Denver Archbishop Reflects on How a Catholic Should Vote in 2016

Last week, Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila posted a lengthy discussion on the Archdiocese's website titled Voting as a Catholic in 2016: How Should a Catholic Vote. Recounting a dinner conversation he had recently had with a group of Catholics, Aquila said in part:

All pretty much agreed that, when it comes to life issues, Catholic politicians on both sides of the aisle have put party ideology before their faith and living their faith in the public square.

The Archbishop's comments focused primarily on issues of abortion, the Obamacare contraceptive coverage mandate and Proposition 106 on the Colorado ballot to legalize physician assisted suicide.

Federal Commission Issues Report on Human Rights In China

Last week, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (created by law in 2000 to monitor China's international human rights compliance) released it 346-page 2016 Annual Report (full text). The letter transmitting the Report to President Obama includes a summary of findings on religious liberty:

The report notes the Chinese government’s efforts to expand political influence over the activities and growth of religious communities through both a national-level “sinicization” campaign and the convening of the first National Conference on Religious Work in 15 years. The report also notes the detention of Catholic clergy and Falun Gong practitioners, the ongoing demolition campaign targeting church buildings in Zhejiang province, and continued efforts to control the leadership of Tibetan Buddhism and restrict the religious practices of Uyghur Muslims. The report recommends expanded U.S. leadership on international religious freedom, through coordinated multilateral efforts and bilateral interactions that stress the strategic and economic value of promoting this fundamental freedom. The report also recommends that the Administration use existing law to restrict entry visa access for individuals complicit in severe religious freedom violations.

Crux has more on the Annual Report released on Oct. 6.

Muslim Caseworker Sues Charging Religious Discrimination

A Bangladeshi Muslim woman who was a social worker and had been employed as a case manager by a behavioral healthcare company filed suit in an Oregon state court last week charging religious, racial, national origin and disability discrimination in her termination.  The complaint (full text) in Rahman v. Cascade Behavioral Healthcare, Inc., (OR Cir., Ct., filed 10/7/2016), claims, in part, that adverse employment action against her stemmed from her refusing for religious reasons to shake hands with men (including her boss), her wearing of a hijab, and her praying at work up to three times per day. The Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries had dismissed her complaint filed with them, finding inadequate evidence of discrimination. (Full text of OBLI order).  The Oregonian reports on the lawsuit.

Religious Comment Does Not Invalidate Civil Protection Order

In Majeed v. Majeed, (OH App., Oct. 7, 2016), an Ohio appellate court held that a religious comment made by a magistrate at the end of a hearing at which the magistrate agreed to issue a wife a domestic violence civil protection order was not grounds for overturning the order.  The wife, who testified that her husband was Muslim, had the following exchange with the magistrate at the end of the hearing at which the husband did not appear:

The Petitioner: Thank you very much for your time. The Court: Be careful. Take care of yourself. The Petitioner: Yes, with God’s help I’ve been depressed and it’s the worst feeling in the world to feel like Jesus is not real. I just got back with Jesus and I’d like it to stay there.  The Court: An[d] He would like you to stay there also. The Petitioner: Yes, ma’am. The Court: Thank you, ma’am. The Petitioner: God bless.

The appeals court said in part: "there is nothing in the record to indicate that religious beliefs affected the trial court’s issuance of a domestic violence CPO."

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Mark W. Cordes, Schools, Worship, and the First Amendment, (Suffolk University Law Review, Vol. 48, 2015).
• Jeremy Waldron, Desanctification of Law and the Problem of Absolutes, (June 5, 2016).
• Christoph Engel, The Solidarity Motive, (MPI Collective Goods Preprint, No. 2016/14 (2016)).
• L. Joe Dunman, Blind Imitation: The Revolting Persistence of Bowers v. Hardwick, (Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2016).

California Court Issues TRO Against Kaporos Practices

As previously reported, in late September an animal rights group filed suit against Chabad of Irvine in a California federal district court challenging Chabad's promotion of the pre-Yom Kippur ceremony of kaporos that involves use of live chickens which are then slaughtered. (Complaint in United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine, (CD CA, filed 9/29/2016)). The complaint contended that defendants are in violation of California's unfair business practices law. On Oct. 6, the court on its own motion ordered plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. (Full text of court order.)  On Oct. 7, plaintiff filed a response (full text) arguing in part:

UPC has standing under the Unfair Competition Law based on its diversion of organizational resources spent addressing Defendants’ unlawful activity and attempting to convince authorities to take action. 

