Priest's Salary Claim Dismissed As Requiring Interpretation of Canon Law

In Tarasi v. Jugis, (NC Ct. App., March 16, 2010), a North Carolina appellate court dismissed a claim by a Catholic priest that his Bishop violated the state's Wage and Hour Act by refusing to assign him to a congregation or pay him a salary, despite a direction from the Vatican to do so. The instructions from the Vatican called for the Bishop to provide the priest "with an adequate means of livelihood and the appropriate necessities as envisioned in canons 281 § 1 and 384 of the Code of Canon Law, and that which is established by Diocesan Particular law regarding the sustenance of clergy." The court held that the First Amendment precludes it from taking jurisdiction. Determining the amount of compensation to which plaintiff is entitled would require the court to interpret canon law.

Jewish Groups Want Title VI Interpreted To Cover Anti-Semitic Harassment of Students

Thirteen national Jewish organizations yesterday wrote to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan urging the Department's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to interpret Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment. (Full text of letter.) Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin by educational institutions that receive federal funds. However, Title VI does not mention religious discrimination.

In 2004, OCR said Title VI covers discrimination against Jewish students even if they are Caucasian and American born. This is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in the 1987 case of Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb that held Jews could make a racial discrimination claim under a 19th century federal law. Subsequently OCR backed away from that interpretation, contending that it could investigate harassment motivated by a student's perceived Jewish ethnic origin, but not harassment because of a student's Jewish religious beliefs or practices. (See prior posting.) By July 2009, OCR had gone even further and apparently now takes the position that Title VI does not cover any kind of anti-Semitic harassment. In yesterday's letter, the Jewish groups wrote:

We urge you to review OCR's change in policy for enforcing Title VI. To Jewish students, the narrowed policy means that that they must endure a hostile educational environment because the law, while protecting other ethnic and racial groups, offers them no protection—even when intimidation or harassment is directed at them based on ethnic, as opposed to religious, identity. The government's message to campus perpetrators of anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination is that they may continue to do what they are doing, because colleges and universities have no legal obligation to respond to their hateful conduct....

The letter also focused on the issue of when anti-Semitic harassment disguised as anti-Israel expression loses First Amendment protection:

[C]onduct that threatens, harasses or intimidates particular Jewish students to the point that their ability to participate in and benefit from their college experience is impaired should not be deemed unactionable simply because that conduct is couched as "anti-Israel" or "anti-Zionist." ... [H]arassment or intimidation that holds Jewish students responsible for the acts of other Jews, or of Israel, is better understood as ethnic or "national origin" discrimination than as religious discrimination.

An ADL press release announced the letter. [Thanks to Michael Lieberman for the lead.]

British Court Orders Commission To Consider Exemption For Catholic Adoption Agency

In Britain, Catholic Care, a Catholic adoption agency operating in South Yorkshire has won an appeal of a Charity Commission's refusal to grant it an exemption from the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. Yesterday's Yorkshire Post reports that a High Court judge sitting in London has ordered the Charity Commission to review its determination. Catholic Care offers specialized adoption services, and is the last of the Catholic adoption agencies in Britain to continue the fight against regulations that would require them to allow adoptions by same-sex couples. Catholic agencies elsewhere in Britain have either stopped offering adoption services or have cut their ties with the Catholic Church in order to continue in business. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Free Exercise Claims of Muslim Parents Against Police Officials Dismissed

In Syed v. Hamady, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23353 (ND IN, March 12, 2010), and Indiana federal district court dismissed claims by a Muslim couple against a police officer and a sheriff who they claimed violated their rights to free exercise of religion, free expression and freedom of assembly. The court also rejected defamation and infliction of emotional distress claims. The free exercise claim grew out of a statement made at a school board meeting by the police officer and others objecting to the fact that plaintiffs' children were given time to pray at school, while non-Muslim children were not. Other claims revolved around publicity of the fact that a van which picked up plaintiffs' children from school on one occasion had license plates that were on the FBI's terrorist watch list.

