Religion Clause

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

School Principal Sues Claiming Religious Discrimination After He Promoted Prayer Breakfast

In Santa Barbara, California, an elementary school principal has filed a lawsuit against the Goleta Union School District charging that the district is attempting to fire him because of his evangelical Protestant religious beliefs. Principal Craig Richter was disciplined and threatened with contract non-renewal after he appeared in a video promoting the 2010 Santa Barbara Community Prayer Breakfast which had a theme of honoring teachers. The complaint (full text) in Richter v. Goleta Union School District, (CD CA, filed 10/12/2010), claims that the district took action against him on the grounds that his participation in the video violated church-state restrictions by implying district endorsement of the prayer breakfast. The suit charges violation of Title VII, of California's employment discrimination law and of plaintiff's free speech rights. Alliance Defense Fund issued a press release reporting the filing of the lawsuit.

Federal Government Appeals Cases That Invalidated DOMA

Reuters reports that the Justice Department yesterday filed notices of appeal in two companion rulings by a Massachusetts federal court that held the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) Even though President Obama opposes DOMA, the Justice Department says it "is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged." Bay Windows points out that the notices of appeal were filed on the last possible day for doing so.

European Commission To Investigate Italy's Tax Benefits To Church-Owned Commercial Property

Bloomberg News reported yesterday that the European Commission is opening an investigation into tax exemptions that Italy grants to the Catholic Church. In addition to a property tax exemption for non-commercial properties, Italy gives the Church a 50% reduction on the tax imposed on commercial property. European Union regulators say this may amount to an illegal state subsidy if the Church's commercial activities are in competiton with private commercial service providers. In a press release yesterday the European Commission also announced that it would examine Italian laws that protect ecclesiastical institutions (as well as amateur sports clubs) from losing tax exemptions for their property even if they begin to use formerly non-commercial property for commercial purposes.

Suit In Belarus Seeks Religious Burial For Executed Murderer

According to a report published yesterday by Forum 18, in Belarus the mother of convicted murderer Andrei Zhuk who was executed in March has filed a civil suit in Lenin District Court in Minsk seeking to obtain her son's body for religious burial. The suit against the Ministry of Interior's Department for the Execution of Punishments claims that the refusal to release Zhuk's body or tell his mother where he is buried violates the religious exercise rights of Zhuk's mother protected under Art. 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 21 of the Belarus Constitution obligates the government to guarantee rights specified in the country's international obligations.

Cert. Petition Filed In D.C.Refusal of Marriage Initiative

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday seeking review of the D.C. Court of Appeals decision in Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics. In the case, D.C.'s highest appellate court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld election officials' refusal to accept a petition seeking an initiative vote to bar D.C. from recognizing same sex marriages. (See prior posting.) The petition asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the D.C. Council violated the Congressionally approved D.C. Charter in limiting the issues that can be put to an initiative vote. An Alliance Defense Fund press release announces the filing of the cert. petition.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Court Says State Agency Can Ban Employee From Giving Faith-Based Counseling

In Moore v. Metropolitan Human Service District, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107997 (ED LA, Oct. 8, 2010), a Louisiana federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by a social worker employed by a state agency that provides counseling for patients suffering from addictive disorders. Plaintiff Beulah Moore is also an ordained minister. The clinic manager at the facility employing Moore ordered her to cease providing spiritual based counseling and prayer in her clinical treatment of clients. Evidence failed to support broader claims in Moore's complaint that she was also ordered to stop mentioning God at all in the work facility. (See prior related posting.) Moore resigned in a letter stating: "I refuse to be harassed and discriminated against because I speak of God, mention Jesus and have given Spiritual Support to clients on their request." The court concluded that the state agency was justified in restricting Moore's faith-based treatment of clients in order to avoid an Establishment Clause violation.

New Study Examines Assignments of Accused Priests In Chicago

Voice of the Faithful yesterday released a new study titled Priest Work History of Credibly Accused Priests in the Archdiocese of Chicago. It concludes that 60% of Chicago's parishes and institutions had an accused priest working there or in residence at some point in time. In 2009, 20% still had a credibly accused priest in residence. Most of the 97 credibly accused priests were assigned to parishes and institutions in a few Chicago zip codes. These appear to be areas with higher concentrations of African-Americans and low median household incomes. A number of parishes and institutions had more than one accused priest assigned to them at the same time.