The court was apparently convinced.  It issued another order (full text) on Oct 7 granting plaintiff a temporary restraining order barring defendants from killing chickens or other animals in exchange for a fee or donation in violation of California Penal Code Sec. 597(a). It set a hearing on whether to order a preliminary injunction for October 13, the day after Yom Kippur-- effectively barring the pre-Yom Kippur practice by defendants for this year.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Rush v. Malin, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137779 (SD NY, Oct. 4, 2016), a New York federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to a Shi'a Muslim inmate who was not permitted to observe Muharram/Ashura separately from Sunni Muslims.

In Khan v. Barela, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139052 (D NM, Sept. 30, 2016), a New Mexico federal magistrate judge dismissed a complaint by a Muslim inmate that prison officials failed to give him a requested daily prayer schedule and Islamic Observance Calendar and required him to remain in a pod while Christian sermons were being presented.

No Religious Exemption To Immunization Requirements For Merely Moral Objections

In Watkins-El v. Department of Education, (ED NY, Oct. 6, 2016), a New York federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction, upholding a New York school's denial of a religious exemption from immunization requirements for plaintiff's children. An exemption is available only for "genuine and sincere religious beliefs...." The court said in part:

Although plaintiff asserts that his religion is "Islamism" and that he is a Moor, he does not claim that the tenets of Islamism or Moorish culture prohibit vaccinations.... Instead, Plaintiff bases his opposition on the assertion that these vaccines contain "monkey cells, pork derivatives, and aborted human fetuses," which Plaintiff's religion dictates he cannot consume.... Plaintiff's opposition to these substances may be genuine and sincere, but he has not demonstrated that it stems from a religious, rather than simply moral, belief.... Furthermore, Plaintiff presents no evidence that these vaccines in fact contain the substances to which he objects.

First Grade Teacher's Age Discrimination Suit Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception

In Ciurelo v. St. Regis Parish, (ED MI, Oct. 7, 2016), a Michigan federal district court held that federal (ADEA) and state (ELCRA) age discrimination claims brought by a former 1st grade teacher in a Catholic school are barred by the ministerial exception doctrine. The teacher's contract was not renewed after eight years of teaching. Finding that plaintiff was the type of employee to whom the doctrine applies, the court said in part:

While this Court has considered all the factors identified in the Hosanna-Tabor majority opinion, it concludes that the paramount factor of religious function ... provides the decisional pathway here. Plaintiff was unquestionably engaged in two important religious functions on a daily basis: religious teaching for 20 to 30 minutes and leading the morning prayers. These activities are the hallmark of religious exercises through which religious communities transmit their received wisdom and heritage to the next generation of believers. The First Amendment provides a shield to the church and her officials against a secular government’s incursion by way of its employment-law litigation process, which may undermine the freedom to appoint those entrusted with such matters of faith.

Liberal Jewish Groups Ask Israel's High Court To Order Egalitarian Prayer Space At Western Wall

As reported by YNet News, yesterday groups representing Reform and Conservative Judaism and the group Women of the Wall filed an amended petition with Israel's High Court of Justice asking it to order the government to provide egalitarian prayer space at the Western Wall (Kotel).  After long negotiations a compromise had been approved by the government early this year, but the agreement unraveled after objections from ultra-Orthodox parties in the government. (See prior posting.) A press release from the Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism describes yesterday's court filing:

The petition ... demands ... [establishment of] a permanent, national praying platform, respectable and accessible, serving as an official and organized part of the Kotel site, and which will regularly hold prayer services with no gender separation.... 

Furthermore, the petition demands ensuring suitable budgets for the building and on-going maintenance of the site in one of two ways – either complete implementation of the government decision to establish an egalitarian platform by Robinson’s arch or the establishment of a third prayer platform in the existing Kotel area (alongside a separate men’s and women’s section).

