Religion Clause

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Court Allows Enforcement of New Contraceptive Coverage Accommodation Rules For Closely Held Companies

In Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v. Burwell, (D DC, July 15, 2015), the federal district court for the District of Columbia issued an order consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision barring the federal government from enforcing the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage requirement as it existed in June 2014 against a for-profit Bible publishing company to the extent that the company has religious objections to providing coverage. However the order permits the government to enforce its newly adopted accommodation for closely held companies which allows an opt-out on religious grounds with contraceptive coverage then being furnished directly by the insurance company. The court's order though adds that nothing prevents plaintiffs from filing a new civil action challenging the accommodation rules. In a press release, Alliance Defending Freedom describes the court's order as a "victory" for the Bible publisher.

Friday, July 17, 2015

Minister's Challenge To Applying Building Code To Home Bible Study Group Is Dismissed

In Salman v. Phoenix, City of, (D AZ, July 14, 2015), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a 42 USC Sec. 1983 suit by a minister and his wife seeking to enjoin the city from applying its building code to weekly bible studies held in a 2000 square foot game room built in their backyard. The minister had already been convicted criminally in state court for building code violations. The court dismissed the claim on the basis that a federal habeas corpus action is the only federal court route available to bring a suit that would necessarily challenge the validity of a state criminal conviction. The court said:

A § 1983 plaintiff’s request that a federal court declare unconstitutional the very statute (or its application to the plaintiff) under which he was convicted in state court is no different than a request that a federal court invalidate the conviction itself.

The court also dismissed plaintiffs' RLUIPA and state law claims.

EEOC Holds That Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Covered Under Title VII

In a July 15 decision (full text), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reversed and remanded the Federal Aviation Administration's rejection of an employment discrimination complaint by an FAA employee who claimed he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In a precedent setting opinion, the EEOC held that:

allegations of discrimination on the basis of his sexual orientation state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex within the meaning of Title VII.

In reaching its conclusion, the EEOC drew analogies to cases in which courts have held that discrimination on the basis of an employee's association with persons of another race amounts to racial discrimination. It added that sexual orientation discrimination is necessarily based on gender stereotypes. The EEOC also rejected the argument that unsuccessful efforts to obtain passage of legislation in Congress explicitly adding sexual orientation to Title VII should lead it to reject the discrimination claim here. The Washington Blade and Dale Carpenter at Volokh Conspiracy have more on the decision.

Meanwhile the EEOC features a posting on its website titled What You Should Know About EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers.

Marriage Equality Group Will Celebrate Victory By Going Out of Business

The advocacy group Freedom To Marry, founded in 2001 to push for legalization of same-sex marriage, is taking the rare step of going out of business now that its goal has been accomplished. Wednesday's Wall Street Journal reported that unlike many other non-profits that find a new cause to promote, Freedom To Marry will help its staff find other positions, will make certain that its records are archived, and then will close down completely by February. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

President Sends Eid-ul-Fitr Greetings

Yesterday President Obama issued a statement (full text) extending warmest wishes to Muslims in the United States and around the world celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr-- the end of Ramadan. He said in part:

As Muslim Americans celebrate Eid across America, the holiday is a reminder to every American of the importance of respecting those of all faiths and beliefs. This past year New York City Public Schools announced adding Eid to their official school calendars alongside Christmas, Hanukkah and other holidays – an acknowledgement of the great diversity and inclusiveness that adds to the richness of our nation....

Michelle and I hope today brings joy to all of your homes, both here in the U.S. and around the world. From my family to yours, Eid Mubarak!

The Eid is celebrated today in the United States.

Kansas Trial Court Applies Neutral Principles Approach In Suit Over Presbyterian Church Property

KCTV News reports on a decision handed down this week by the Kansas 10th Judicial District trial court in a dispute between two factions of the Presbyterian Church of Stanley over ownership of church property. Last year, the pastor and 300 parishioners of the Overland Park, Kansas congregation broke away from the Presbyterian Church (USA) and affiliated with the more conservative Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians. The parent body, Heartland Presbytery, filed suit over ownership. The court ordered the two factions to pray in separate rooms in the church while the case was in litigation. Wednesday the court issued a ruling, holding that the property does not belong to the Presbytery, but does belong to the local congregation that remains with the PCUSA. The court used a "neutral principles" approach, even though traditionally Kansas courts have deferred to the decision of the parent body in churches with a hierarchical structure.