9th Circuit Defines Ministerial Exception For Employment Cases

In Alcazar v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, (9th Cir., March 16, 2010), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed under the "ministerial exception" doctrine claims by two Catholic seminarians who alleged violations of Washington state's Minimum Wage Law. The two claimed that they were not paid required overtime wages while they served in a placement program as part of their preparation for the priesthood. The Court held that the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment compel a ministerial exception from neutral statutes that interfere with the church-clergy employment relationship. It also announced a test for determining whether an individual is a minister for purpose of the doctrine:

if a person (1) is employed by a religious institution, (2) was chosen for the position based "largely on religious criteria," and (3) performs some religious duties and responsibilities, that person is a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception.

[Thanks to Mark Scarberry via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Amicus and Party Briefs In Christian Legal Society Case All Now Available Online

All of the amicus briefs, as well as the briefs of the parties, have now been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez. The full text of all the briefs are available online from the ABA's website: 22 amicus briefs support Petitioner; 12 support Respondent; and one is in support of neither party. In the case, which is scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court on April 19, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of University of California's Hastings College of Law to impose its policy against discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation on a student religious group seeking formal recognition.

Court Rejects Appeal, Decrying Trial Tactics, In Dispute Over Sikh Temple Board

Brar v. Sedey, (TX App., March 15, 2010), is a lawsuit in which Jasdeep Singh, a member of the board of directors of a non-profit corporation that operates a Sikh Temple, was removed from the board by a vote of fellow board members. Singh sued claiming his removal violated the Temple's bylaws. The trial court granted a temporary injunction finding it likely that Singh would prevail on the merits because less than two-thirds of the board members voted for his removal. Defendants then filed a motion for rehearing and argued the court lacked jurisdiction because deciding the case would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine. Instead of waiting for a ruling on this jurisdictional defense, defendants appealed the temporary injunction. The court dismissed the appeal, criticizing defendants' litigation tactics. They could have gone to trial in the case 3 months before the appeal was argued, but they instead sought a continuance in order to obtain an interlocutory appellate ruling.

Suit Charges Wrongful Prosecution For Use of Annointing Oil In Courtroom

In Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, John C. Ridgeway has filed a lawsuit in state court against local police and prosecutors charging wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and violation of First Amendment speech, free exercise and assembly rights. According to yesterday's Bay City Times, his lawsuit was filed after a jury acquitted him on charges of assaulting police and public officials. Those charges grew out of a misdemeanor traffic case in which Ridgeway represented himself. As the jury was about to deliver its verdict, Ridgeway took out a vial of oil, rubbed it on his fingertips and then on the defense table. He also insisted on shaking hands with an assistant prosecutor, the bailiff and the officer who had given him the traffic ticket. Soon after, all three suffered nausea, headaches, numbness and tingling. Ridgeway says he was using anointing oil-- virgin olive oil blessed by Pastor Pete Peters of the La Porte Church of Christ in La Porte, Colorado. The pastor urged his followers to use the oil to cast evil out of government buildings, including courthouses.

Morocco Deports Foreigners Living At Orphanage For Christian Proselytizing

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times reports that 16 foreign nationals who were part of the Village of Hope orphanage in the town of Ain Leuh were deported from Morocco last week for proselytizing. Apparently the charges were filed in part because the children at Village of Hope were reading Bible stories from a children's Bible. The 33 children at the orphanage were living in family units with different adult couples there. The government claims the foreigners exploited poverty-stricken families in order to convert their children to Christianity. Morocco's minister of communication, Khalid Naciri, said the country would "continue to take stern action against anyone who toys with the religious values" of the nation, whose official religion is Islam. Herman and Jellie Boonstra, a Dutch couple who lived at the orphanage had eight children in their care. Herman says that while the children were familiar with Christianity because they grew up with the Christian family, he did not intend to convert them.