OSCE Review Conference Session Focuses On Religious Freedom

The Review Conference of the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE) began in Warsaw, Poland on Sept. 30 and ran until Oct. 8. Other portions of the Review Conference will be held later this month and next month ahead of the OSCE Summit to be held in early December. The Warsaw segment focused on the human rights commitments of the 56 member countries. (Press release). The dozens of documents (links to full texts) from Working Session 2 focus on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Numerous statements were submitted by governments and NGOs.

In Israel, Teenager Sues For Right To Become A Rabbi

In Israel, a 14-year old boy, hoping to become Israel's youngest rabbi, has filed suit in the Supreme Court to force the Chief Rabbinate to grade an ordination exam which he took. According to Arutz Sheva yesterday, Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger gave Moshe Raziel Sharify permission to take the exam, despite his age and despite opposition from Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar. However now the Rabbinate is refusing to grade the exam, saying that its internal rules require a person to be at least 22 years old to become a rabbi. Apparently Sharify is a child prodigy who has been tested on his knowledge of Jewish law by several respected rabbis, including the head of Jerusalem's religious court.

First Responder Sues Ground Zero Mosque Developers For Emotional Distress; Counter Suit Filed

According to the Huffington Post yesterday, 9-11 first responder Vincent Forras has filed a state court class action against the developers of the proposed Ground Zero mosque seeking damages of $350 million for infliction of emotional distress and assault. The complaint (full text) in Forras v. Rauf (apparently filed in mid-September) alleges that for people who live, work or often visit the area around ground zero, many of whom were first responders, the mosque project is "a nuisance, a terror risk and a conscious and/or negligent desire to inflict additional psychological terrorism and emotional distress...." The complaint goes on to allege:

Defendants’ actions and decisions to erect a Mosque at or near the site of a terrorist attack where nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives as a result of radical Islamic terrorists’ actions is careless, negligent, and unlawful in that as a result of Defendants’ ties to terrorist organizations, Defendants have increased the access of terrorists and the likelihood of attacks on Ground Zero. Defendants, given their professed role as clergy, and as professed people of faith, and as citizens of the City of New York and property owners, owe a duty of care to Lead Plaintiff and other members of the class, particularly under these unique circumstances.

Yesterday's New York Post reports that defendants are seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed on free exercise of religion grounds. UPI reported yesterday that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Park51, defendants in the lawsuit, have also responded with a counter-suit claiming that the action against them is motivated by "blind bigotry." The counter suit asks for $50,000 in damages plus attorneys' fees.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Court Says Undue Hardship In Accommodating Refusal To Handle Domestic Partnerships Must Go To Jury

In Slater v. Douglas County, (D OR, Sept. 24, 2010), an Oregon federal district court refused to grant either plaintiff's or defendant's motions for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case, sending to a jury trial the question of whether accommodating a county employee's religious beliefs would have posed an undue hardship under state or federal employment discrimination laws. The suit was brought by a former employee of the Douglas County, Oregon County Clerk's Office. Plaintiff Kathy Slater was fired from her position after she objected to being involved in registering domestic partnerships under Oregon's Domestic Partnership Law. Doing so would have violated her religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. The court concluded that the county's offer to help Slater transfer to a position in another county department if one became available was an insufficient effort at accommodation of her religious beliefs. However it was unable to determine the question of undue hardship on the record before it. The court did reject the county's argument that accommodating Slater's religious beliefs would have violated the Establishment Clause because the county would have been supporting the employee's religious beliefs. [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy via Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Suit Says County Sign Control Ordinance Is Unconstitutional

A federal court challenge to a Berkeley County, South Carolina sign control ordinance was filed last week. The complaint (full text) in Moultrie v. Berkeley County, South Carolina, (D SC, filed 10/5/2010), argues that by providing exemptions for political signs (as well as for "for sale" and "for lease" signs) but not for signs expressing religious messages, the county has violate the free expression, free exercise and equal protection rights of plaintiff who was cited after he failed to obtain permits for seven signs containing Biblical references that he placed on his own property. Plaintiff alleges that the county ordinance is a prior restraint, as well as an over-broad content-based regulation. Last week, the Rutherford Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Friday's Charleston (SC) Post and Courier reports on the case.