In its decision, the court rejected the argument that under church law the property is held in trust for the regional Presbytery. Because the deed and mortgages are in the name of the local congregation, it is the owner. However on the question of which faction constitutes the local congregation, the court deferred to the PCUSA Constitution finding that the faction remaining loyal to it was entitled to ownership rights. The court gave the parties ten days to work out building occupancy arrangements.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Russia's Constitutional Court: Russian Constitution Supreme Over European Human Rights Court Orders

RT reports on a decision handed down Tuesday by Russia's Constitutional Court holding that decisions of the European Court of Human Rights do not take precedence over the Russian Constitution. The decision came in a suit filed by a group of State Duma deputies, representing all four parliamentary caucuses. They challenged Russian laws that appear to require Russian courts and state agencies to carry out all orders of the European Court. In its decision, Russian court said in part:

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as legal positions of the ECHR that are based on it cannot cancel the priority of the Constitution. All decisions of the ECHR must be executed only with consideration to the Russian Constitution’s supremacy. As an exception, Russia can refuse to fulfill the imposed obligations when such a refusal is the only way to prevent the violation of the basic law.

It is expected that the decision may be used as a basis for challenging a European Court decision last year that ordered Russia to pay $2.5 billion in compensation for dissolving the Yukos Oil Co.

Seattle Mayor Recommends Increasing Access To Sharia-Compliant Housing Loans

According to yesterday's Puget Sound Business Journal, a committee appointed by Seattle (WA) Mayor Ed Murray to come up with recommendations for increasing housing in Seattle has released its report. One of its recommendations is to find ways to increase access to Sharia-compliant housing loans. It is estimated that some 200 people are not borrowing to buy houses because of the unavailability of loans structured to avoid the interest prohibitions of Islamic law.

Senate Lacks Votes To Adopt LGBT School Anti-Bullying Amendment

As reported by the Washington Post, the U.S. Senate yesterday failed to pass an anti-bullying amendment (details) offered by Sen. Al Franken to the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015. The amendment would have prohibited discrimination and bullying on the basis of perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in K-12 public schools. While the vote (details) in favor of the amendment was 52-45, the Senate needed 60 votes to approve it. Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, who is also a former education secretary, urged his colleagues to vote against the amendment because it was an issue better handled at the local level.

EEOC Files One, Settles One, Religious Discrimination Suit

The EEOC yesterday filed a lawsuit against UPS, the nation's largest parcel delivery service charging religious discrimination. According to the EEOC press release:

United Parcel Service, Inc. prohibits male employees in customer contact or supervisory positions from wearing beards or growing their hair below collar length. According to EEOC's complaint, since at least 2004, UPS has failed to hire or promote individuals whose religious practices conflict with its appearance policy and has failed to provide religious accommodations to its appearance policy at facilities throughout the United States.

Also yesterday, the EEOC announced the settlement of a lawsuit brought against a Dunkin' Donut franchisee in Asheville, North Carolina. The company's plant manager offered a donut maker position to Darrell Littrell, a Seventh-Day Adventist, but then withdrew the offer when Littrell told the manager that he could not begin work on Friday afternoon because it conflicted with his Sabbath. Under the settlement, the company will pay Littrell $22,000 in damages, and will enter a 5-year consent decree barring religious discrimination and requiring policy changes, employee training and reporting.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Suit Alleges Discrimination Against Same-Sex Spouse Constitutes "Sex" Discrimination

Following the Supreme Court's recent decision legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States, many commentators noted that same-sex couples may still face discrimination because sexual orientation discrimination is not explicitly prohibited under federal law nor under the law of a number of states. Yesterday in a class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in Massachusetts, a Wal-Mart employee is seeking a ruling that discrimination against a same-sex spouse is discrimination on the basis of "sex", a classification that is covered by state and federal anti-discrimination laws. At issue is Wal-Mart's policy of denying spousal health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses of eligible employees. If the theory is successful, it could lay the groundwork for public accommodation suits, as well as employment discrimination ones.

The complaint (full text) in Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (D MA, filed 7/14/2015), alleges that the EEOC issued a right to sue letter, finding that the refusal to add plaintiff's same-sex spouse to her health insurance policy constituted discrimination on the basis of sex since such coverage would have been provided if she were married to a man rather than another woman. The suit alleges that denial of benefits violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Law because benefits would have been provided if plaintiff were married to someone of the opposite sex or if she were a different sex than her spouse. National Law Journal reports on the lawsuit.

IRS Seeks Comments On Form 990 Used By Non-Profits

In a July 14 Notice and Request for Comments published in the Federal Register, the IRS has asked for comments concerning Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax Under Section 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, and on Schedules A and B of Form 990. Comments are due by Sept. 14.

