Non-Liturgical Protestant Navy Chaplains Refile In Long-Running Discrimination Litigation

Last year, a D.C. federal district court dismissed a long-running lawsuit brought by  non-liturgical Protestant Navy chaplains alleging discrimination against them by the Navy. (See prior posting.)  However the court severed certain claims with leave to file them in other jurisdictions.  Earlier this month those severed claims were included in a complaint filed in a Virginia federal district court.  The complaint (full text) in Lancaster v. Secretary of the Navy, (ED VA, filed 3/1/2019), summarized the allegations as follows:

This case addresses 27 Non-liturgical Navy Chaplains plaintiffs’ longstanding claims of retaliation and low fitness reports...; constructive discharge because of unlawful FOS [failures of selection]; and interference with their ministry, speaking, preaching and worship services based on denominational prejudice.

This retaliation resulted in plaintiffs’ FOS and either separation for FOS or constructive discharges. Senior Navy chaplains are the perpetrators and sources of these claims, primarily Roman Catholic and/or Liturgical Protestants, in positions of authority, influence and supervision representing and acting under the authority of the Navy and its CHC. The actions represent a pattern and practice of illegal retaliation and discrimination based on denominational hostility and prejudice.

WAVY News reports on the lawsuit.

Suit Charging Campus Anti-Semitism Is Settled

The Lawfare Project announced on Tuesday that a settlement has been reached in Volk v. Board of Trustees, a state court lawsuit by two Jewish students at San Francisco State University alleging anti-Semitic discrimination on campus. The suit in particular focused on the exclusion of Hillel from a campus Know Your Rights fair.  The case was scheduled to go to trial later this month.  Under the settlement, the University will issue a public statement saying that "it understands that, for many Jews, Zionism is an important part of their identity." It will hire a Coordinator of Jewish Student Life, and enhance anti-discrimination enforcement. It will allocate an additional $200,000 to promote viewpoint diversity and will allocate space on campus for a mural depicting such diversity. A similar federal court lawsuit was dismissed last October. (See prior posting.) Jewish News of Northern California reported on the settlement.

Two Church Leaders Plead Guilty To Tax Fraud Conspiracy Involving Diversion of Church Funds

On Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey announced that two church leaders have plead guilty to a charge of conspiracy to commit tax fraud:

The leader and the main treasurer of the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ admitted their respective roles today in a scheme in which both men caused the church to pay millions of dollars in personal expenses for the leader that the leader then omitted from his personal tax returns....

Grant and Warrington used their leadership positions in the church to divert to Grant millions of dollars belonging to the church and its members for Grant’s personal use and benefit. The defendants used a variety of methods to carry out the scheme. For example, Grant and Warrington created a purported entertainment company that portrayed Grant as an industry mogul whose wealth was derived from his success in the industry, thereby concealing from church members that his lifestyle was supported entirely by the church and donations from its members. 

Discrimination Suit By Jewish Woman Denied Admission To Social Work Program Moves Ahead

In Weiss v. City University of New York, (SD NY, March 18, 2019), a New York federal district court allowed a Jewish woman to move ahead with several racial and religious discrimination claims against City University of New York and its trustees, as well as against several administrators, growing out of the denial of plaintiff's application for admission to the school's Master of Social Work program.  Faigy Weiss was raised in the Hasidic Satmar community in New York, with Yiddish as her first language.  She alleges that the Dean for Diversity and Compliance told her that the social work school "conducted the group admissions interviews to weed out conservatives, because Trumps and Cruzes can’t be social workers" and that "Jews from religious backgrounds are too conservative to be social workers." The court held that these allegations sufficiently state an equal protection claim for discrimination based on race and religion, a claim under Title VI, and an Establishment Clause claim.

South Dakota Requires "In God We Trust" In Every Public School

Yesterday South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem signed Senate Bill 55 (full text) into law.  The new law requires every public school in the state to display the national motto "In God We Trust" in a prominent place. The law also provides for the state attorney general to assume the defense of any lawsuit that is filed challenging the law. Friendly Atheist reports on the new law.