Ireland To Hold Referendum On Blasphemy Provision In Constitution

Ireland's Justice Minister announced Sunday that the country will hold a referendum this fall on removing a blasphemy ban from the Constitution. Yesterday's London Guardian reports that the advocacy group Atheist Ireland particularly welcomed the announcement. When Ireland's new more lenient blasphemy law took effect in January, the group responded by publishing on its website 25 blasphemous statements from famous figures in history. (See prior posting.) Currently Ireland's Constitution (Sec. 40) requires that the country have a blasphemy law.

Town Will Change Law To Permit Small Churches To Meet In Residences

Responding to an appeal (full text) filed by the Alliance Defense Fund with the Board of Adjustment, the Gilbert, Arizona Town Council announced yesterday that it will move quickly to change the town's zoning code to permit small church groups to meet in individual homes. The Arizona Republic yesterday describes Council's statement as "extremely apologetic." The issue arose when Gilbert's zoning administrator upheld a cease-and-desist order issued to the Oasis of Truth Church. The administrator said that the church's religious services for 10 to 15 people on a rotating basis at the pastor's home constitute a "religious assembly" under the town zoning ordinance, and that Bible study, church leadership meetings and fellowship activities were "church-sponsored activities," all of which are prohibited in single-family residences. To show their concern over the order issued to Oasis of Truth, the town's mayor and acting town manager attended Sunday services there this past week end.

New Briefing Urges End To Bishops In House of Lords

The British Humanist Association yesterday released a new briefing paper titled Religious Representatives in the House of Lords. It argues:

The presence of Church of England in the House of Lords entrenches a privileged position for one particular branch of one particular religion that cannot be justified in today’s society, which is not only multi-faith but increasingly nonreligious.It is at odds with the aspiration of a more legitimate and representative second chamber and with recognition of a plural society.

According to BHA, a recent poll in Britain found that 74% of people think it is "wrong" for Bishops to be given an automatic seat in the Lords, and 48% say it is not important for Church of England Bishops to have seats at all. Community Newswire reports on the poll.

Swiss Muslims To Sue To Obtain Separate Cemeteries

World Radio Switzerland reported yesterday that the Conference of Islamic Organizations of Switzerland is planning to sue to require all Swiss cantons to create separate Muslim cemeteries. The move comes after a suburb of Bern refused to create a separate burial ground as require by Islamic law. The Muslim group says this violates their protected freedom of religion.

Israel Passes Civil Union Bill For Those With No Recognized Religion

Under Israeli law, marriage is handled by religious authorities of each recognized religious community-- Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Druze. Israel has had no civil marriage, though civil marriages performed in other countries are recognized. (Background.) Israel's Knesset yesterday by a vote of 56-4 passed a civil union bill that allows a man and woman both of whom have no religious affiliation to, for the first time, enter a civil union though a new marriage registrar bureau. The bill was introduced by the Israel Beiteinu party. The bill passed with the two major Jewish religious parties that are part of the governing coalition-- Shas and United Torah Judaism-- not voting because no agreement had been reached on a controversial companion bill on conversion. Today's Jerusalem Post and YNet News report on the complex situation. Opponents of the civil union bill are concerned that it would increase the power of the Chief Rabbinate by allowing it a say in whether a person in fact was not a member of a religious community. The bill will apply primarily to individuals who consider themselves to be Jewish, but who do not meet the Orthodox halachic criteria for being considered Jewish. Opponents are also concerned over how these civil unions will be recognized in other countries.

Two Religious Land Use Disputes In Northern New Jersey

In northern New Jersey, one land use dispute was settled while a lawsuit was filed in another. In Englewood (NJ), two lawsuits between the town and a neighborhood group over expansion of East Hill Synagogue and the synagogue's use of tents for events on its property have been settled. NorthJersey.com last week reported that neighbors objected to Planning Board decisions that allowed the synagogue to expand its seating for 123 to 225, and to put up tents in the parking lot 12 times per year. The neighborhood group argued, among other things, that some members of the Planning Board had conflicts of interest because they were members of a synagogue that was affiliated with East Hill. Under the settlement, tents can be put up six times per year, with various restrictions on timing and a ban on outdoor music.