Rights Group Urges Burma's President To Reject Parliament's Buddhist Women's Marriage Law

In a July 9 statement, Human Rights Watch called on Burma's President Thein Sein to refuse to sign the Myanmar Buddhist Women’s Special Marriage Law. The law was passed by Burma's Parliament in a joint session on July 7 by a vote of 524 to 44, with 8 abstentions. The final version of the bill has not been made public, but an English translation of a 2014 draft of the bill is available online. According to Human Rights Watch:

The bill targets Buddhist women who marry – or seek to marry – non-Buddhist men and introduces vaguely defined acts against Buddhism as grounds for divorce, forfeiture of custody and matrimonial property, and potential criminal penalties....

The law permits the township (district level) registrar to publicly display a couple’s application for marriage for 14 days, and permits any objections to the marriage to be taken to local court....

The law also requires a non-Buddhist husband to respect the free practice of his spouse’s Buddhist religion, including displaying Buddhist imagery and statues, and engaging in Buddhist ceremonies. He must refrain from “committing deliberate and malicious acts, such as writing, or speaking, or behaving or gesturing with intent to outrage feelings of Buddhists.” Violations of these provisions are grounds for divorce, and in such a case the non-Buddhist husband would be forced to give up his share of jointly owned property, owe his wife compensation, and be denied custody of the children.

10th Circuit Upholds ACA Non-Profit Contraceptive Coverage Accommodation

In Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, Denver, Colorado v. Burwell, (10th Cir., July 14, 2015), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama Administration's Affordable Care Act accommodation for religious non-profits that object to furnishing contraceptive coverage. Plaintiffs asserted RFRA, free exercise, Establishment Clause and free speech challenges to the rules that allow an opt-out with contraceptive coverage then being furnished directly by the insurer or third party administrator. The 98-page majority opinion, written by Judge Matheson who began it with a Glossary of Legal and Regulatory Terms, particularly focused on the arguments under RFRA. Here are a few excerpts:

Before we present our analysis of the issues, we wish to highlight the unusual nature of Plaintiffs’ central claim, which attacks the Government’s attempt to accommodate religious exercise by providing a means to opt out of compliance with a generally applicable law.... Plaintiffs not only challenge a law that requires them to provide contraceptive coverage against their religious beliefs, they challenge the exception that the law affords to them....

We conclude the accommodation does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ religious exercise. The accommodation relieves Plaintiffs from complying with the Mandate and guarantees they will not have to provide, pay for, or facilitate contraceptive coverage. Plaintiffs do not “trigger” or otherwise cause contraceptive coverage because federal law, not the act of opting out, entitles plan participants and beneficiaries to coverage. Although Plaintiffs allege the administrative tasks required to opt out of the Mandate make them complicit in the overall delivery scheme, opting out instead relieves them from complicity. Furthermore, these de minimis administrative tasks do not substantially burden religious exercise for the purposes of RFRA.

Judge Baldock dissented in part, arguing that applying the accommodation to self-insured plans using Third Party Administrators violates RFRA. He said in part:

Under the ACA accommodation scheme, in the insured health plan context, “a health insurance issuer . . . would be obligated to provide contraceptive coverage under the ACA whether or not [the insured non-profit] delivered the Form or notification to HHS.” ... But in the self-insured context, a TPA would be “authorized and obligated to provide the coverage . . . only if the religious non-profit . . . opts out.”

AP reports on the decision which dealt with appeals in cases from Oklahoma and Colorado.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Pentagon Changing Ban On Service By Transgender Individuals

In a statement (full text) yesterday, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that the military is changing its policy that currently bans service by transgender men and women. He said in part:

The Defense Department's current regulations regarding transgender service members are outdated and are causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions.... Today, I am issuing two directives to deal with this matter. First, DoD will create a working group to study over the next six months the policy and readiness implications of welcoming transgender persons to serve openly.... At my direction, the working group will start with the presumption that transgender persons can serve openly without adverse impact on military effectiveness and readiness, unless and except where objective, practical impediments are identified. Second, I am directing that decision authority in all administrative discharges for those diagnosed with gender dysphoria or who identify themselves as transgender be elevated to Under Secretary Carson, who will make determinations on all potential separations.

Time reporting on the Pentagon's decision says that it is estimated that 15,500 transgender individuals are currently serving. In his statement, Secretary Carter said: "transgender men and women in uniform have been there with us, even as they often had to serve in silence alongside their fellow comrades in arms." [Thanks to Mark Goldman for the lead.]