Furthermore, the petitioners demand that as part of the Kotel Heritage Foundation institutions, proper representation shall be given to the Reform and Conservative Movements and to Women of the Wall, and that the regulation regarding subordination to the Chief Rabbinate hereby be omitted from the Foundation regulations.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

New York Archdiocese Creates New Victim Compensation Fund

AP reports that on Thursday New York's Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, announced a new compensation alternative for victims of clergy sex abuse.  The Archdiocese has established a new fund that will be administered by attorney Kenneth Feinberg who managed the federal 9-11 compensation fund.  For those who received compensation, records of the abuse and the Church's response to it will remain private unless disclosed by the victim. Those with pending abuse claims will have until Jan. 31 to apply for compensation.  Beginning Feb. 1, victims who have not yet filed claims will be able to apply to the fund. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Disclaimer Requirement Violates Pregnancy Center's Free Speech Rights

In Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, Oct. 4, 2016), a Maryland federal district court held that a Baltimore ordinance requiring limited purpose pregnancy centers to post specified disclaimers is unconstitutional as applied to the pregnancy center bringing the lawsuit.  The ordinance requires centers to post signs in their waiting rooms stating that they do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth control services. The court, applying strict scrutiny, held that this compels the pregnancy center to speak, delivering information that it would not otherwise transmit. The court said in part:

The City identifies two interests to support the Ordinance: (1) to protect the public from deceptive business practices, and (2) to promote public health by “ensuring that individuals who seek reproductive health services have access to truthful information about the services available at Pregnancy Centers.”...

[H]ere, even if there had been bountiful evidence of misleading advertising, there is no evidence that women were coming to the Center under false pretenses and suffering harmful health consequences because of it. Thus, the City has not satisfied the “demanding standard” of showing that the Ordinance actually promotes a compelling interest in solving a specific problem.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision and linking to other pleadings and court decisions in the long-running litigation.

Suit Over High School Assignment On Islam Moves Forward

In Wood v. Board of Education of Charles County, (D MD, Sept. 30, 2016), a Maryland federal district court refused to completely dismiss a suit by parents of an 11th grader who complained that their daughter's World History assignments "promot[ed] the Islamic religion over other faiths" and "required the students . . . to profess statements on the teachings and beliefs of Islam in written worksheets as graded homework assignments." The father warned the school against retaliating against his daughter for her adherence to her Christian faith. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief as moot since their daughter had now graduated.  However the court allowed the parents to move ahead with their Establishment Clause and compelled speech claim for damages against the school's principal and vice principal, saying in part:

Here, while discovery and trial may or may not prove otherwise, Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that in addition to learning facts about the background and beliefs relevant to Islam, Defendants required C.W. to “confess” the Islamic Profession of Faith....

The court also allowed the father-- who was barred from school grounds after threatening media coverage and a lawsuit-- to move ahead with his claim of retaliation. The court dismissed due process, Title VI and Title IX claims. See prior related posting.)

Conviction of Baptist Missionary In Russia Upheld On Appeal

As reported by Baptist Press, on Sept. 30 in Oryol, Russia, a city 220 miles southwest of Moscow, an appellate court upheld the conviction of Baptist missionary Donald Ossewaarde who was fined the equivalent of $642 (US) for violating Russia's anti-terrorism law amendments (full text in Russian) adopted earlier this year.  Among other things, the law limits who can operate as a foreign missionary and restricts locations where they can pray or proselytize. (See prior posting.) Ossewaarde, who held religious services in his home without notifying authorities, argued that technically his activities were not banned because he did not represent any officially registered religious organization.

Favoring Religious Over Non-Religious Objections Is Not Religious Discrimination

In Brown v. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Inc., (NJ App., Oct. 3, 2016), a New Jersey state appellate court held that a community health educator who was fired for refusing to comply with a medical center's compulsory flu vaccination policy could not establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination.  Plaintiff argued that by permitting exemptions for those with religious objections, but not for those opposed to vaccination for other reasons, her employer had discriminated by favoring religious over non-religious grounds. According to the court:

[Plaintiff]  did not allege that the adverse employment action taken against her was because of her membership in a protected class. Without any allegation that she was a member of a protected class based upon her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, plaintiff's LAD discrimination claim was futile.

