Religion Clause

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Suit Seeks To Enjoin Enforcement of Noise Law Against Church

As reported by the New Orleans Advocate and a Liberty Institute press release , a lawsuit was filed last Thursday on behalf of Vintage Church in Metairie, Louisiana seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent enforcement of the Jefferson Parish Noise Ordinance against the church. The suit claims that enforcement violates the church's rights under the Louisiana Preservation of Religious Freedom Act. The church is meeting on Sundays in an outdoor tent while one of its buildings is undergoing expansion. After neighbors-- one in particular-- complained that the services were too loud, enforcement authorities monitored sound levels and issued two criminal summons to the executive pastor. The lawsuit charges that it is discriminatory to limit the church's services to 60 decibels while allowing louder noise from power tools, lawn mowers and demolition activities.

UPDATE: The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports that on Dec. 22, the trial court denied the church's request for injunctive relief.

Cosmetologist Sues After Company Insists That In Training Class He Wear Women's Cosmetics

The Detroit Free Press reported yesterday on an unusual Title VII religious accommodation lawsuit filed Monday in a Michigan federal district court. Barry Jones is an ordained elder in the Church of God in Christ where he has been preaching for 19 years. He is also trained in cosmetology and licensed by the Michigan Department of Licensing as an esthetician. In 2014 he took a position with an M.A.C. Cosmetics store in a now-closed Detroit area mall and began its training to become a full-time makeup artist. As part of the training the company insisted that students apply makeup to each other, including blush, eye-shadow, lipstick and false eyelashes, so that they would know how those products feel when they apply them to customers. Jones refused on religious grounds, quoting Deuteronomy 22:5 that prohibits a man from wearing women's clothing. He said that doing anything that makes him look like a woman would undermine his integrity as a preacher. The company demoted Jones to be a freelance makeup artist, and he could not find work. After obtaining a right to sue letter from the EEOC, Jones filed suit.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

NYC Municipal Judge Sworn In On Qur'an

Geo TV and ABNA report that last Thursday in New York City, a Muslim woman, Carolyn Walker-Diallo, was sworn in as a civil court judge of the 7th Municipal District in Brooklyn, using a Qur'an instead of a Bible for the ceremony. Walker-Diallo who has been active in local politics and community development, wore a headscarf during the ceremony. Coming at a time of heightened anti-Muslim rhetoric from some quarters in the U.S., social media reaction to the swearing-in was mixed.

Jonathan Pollard Claims Parole Conditions Violate His Rights Under RFRA

Convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard who recently completed a 30-year federal prison term is now seeking to have a New York federal district judge ease three of the conditions imposed as part of his additional one-year of parole. As reported by today's Jerusalem Post, Pollard objects to required monitoring of his home and work computers; tracking of his location by an electronic GPS ankle bracelet; and a 7 am to 7 pm curfew. Part of Pollard's argument is that the ankle bracelet and curfew violate his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The monitoring anklet's batteries will not last 25-hours, and thus Pollard will be required to charge the battery during the Sabbath, a violation of Jewish religious law. Also the curfew interferes with his ability to attend synagogue services. The U.S. Attorney's Office concedes that it can accommodate Pollard's concerns with the ankle bracelet by providing one with longer battery life. The court ordered the parole commission to furnish further information, in particular whether it believes Pollard has information that is still confidential.

Magistrate Holds Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge Montana's Polygamy Ban

In Collier v. Fox, (D MT, Dec. 8, 2015), a Montana federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a lawsuit asserting a pre-enforcement challenge to the state's bigamy statutes. The suit was filed after a county clerk refused to issue a marriage license for Christine Collier Parkinson to legally marry Nathan Collier who is already legally married to Victoria Collier. In the letter denying the license, the county clerk told the applicants that obtaining a second marriage license would be considered bigamy. However the letter did not explicitly threaten prosecution. The court concluded that plaintiffs lack standing to bring the challenge because they have not been threatened with prosecution. Plaintiffs say that the state might use its common law marriage statute to claim that the plaintiffs are already in violation. The court said, however, that there is no history of prosecution of polygamists under this theory. Life Site News reports on the decision.

Suit Says Faculty Applicant Was Blindsided By Religious Affiliation Requirement

AP reported yesterday on a lawsuit filed in state court in Portland, Oregon by a Jewish man who was ultimately not hired as an adjunct professor of psychology at the Christian-based Warner Pacific College. While Oregon law allows a religious institution to hire on the basis of religion, applicant Noel M. King says that the school's job posting only said that applicants had to agree to respect Christ-centered values and Christian faith. It did not say they had to be members of the Christian faith. King says he went through a 4-month application process, three interviews and a teaching demonstration, and was recommended by the hiring committee who knew he was Jewish, before the school's president vetoed his hiring because of his religious affiliation. He asks for $268,000 in damages, claiming that he missed out on applying for other jobs while Warner Pacific strung him along.