Religious Discrimination Suit Filed After Engineer Fired For Anti-Gay Comment on Company's Intranet

In a federal lawsuit filed last week, a fired Ford Motor Co. engineer, claiming religious discrimination and retaliation, sued for violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The complaint (full text) in Banks v. Rapid Global Business Solutions Inc., (ED MI, filed 7/10/2015) alleges that Banks, a Christian, who was working on assignment from Ford to RGBSI, Inc., was fired because of a critical comment he posted to an article on Ford's Intranet. The Intranet article celebrated an organization of Ford's LGBT employees. The offending comment said:

For this Ford Motor Company should be thoroughly ashamed. Endorsing and promoting sodomy is of benefit of no one. This topic is disruptive to the workplace and is an assault on Christians and morality, as well as antithetical to our design and survival. Immoral sexual conduct should not be a topic for an automotive manufacturer to endorse or promote. And yes-- this is historic-- but not in a good way. Never in the history of mankind has a culture survived that promotes sodomy. Heterosexual behavior creates life-- homosexual behavior leads to death.

Huffington Post reports on the lawsuit.

Mississippi School District Held In Contempt Of Decree On Religion In Schools

In M.B. v. Rankin County School District, (SD MS, July 10, 2015), a Mississippi federal district court held that the Rankin County, Mississippi, School District has willfully violated a 2013 consent decree in which it was ordered to comply with a newly adopted policy on Religion in Public Schools. (See prior posting.) The consent decree was entered in response to complaints about school assemblies that promoted Christianity. The current finding of a violation of the decree was triggered by a district-wide awards ceremony honoring students who did well on their ACT test at which a Christian minister offered a sectarian prayer as part of the ceremonies. The school in another violation assisted the Gideons in distributing Bibles to elementary school students. Finding the district in contempt, the court ordered it to pay $7500 in damages to the student filing the contempt petition, and ordered a fine of $10,000 per infraction for any future violations. American Humanist Association issued a press release announcing the decision and linking to its Memorandum of Law that was filed in support of plaintiff's motion for civil contempt.

Second Suit Filed Against Kentucky Clerk Who Is Refusing To Issue Marriage Licenses

As previously reported, earlier this month the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis who is refusing to issue marriage licences to anyone because of her religious objections to issuing them to same-sex couples. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Davis, who is represented by by the advocacy group Liberty Counsel, did not appear in court at yesterday's scheduled hearing because she has not yet been served with a summons. Meanwhile a second suit was filed against Davis last Friday by a same-sex couple who were denied a marriage license. The complaint (full text) in Ermold v. Davis, (ED KY, filed 7/10/2015), alleges that plaintiffs were denied a marriage license by Davis' office based upon Davis' "understanding of Adam, Eve, and the origins of man as set forth in the Old Testament." The couple's video of their attempt to apply for a license, posted on YouTube, has been viewed over 1.7 million times. The suit has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Bunning who is also hearing the ACLU challenge. Bunning says he will probably consolidate the two cases. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Monday, July 13, 2015

Alabama Supreme Court Upholds Preliminary Injunction In Church Election Case

Ex parte Cornell L. Tatum, Sr., (AL Sup. Ct., July 10, 2015), is a mandamus action-- essentially an interlocutory appeal-- in a suit in which members of a Baptist Church sued seeking an order to require deacons of the church to abide by a vote of church members ousting them from their positions. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring the deacons from "undertaking any act as a member of [the board] of [the church] including any participation in Deacon
meetings or performing any duties or responsibilities of a deacon while this order is in effect." The deacons petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court in a summary order denied the petition.

While there was no opinion for the court, Justice Parker wrote an opinion concurring specially, saying in part:

I write specially to emphasize that a circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to apply judicial notions of due process to church proceedings when the highest adjudicatory body of a church decides a purely ecclesiastical matter. Additionally, I write to note that a circuit court may recognize a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of a church concerning a purely ecclesiastical matter and, based on that decision, enjoin persons from taking unauthorized actions on behalf of the church....

Admittedly, however, it is unclear whether the April 20, 2014, vote constituted a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of the church. In a Baptist church, the majority of the congregation is the highest adjudicatory body, unless the church bylaws provide otherwise.... This lack of clarity, however, does not require that this Court grant the petitioners' petition..... The petitioners have not demonstrated that the April 20, 2014, meeting was not a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of the church. Accordingly, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Chief Justice Moore filed a dissenting opinion, arguing in part that "any decision by the circuit court regarding the ability of the petitioners to serve as deacons in the church necessarily requires the court to resolve a number of antecedent issues that are inextricably intertwined with church governance." He added:

A court's involvement in a religious matter is not sanitized merely because the court purports to ratify, rather than annul, a church's decision. What violates church autonomy is not the substance of the court's ultimate determination, but the judiciary's very participation in the intra-church conflict.

Justice Murdock filed a brief dissent based on failure to join necessary parties.