New Jersey Law Journal reports on the decision.

Settlement Reached In Suit By College Researcher Who Claimed Anti-Creationism Discrimination

The College Fix today reports that a six figure settlement has been approved by a California state trial court in Armitage v. Board of Trustees of the California State University.  In the suit (see prior posting), a former electron microscope technician in the Biology Department of California State University Northridge claimed that he was terminated because of hostility to his published research findings supporting "young earth" creationist theory. The suit alleged infringement of plaintiff's free exercise and academic freedom rights.

Suit Claims Kaporos Violates California's Business Practices Law

A lawsuit was filed last week in a California federal district court by an animal rights group challenging the legality under California law of the pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kaporos (or kapparot) practiced by many observant Jews.  The ritual involves waving a live chicken overhead to symbolically transfer one's sins to it, and then slaughtering the chicken. The complaint (full text) in United Poultry Concerns v. Chabad of Irvine, (CD CA, filed 9/29/2016) alleges that the ritual as implemented by Chabad of Irvine constitutes an "unlawful business practice" under California's Business and Professions Code because the practice violates the state's ban on "intentional and malicious killing of animals" other than for use as food (California Penal Code Sec. 597(a), 599c).  The complaint adds:

taking out vengeance on an innocent animal for one’s own shortcomings is exactly the type of societal evil the legislature sought to prohibit in enacting this provision. 

According to the complaint Chabad charges $27 to each person for furnishing and disposing of the chicken, making a $25 profit per chicken. The suit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunctions and declaratory relief. On Monday, UPC issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

New California Law Requires Disclosure of Title IX Exemptions

As reported by The Advocate, last Friday California's Gov. Jerry Brown signed S.B. 1146 (full text) into law.  The new law requires religiously affiliated schools in California that have obtained an exemption from any of the anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX or California's Equity in Higher Education Act to publicly disclose that fact.  The federal Department of Education has granted exemptions nationwide to some 43 colleges and universities (6 in California) from non-discrimination requirements that conflict with the schools' religious tenets. These variously include bans on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as on other grounds. California schools now must disclose this fact to students, faculty and applicants for admission in publications, student orientation and other specified ways. Information on exemptions must also be filed with California's Student Aid Commission.

Workplace Program Is A "Religion" Under Title VII

In EEOC v. United Health Programs of America, (ED NY, Sept. 30, 2016), a New York federal district court in a 102-page opinion held that programs called "Onionhead" and Harnessing Happiness" that were introduced into the workplace are religious for purposes of Title VII, and not merely a conflict resolution tool. The court also refused to dismiss reverse religious discrimination and hostile work environment claims by various former employees, as well as conventional religious discrimination claim by one former employee. UPDATE: Newsday reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Term Opens With Action On Cert. Petitions and More

The U.S. Supreme Court opened its October 2016 Term on Monday, with the first oral arguments this morning. Here is a round-up of a number of developments leading up to, and occurring on, opening day.

Last Thursday, in advance of opening day, the Court granted review in eight cases (Order List), one of which was McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248 (cert. granted limited to one question, 9/29/2016). (SCOTUSblog case page).  While the case involves EEOC charges of gender and age discrimination, the procedural issue which the court will decide may affect EEOC religious discrimination cases as well.  At issue is whether a district court’s decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo, or whether an appellate court should instead give more deference to the district court's decision. SHRM reports on the case.

As reported by the National Law Journal, on Sunday, the annual Red Mass was held (photos) at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C.  It was attended by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Breyer.  The late Justice Scalia's son gave a reading from the Bible at the ceremony.

On Monday, the Court issued its usual lengthy opening-day list of certiorari denials. This year's list of cases covered 64 pages of the 71-page Oct. 3 Order List.  Among the cases in which review was denied was Klingenschmitt v. United States, (Docket No. 15-1445). In a decision by the Court of Federal Claims (see prior posting) which was summarily affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court rejected claims by a Navy Chaplain that he was that he was wrongfully discharged from the Navy. The refusal to recertify Klingenschmitt as a chaplain culminated a long-running battle between him and the military over military regulations requiring chaplains to deliver inclusive prayers at military event.