Confirmation of Tax Division Chief Delayed Over Past Position On ADF's Pulpit Initiative

The Chicago Tribune last week reported that President Obama's nomination of Cono Namorato to be Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice, is being held up in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of the position he took in the past on church involvement in partisan political activity. In 2008, while a lawyer at the Washington firm of Kaplan & Drysdale, Namorato along with two other attorneys wrote the Internal Revenue Service's Office of Professional Responsibility complaining about the Pulpit Initiative being promoted by Alliance Defense Fund (now known as Alliance Defending Freedom). The letter urged an investigation of ADF's lawyers for "explicitly soliciting churches across America to violate Federal law" that bars partisan political participation by tax-exempt organizations.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Army Grants Accommodation For Sikh Combat Soldier To Wear Beard

According to a New York Times report yesterday, the U.S. military for the first time has granted a Sikh combat soldier a religious accommodation to allow him to grow a beard and serve with uncut hair under his turban. Captain Simratpal Singh, a West Point graduate and Bronze Star winner who led a platoon of combat engineers in clearing roadside bombs in Afghanistan, previously reluctantly shed his beard and long hair. But recently while on leave he stopped shaving. Now the Army has granted him (with certain conditions) a one-month temporary exemption (full text of Army memo) while it considers whether to make the accommodation permanent. Since 2009, three other Sikhs, two Muslims and a Jewish rabbi have been granted religious accommodations to wear beards, but none of them were in combat units. They were either chaplains or specialized medical personnel. Some believe that Capt. Singh's case could serve as precedent for other Sikhs, Muslims and others who wish to adhere to their religious traditions while in the Army.

British Court of Appeals Says Muslim Prison Chaplains Did Not Suffer Pay Discrimination

In Naeem v The Secretary of State for Justice, (EWCA, Dec. 9, 2015) , the England and Wales Court of Appeal held that discrimination was not the cause of the average pay of Muslim prison chaplains in British prisons being lower on average than that of Christian chaplains. Instead it was caused by the fact that the Prison Service only began employing Muslim chaplains in 2002. Before that there were not enough Muslim prisoners to call for employing full-time Muslim chaplains. Thus the average length of service for Muslim chaplains is less than for Christian chaplains. Chaplains get pay raises based on length of service.

Petitioners, who originally brought their cases before an Employment Tribunal, argued that they were the victims of "indirect discrimination"-- which is defined in British law as a practice that operates with a disparate impact on a protected class. The appeals court, relying on earlier precedent, held: "an employer can rebut a claim of indirect discrimination by showing that an apparent disparate impact is the result of non-discriminatory factors." Law & Religion UK reports further on the decision.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Milum v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12571 (TX App., Dec. 10, 2015), a Texas state appeals court rejected a claim by a defendant in a child sexual assault case that he had ineffective assistance of counsel when his lawyer failed to object to a condition of community supervision that allowed him to enter a church, synagogue or other house of worship only to attend a public service.

In Hughes v. Godinez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165938 (ND IL, Dec. 11, 2015), an Illinois federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed against prison officials on his claim that restrictions on religious exercise imposed while he was in segregated housing for possessing contraband violated his free exercise rights. While in segregated housing, he was not permitted to attend religious services in person or visit with clergy, and was allowed to view only one denomination's services on closed circuit television.

In Alderson v. Kelley, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166272 (ED AR, Dec. 11, 2015), an Arkansas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166274, Nov. 17, 2015) and allowed an inmate to move ahead on his complaint that the prison warden is not properly implementing the Department of Corrections grooming policy that allows a prisoner to wear a beard where required by the inmate's sincerely held religious belief.

In Isaac v. Pruette, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166432 (ED VA, Dec. 10, 2015), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was initially not added to the list for attending Jummah services, that two Jummah services were canceled, and that he was not furnished a religious diet.

Gambia's President Declares It an Islamic State

On Friday, the President of the West African nation of Gambia proclaimed the largely Muslim country to be an Islamic state. According to Al Jazeera, Gambia's President Yahya Jammeh said that his country "cannot afford to continue the colonial legacy." However Jammeh pledged to protect the rights of Gambia's Christian community-- about 8% of its population, and said there will be no mandates as to dress. Opposition politicians say that the Constitution provides that Gambia is a secular state. Some commentators suggest that Jammeh's move is an attempt to create closer relations with the Arab world after losing Western support because of the country's dismal human rights record and rampant corruption.

Group Encourages Conservative Christian Pastors To Run For Public Office

Reuters on Friday reported on new efforts to motivate conservative Christian pastors to run for local public office in the U.S. The article focuses on "a tactical shift" in the "Christian far right":

Aiming to motivate conservative Christians, they are focusing on smaller political races, local ballot initiatives and community voter registration drives.