In Turkey, University Faculty Cannot Remove Students Who Wear Muslim Headscarves

Despite a 2008 ruling by Turkey's Constitutional Court that appears to hold that Turkey's constitution bars the wearing of Muslim head scarves at universities (see prior posting), Turkey's Higher Education Board (YOK) recently notified Istanbul University that instructors can no longer take disciplinary action against students who wear them. Instead of removing offending students from class, instructors can only report them to the dean. Reporting on YOK's ruling, Hurriyet Daily News last week called it a "don't ask don't tell solution" to a "heavily symbolic legal, political and social dilemma." An op ed today by Richard Peres in Turkey's English language daily, Today's Zaman, makes some interesting observations on the possibility of Turkish women taking a lesson from developments that led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the United States.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In a long opinion in Smith v. Artus, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104660 (ND NY, Sept. 30, 2010), a New York court ultimately rejected challenges by a Muslim inmate to prison policies that prevented him from engaging in demonstrative prayer in the prison recreation yard when recreation times coincided with his obligation for Salaah prayer. While the court questioned the constitutionality of the rule, it found qualified immunity for defendants from damages and found that claims for equitable relief were moot. The court also rejected a challenge to prison rules that prohibited inmates from attending congregate religious services while in the Special Housing Unit.

In Montague v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104394 (MD TN,Sept. 30, 2010), a Tennessee federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of an inmate' claim against a company authorized to deliver food packages to inmates. Plaintiff claimed he did not receive a Christmas gift package sent to him by his relatives.

In Reeder v. Hogan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105024 (ND NY, Sept. 29, 2010), a New York federal district court held that an inmate sufficiently alleged a complaint against one defendant over failure to receive proper meals during Ramadan. The magistrate's recommendations are at 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104686, Aug. 27, 2010.

In Jenkins v. Vail, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98187 (ED WA, Sept. 17, 2010), a Washington federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103989, Aug. 4, 2010) and rejected a Muslim inmate's claims that his free exercise rights and rights under RLUIPA were infringed by rules that required him to either work or engage in educational programming in prison for a non-Islamic government.

In Johnson v. Rock, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104685 (ND NY, Sept. 30, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate' recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104672, March 30, 2010) and rejected a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was subjected to a restricted diet during Ramadan.

In Milstead v. Guyer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105044 (D ID, Sept. 29, 2010), an Idaho federal district court refused to permit a former inmate, now on parole, to withdraw from a settlement agreement he had reached on complaints about prison rules limiting the amount of religious and legal materials he could keep in his cell. The court refused to permit plaintiff to add claims regarding conditions of his parole that prevented him, as a sexual offender, from attending church services where children are present. The court encouraged plaintiff to work with his parole officer to determine what religious services were available for him to attend.

In Wiideman v. Baker, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106301 (D NV, Sept. 20, 2010), a Nevada federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his free exercise and RLUIPA claims that he is denied Asatru reading material, including the Bible of Odinism.

In Jones v. Hobbs, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105799 (ED AK, Oct. 1, 2010), a federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106431, Sept. 13, 2010), and refused to dismiss an inmate's First Amendment individual capacity claims alleging a 16-month denial of a religiously required vegan diet. However the court dismissed plaintiff's RLUIPA claim for damages against defendants in their individual capacities.

Topeka Has Strained Relationship With Westboro Baptist Church Leaders

Today's New York Times explores the relationship between the city of Topeka, Kansas and the Phelps family, leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church that was at the center of a Supreme Court argument last week over free speech rights. (See prior posting.) Here are some excerpts from the Times account:

The city has tried and failed for decades to rid itself of the Phelpses, or at the very least to quiet them a bit. There have been counterprotests, violent attacks and endless rounds of legal efforts trying to silence them or force them out. But much to the embarrassment of the conflict-averse residents of this capital city of about 125,000, Mr. Phelps remains perhaps Topeka’s most famous resident....