Meanwhile, in Ridgefield Park (NJ), the owner of a 2-story building that houses a donut and an ice cream store have filed suit because the village Planning Board refuses to permit rental of a back office in the building to a church group, the Go Ahead Mission. According to NorthJersey.com yesterday, the building owner claims that the refusal to grant a variance is related to the fact that he is Korean.

Boiler Plate AG Endorsement of Church Property Sale Found Insufficient

A New York trial court has rejected the apparently routine method by which the state Attorney General's office gives its statutorily required consent to the sale of real property by non-profit religious corporations. The New York Religious Corporations Law, Sec. 12(a)(1), requires religious corporations to obtain court approval for sale, mortgage or lease of real property. The procedures for court approval, in Sec. 511 of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, call for the court to require at least 15 days notice to the attorney general. In Matter of The House of The Lord and Church On The Mount, Inc., (Sup. Ct. Kings Co., March 10, 2010), a church's ex parte petition to sell a property it owns for $595,000 was accompanied by a proposed order that included a rubber stamped and signed endorsement from the attorney general's office stating:

The Attorney General hereby appears herein, has no objection to the granting of judicial approval hereon, acknowledges receipt of statutory notice, and demands service of all papers submitted herein ... conditioned on submission of the matter to the court within 30 days hereafter....

An apparently puzzled court refused to grant the order, instead directing service on the Attorney General. The court explained that it "does not deem the pre-printed text and hand written entries to satisfy the notice requirements of N-PCL § 511(b). At the very least, the Court would require an affirmation or affidavit from someone with personal knowledge explaining the circumstance and the import of the text and signatures as it pertains to the notice requirements to the Attorney General."

Samoa To Look Into Freedom of Religion

Radio New Zealand reported yesterday that the government of Samoa has approved creating a Commission of Inquiry to review freedom of religion. The Cabinet set up the Commission because of concern that new religions advocating beliefs contrary to Christianity may arrive in the country.

Some Non-Muslims Use Britain's Muslim Arbitration Tribunal

Yesterday's London Times reports that 20 non-Muslims used Britain's Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) to resolve their legal disputes last year. This is a 15% increase over the prior year. The MAT operates under Britain's Arbitration Act. Meanwhile, the One Law for All Campaign has 22,000 signatures on a petition in opposition to religious tribunals of any sort operating in Britain.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Alice Ristroph & Melissa E. Murray, Disestablishing the Family, (Yale Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Noa Ben-Asher, Legal Holes, (Ubound, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2009).
• Olatunde C. Johnson, The Story of Bob Jones University v. United States: Race, Religion, and Congress’ Extraordinary Acquiescence, (February 12, 2010).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Anita S. Krishnakumar, The Hidden Legacy of Holy Trinity Church: The Unique National Institution Canon, 51 William & Mary Law Review 1053-1111 (2009).
• Ronan McCrea, Religion as a Basis of Law in the Public Order of the European Union, 16 Columbia Journal of European Law 81-119 (2009/2010).
• Alan C. Lazerow, Give and "Get"? Applying the Restatement of Contracts to Determine the Enforceability of "Get Settlement" Contracts, 39 Baltimore Law Review 103 (2009).

Religious Group Lacks Standing To Sue For-Profit Board For Breach of Duty

The Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard reported yesterday on a state trial court decision denying standing to the religious non-profit organization Sikh Dharma International in its lawsuit against the head of the for-profit natural foods company, Golden Temple, and three members of the Unto Infinity board. Unto Infinity was charged with overseeing the businesses operated by the Sikh spiritual community created by Yogi Bhajan. Golden Temple has 330 employees in Oregon, 100 in Europe, and annual revenues of $125 million. The lawsuit charges that defendants are breaching their fiduciary duties through enriching themselves at the expense of the community's assets. Still pending before the court is the question of whether individual Sikh ministers who are members of Sikh Dharma International have standing to pursue the claims separate from the organization. The court is expected to issue its preliminary views on that issue before a scheduled May hearing.