At the center of the effort is the American Renewal Project, an umbrella group that says it has a network of 100,000 pastors. It is headed by evangelical Republican political operative David Lane, who wants to recruit 1,000 pastors to run for elected office in 2016.

So far, roughly 500 have committed to running, Lane told Reuters.

District Court Refuses To Extend Exemption From Contraceptive Mandate To Non-Religious Organization and Its Religious Employees

In Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Burwell, (MD PA, Dec. 10, 2015), a Pennsylvania federal district court, in a 76-page opinion, rejected two related challenges to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. The first challenge was brought by a non-profit, non-religious, pro-life organization that claimed equal protection principles require that it be extended the same exemption from furnishing its employees contraceptive coverage as is given to religious employers. The court held that the government's interest in protecting religious freedom is a rational basis for distinguishing religious from non-religious groups, and that the group here differs significantly from a religious organization:

Here ... we confront only Real Alternatives’ mission statement – a brief, single sentence explaining that Real Alternatives is a business which “exists to provide life-affirming alternatives to abortion services throughout the nation.”... Though based on moral beliefs, this single mission statement is not “equivalent to religion.” ... It does not provide a comprehensive code to guide individuals in their day-to-day life challenges. It does not operate to fill the same position in one’s mind that religion can occupy. More akin to a political position with moral underpinnings than a coherent ideology, Real Alternatives’ single mission statement is simply not comparable to a philosophic belief system such as Janism or Buddhism....

The court also held that various provisions in federal law that protect conscience rights of those that object to abortion are inapplicable here:

Though Plaintiffs may believe that certain FDA-approved contraceptives cause abortions, federal law has never equated emergency contraceptives with abortion.

The second challenge was by the three employees of Real Alternatives (all lawyers) who argued that the government violated RFRA by forcing them to obtain insurance that includes coverage for drugs and devices to which they are religiously opposed. The court rejected this contention, finding that the requirement does not impose a "substantial burden" on their religious exercise because it does not cause them to modify their behavior in violation of their beliefs:

[W]e cannot in good conscience find that a burden which ... requires no independent affirmative act on the Plaintiffs’ part, is substantial enough to run afoul of the RFRA.

The court went on to hold that the mandate furthers the government's compelling interests in gender equality and public health. It added another consideration:

Often, as is the case with Plaintiffs today, entire families are covered by one plan. Health care coverage decisions therefore are not left wholly to the individual but are often made in the context of the family. Yet there is no guarantee that every member of a family covered by a plan feels similarly regarding contraceptive services. If families with religious objections to contraceptive coverage are able to opt out of such coverage, the determination of whether to do so is left to the collective family unit. This collective decision could create untold tension and familial strife should disagreement over contraceptive coverage arise, which is more likely now that children up to the age of twenty-six may be covered by their parents’ plans.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Supreme Court Grants Cert In Prisoner Rights Case

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a prisoner rights case, Ross v. Blake, (Docket No. 15-339, cert. denied 12/11/2015) (Order List). While the case does not raise prisoner free exercise issues, its resolution will impact litigation by prisoners claiming failure to accommodate religious beliefs. In the case, the 4th Circuit in a 2-1 decision (full text) held that the requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act that an inmate exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit is satisfied when the inmate reasonably, though erroneously, believed he had exhausted all internal remedies. SCOTUSblog's case page with links to all the filings in the case is here.

Court Suggests Innovative Interpretation of ERISA "Church Plan" Exemption

A series of cases filed around the country have challenged the treatment of Catholic hospital system pension plans as "church plans" exempt from ERISA. Often challengers are employees who contend that the plans have not been funded in compliance with ERISA or met other ERISA requirements. The issue has generally been framed as whether it is sufficient that the plans are maintained by the church-affiliated organization that created them, or instead whether the plans must have been established by a "church" for the affiliated medical systems in order to qualify as a "church plan." (See prior posting.) The statutory language in ERISA is ambiguous.

Now in Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives, (D CO, Dec. 8, 2015), a Colorado federal district court, while coming down on the side of those courts which have ruled that it is enough that the plan be established and maintained by the affiliated medical system, has also suggested a more direct way to cut the Gordian knot. It suggests that a Catholic health care system is itself a "church", not just an organization affiliated with a church:

[T]he suggestion that a church is no more than a physical place in which to worship evidences a profound misunderstanding and understatement of the nature of religious devotion and service. At the heart of any church are the religious principles that inform its founding, as animated by the faithful adherents to those principles. Indeed, there would be no need for a house in which to worship if there were no worshipers to gather there. In other words, a church is defined principally by its people – the body of the faithful who profess a similar set of guiding religious principles. Where such people gather to express, in word or deed, the principles and mission of their faith, they are the church.

