prisoner's free exercise, RLUIPA and equal protection challenges to authorities' refusal to provide him with a Halal, or in the alternative a kosher, diet.

In Daly v. Davis, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6222 (7th Cir., March 25, 2009), the 7th Circuit held that a prisoner's religious exercise was not substantially burdened when he was suspended for a month from the kosher food program after he violated program rules by eating non-kosher food and bartering his kosher food tray for a non-kosher tray.

In Cromer v. Braman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23901 (WD MI, March 25, 2009), a Michigan federal district court rejected a challenge to various actions taken against an inmate because he was a member of "Nation of Gods and Earths" which is classified by prison authorities as a security threat group. Plaintiff claimed that these actions discriminated against him as a member of Nation of Islam.

In Logan v. Lockett, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24328 (WD PA, March 25, 2009), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected an inmate's claim that his rights were infringed when he was excluded from participation in the Ramadan fast and subsequent communal meal with other inmates. The court first held that monetary damages are unavailable under RLUIPA in suits against prison officials in either their official or personal capacities. It also rejected his RLUIPA and 1st Amendment claims, finding that his exclusion stemmed from his disagreement with the teachings of the Imam who led the Muslim congregation at the prison.

In Roby v. Stewart, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24413 (ND CA, March 16, 2009), a California federal district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies a complaint by a prisoner that his free exercise rights were infringed when authorities double-celled him with an Evangelical Christian who posed a threat and ultimately attacked him because he was a Satanist.

In Cary v. McNeil, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23621 (ND FL, March 6, 2009), a Florida federal magistrate judge instructed a pro se plaintiff to file an amended complaint presenting more facts about his claims, including his claim regarding denial of a diet that complies with his religious needs.

In Portune v. Ornoski, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24465 (ND CA, March 13, 2009), a California federal district court rejected a prisoner's complaint that he was denied parole because of his refusal to participate in a Narcotics Anonymous program that he said violated his religious beliefs. The court found that the parole board also considered whether he participated in an equivalent drug rehabilitation program.

US Will Seek Seat on UN Human Rights Council

In a statement yesterday, the U.S. State Department announced that the United States this year will run for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Describing the decision as part of the Obama administration's "new era of engagement", the U.S. said that it can make the Council more effective by working from within. The Bush administration refused to seek a seat, believing that there were insufficient safeguards to prevent countries with human rights violations from becoming members. (See prior posting.) Politico reports on the new policy. Anti-Defamation League expressed concern about the U.S. decision, saying: "Since its inception in 2006, the HRC has virtually ignored the major human rights violations of our times and instead has repeated the entrenched, institutionalized anti-Israeli bias of its predecessor.... We hope the U.S. will be vociferous in its representations against the one-sided anti-Israel pronouncements and can be a force for change within the body."

Court Rejects Jewish Man's Anti-Muslim Conspiracy Charges

In Hummasti v. Ali, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25433 (D OR, March 23, 2009), an Oregon federal district court rejected, largely for lack of evidence, a rather outlandish set of RICO, conspiracy and discrimination allegations by a former Portland State University student who was operating an unlicensed food kiosk outside the courthouse in Portland, Oregon. Filing the lawsuit pro se, John Hummasti, who is Jewish, alleged, among other things, that the county health inspector who told him he needed a license for his food kiosk was attempting to impose Islamic law on him and was conspiring to prevent him from collecting charity for the Jewish community in Portland. He alleged that various Islamic groups in Portland had conspired to deny him the right of free speech on public campuses, and that police officers violated his 1st Amendment rights when they arrested him for assaulting a Muslim man who was stopped at a red light near where Hummasti was carrying signs opposing Islamic terrorism in Gaza.