But as the years of conflict have turned to decades, the city has settled into a tenuous, if mutually disdainful, co-existence with the Phelpses. The children of Mr. Phelps work white-collar jobs: 11 of the 13 are lawyers, including the three daughters who appeared before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. (Mr. Phelps was disbarred in 1979.) His 56 grandchildren and 9 great-grandchildren attend public school.

Gender Discrimination Claim By Former Pastor Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Barton v. Mikelhayes, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107233 (ND NY, Oct. 7, 2010), a New York federal district court applied the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss a Title VII gender discrimination complaint brought by Todd David Barton, a former minister in the United Methodist Church, whose pastoral license was withdrawn by the bishop. The Church claimed that the action was taken, pursuant to its Book of Discipline, because of patterns of behavior by Barton that undermined the ministry of his church's Lead Pastor. The court said:

[I]n order to decide the case ... the Court would be forced to question the Church's administration in order to decide whether Plaintiff's pastoral license was revoked due to his violation of the United Methodist Church's governing doctrine, as Defendant claims, or whether the Defendant's reasons for deciding that Plaintiff violated the doctrine were actually "not only erroneous, but also pretextual" as Plaintiff claims. This question cannot not be answered by the Court without impermissible entanglement with the United Methodist Church's religious doctrine.

Saturday, October 09, 2010

British Court Orders Muslim Woman To Remove Veil, But Allows Testimony From Behind Screen

In England, according to Sunday's London Express, the Leicester magistrate's court has rendered a controversial decision by requiring a Muslim woman to uncover her face to testify in court, but permitting her to testify from behind a screen where only the judges could see her. The woman, Georgiana Richards, was pregnant and brought domestic violence charges against her ex-partner, Ismail Mangera who was ultimately found guilty of punching Richards and scrawling abusive language on her front door. Richards criticized the court for requiring her to uncover her face, while Tory MP Phillip Hollobone said the court did not go far enough and should have required Richards to testify in open court with her face uncovered.

2nd Circuit Voids Vermont's "Vanity" License Plate Law That Excludes Religious References

In Byrne v. Rutledge, (2d Cir., Oct. 8, 2010), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that Vermont's statute that allows for "vanity" license plates, but does not permit the issuance of plates that refer to a religion or deity, is unconstitutional. The court concluded that by allowing residents to select combinations of letters and numbers that convey a message on a variety of topics, including statements of personal philosophy, taste, inspirational messages and affiliation with causes, but not allowing religious references, the state has engaged in viewpoint discrimination. The court also found the statute unconstitutional as applied. In this case, a resident applied for a license plate reading JN36TN. The state refused to issue it because the applicant informed them that he intended the plate to refer to a Biblical verse, John 3:16. However, had the applicant supplied a secular meaning for the numbers and letters, the state would have issued the plate. The court found that interpreted this way, the statute fails to further a legitimate governmental interest and constitutes an unreasonable restriction on expression. New York Law Journal reports on the decision.

Woman Arrested For Destroying Offensive Jesus Depiction In Museum Display

As reported by Fox News, since Sept. 11, the Loveland, Colorado Museum Gallery, a tax funded museum, has hosted a show titled "The Legend of Bud Shark & His Indelible Ink." It is a display of 82 prints by ten artists who have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark. One of the prints is a 12-panel lithograph by Stanford University Professor Enrique Chagoya called "The Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals." Huffington Post has a photo of all the panels in its report on the show. While the show spent four months at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Denver without incident, in Loveland it has triggered protests as a Loveland City Council member and the media say that one of Chagoya' panels depicts Jesus having oral sex. However City Council voted 6-3 not to take up complaints about the exhibit. According to AP, on Wednesday, a 56-year old Montana woman, Kathleen Folden,who is a long-haul trucker, drove to Loveland and using a crowbar, broke the plexiglass case housing the panels and ripped up the offending panel. Here is a photo of the print after the attack. Police arrested Folden and charged her with felony criminal mischief. CNN reports today that Folden will plead not guilty, arguing that the print was not worth $1000, the threshold for bringing the charges as a felony. Folden's attorney said: "The real issue is the city of Loveland, which is not supposed to be endorsing or belittling religion. They specifically endorsed a piece that belittled Jesus Christ."