Under this more resonant definition, the court has little trouble in concluding that CHI is, at the very least, a constituent part of the Catholic Church.

The court also held that the ERISA church plan exemption does not violate the Establishment Clause. saying "Congress’s expressed purpose in carving out the church plan exemption was precisely to avoid unnecessary entanglement with religion."

Friday, December 11, 2015

Australian Court Finds Anglican Diocese Liable For $40M Bank Loan

In Anglican Development Fund Diocese of Bathurst v. Palmer, (NSW Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2015), a trial court in the Australian state of New South Wales held (in a 615 paragraph opinion) that the Anglican Diocese of Bathurst is liable for a $40 million (Aus.) loan (equivalent to $29M US) from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia which the bank extended, under a special policy for loans to certain religious organizations, solely on the basis of "a letter of acknowledgment" from the Bishop of Bathurst. The Diocese's Anglican Development Fund had reloaned $28 million (Aus.) of the funds to two start-up schools that failed. The Sydney Morning Herald reports on the decision.

British Columbia Court Requires Law Society Approval of Trinity Western Law School

In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of British Columbia, (BC SC, Dec. 10, 2015), a British Columbia trial court reinstated an April 2014 vote by the Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia approving graduates of Trinity Western University Law School for entry into the Society's bar admissions program. In October 2014, the benchers had reversed their earlier approval after a referendum of the full membership disapproved of Trinity Western's required community covenant for students and faculty. The covenant includes a prohibition on sexual intimacy outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. (See prior posting.) The court however concluded that the referendum and subsequent October vote of the Benchers were procedurally flawed:

There is no basis upon which a conclusion could be drawn ... that the LSBC’s membership considered, let alone balanced, the petitioners’ Charter rights against the competing rights of the LGBTQ community....

While the Benchers clearly weighed the competing Charter rights of freedom of religion and equality before voting on the April Motion, the record does not permit such a conclusion to be reached with respect to the Benchers’ vote of October 31, 2014. As the respondent had bound itself to accept the referendum results of its members, I am unable to find that the vote of the LSBC’s members or the impugned decision considered, let alone balanced, the two implicated Charter rights. Further support for this conclusion comes from the fact that opposite results were reached by the Benchers’ votes of April 11 and October 31, 2014, despite the October 31, 2014 vote being conducted without any substantive discussion or debate.

CTV News reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Non-Discrimination Fix To Indiana's RFRA ; Local Anti-Discrimination Laws

In Indiana yesterday, two pro-family advocacy groups filed suit in state court challenging the constitutionality of this year's anti-discrimination "fix" to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The suit also challenges the legality of two local anti-discrimination ordinances-- one adopted by the city of Carmel and one by Indianapolis-Marion County. The 178-paragraph complaint (full text) in Indiana Family Institute, Inc. v. City of Carmel, Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., filed 12/10/2015), says that plaintiff organizations believe in the Biblical teaching that marriage must be between one man and one woman, and that sexual relations must be within that marriage context. They want to follow these teachings in their employment decisions and their programs. They contend that the challenged laws preclude this, and in doing so violate a variety of state and federal constitutional provisions. In a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit, plaintiffs' attorneys said in part:

RFRA originally protected all religious viewpoints and insured a high level of protection for peoples' free exercise of religion. The 'fix,' however, stripped that protection based on a person's particular religious view, such as, opposition to same-sex marriage. This pits some religions that the government protects against other religions that will suffer government punishment if they don't fall in line. We believe this discrimination between religious views is unconstitutional...

Indianapolis Star reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: In January 2016 plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Bloomington and Columbus, Indiana as defendants.

Suit Against Church Claims Plaintiffs Were Defamed After They Opposed Hiring Openly Gay Pastor

The Fargo Forum in an initial and follow-up article reports on a lawsuit filed this week in Cass County, North Dakota state district court against a Kindred, North Dakota Lutheran church, church leaders and the church's parent bodies. Plaintiffs Ray and Joan Grabanski who had been church members for 23 years seek damages for defamation and infliction of emotional distress. The Grabanskis opposed the church's hiring of an openly gay pastor. As recounted by the Forum:

The lawsuit says when the Grabanskis made their views known, they were subjected to "public ridicule, scorn, intimidation, isolation" by the church leadership, and were told the congregation was too liberal for them.

Joan Grabanski was asked to stop teaching Sunday school, and the couple was told they could leave or be forced out, with church leaders calling them "a cancer," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit alleges the local synod of the ELCA was aware of the conflict and failed to stop the damaging behavior.

It names the ELCA and the Eastern North Dakota Synod of the ELCA, as well as the church's interim pastor and two other church leaders.

Defendants are seeking dismissal arguing that civil courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate doctrinal beliefs or interpret a church's constitution. [Thanks to Christopher Dodson for the lead.]