ACA Mandate Does Not Violate RFRA

In Cash v. United States, (MD PA, March 20, 2019), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected an attack on the Affordable Care Act's tax penalties for failing to purchase health insurance. Plaintiff taxpayers had religious objections to purchasing medical insurance and contended that the penalties substantially burdened their religious exercise under RFRA (see prior posting). The court disagreed, saying in part:

The Magistrate Judge ... found that the burden imposed on Plaintiffs was de minimis.... RFRA prohibits substantial burdens on the free exercise of religion absent a compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means.... Describing the thousands of dollars Plaintiffs have paid in ACA penalties since 2014 as de minimis may not be fair. However, that does not render the penalties substantially burdensome, either. Plaintiffs offer no indication that they are forced to decide between their religious beliefs and a benefit generally available. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege or otherwise show that the ACA penalty places a substantial burden on them to modify their religious conduct.... [T]he cost of the penalty would not exceed the cost to obtain the required level of insurance. Plaintiffs do not indicate how this applies substantial pressure to forego their religious beliefs. Staying true to their religion and avoiding health insurance would cost no more, and potentially cost less, than purchasing insurance at the expense of their religious beliefs.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Governs Property Dispute In Hierarchical Church

In Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Monastery v. Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America, (MI App., March 19, 2019), a Michigan state appellate court held that the trial court should have applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to a church property dispute instead of the "neutral principles of law" approach.  Bishop Ioan Duvlea served as the abbot of the Holy Ascension Romanian Orthodox Christian Monastery until he was demoted and defrocked after a church trial.  A faction supporting him conveyed property belonging to the monastery to Holy Trinity, a new entity they formed.  The court, ruling in favor of the parent church body said in part:

This case requires determination whether Holy Trinity, a monastic corporate entity formed by a schismatic faction that left the ROEA, could claim ownership of the property that the faction conveyed from Holy Ascension before dissolving it. The ROEA contends that Holy Ascension owned but held in trust for the ROEA, a hierarchical church, the disputed property pursuant to church documents governing the ecclesiastical structure, polity, rules, discipline, and usage of the church with which Holy Ascension affiliated itself and to which it submitted....

In this case, the trial court failed to consider whether the ROEA constituted a hierarchical religious organization and did not examine the nature of the relationship of Holy Ascension with the ROEA and the Orthodox Church in America. The trial court failed to consider whether the actual adjudication of the legal claims in this case required the resolution of ecclesiastical questions, including the relationships between entities within the allegedly hierarchical religious denomination. Instead, the trial court stated without explanation that it found the dispute in this case merely secular requiring it to apply the neutral-principles-of-law approach. In so doing, the trial court erred.

The record reflects that the trial court substituted its interpretation of canonical texts and ignored the decisions of the ROEA relating to government of the religious polity. The trial court disregarded the evidence presented by the ROEA that required it to abstain and defer to the ROEA’s resolution of the property dispute. 

Repeal of Ban On Use of Civic Center For Worship Services Moots Injunctive Relief, But Not Damages

In Redeemer Fellowship of Edisto Island v. Town of Edisto Beach, South Carolina, (D SC, March 18, 2019), a South Carolina federal district court held that a church's request for injunctive relief was moot. The church initially rented space in the town's Civic Center for its worship services.  Subsequently the town changed its rules to bar renting of space for use for religious services. The church sued, and the town rescinded the ban. The church failed to show that the town might reinstate the ban.  The court said in part:

Although the resolution moots Redeemer Fellowship’s request for injunctive relief, it does not moot the church’s request for damages or for declaratory relief. Redeemer Fellowship’s prayer for relief asks that the court declare that the Town engaged in content-based discrimination and violated the church’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments..... Redeemer Fellowship’s damages claim—the success of which depends on the court declaring that its constitutional rights were violated by the Town’s ban on religious worship services—survives this order. The court leaves it to the parties to determine whether or not Redeemer Fellowship did in fact suffer any damages by the Town’s prohibition of the church’s use of the Civic Center for their worship services from May 2018, when the church’s application for use of the Center was denied, until December 2018, when the Town rescinded the ban. 

Connecticut Diocese Settles Abuse Claims For $3.5M

The Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut announced yesterday that it has settled lawsuits filed last year by five victims of clerical sexual abuse.  The Maronite Order was involved in one of the cases.  The abuse took place almost 30 years ago.  The cases were settled through mediation for a total of $3.5 million. Most of the cost was covered by the Diocese's insurance. CT Post reports on the settlements.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Schwartz v. Korn, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38486 (ED TN, March 11, 2019), a Tennessee federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that his food is not being prepared according to kosher requirements and he does not receive the same number of meals as other inmates.

In Khan v. Barela, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38496 (D NM, March 11, 2019), a New Mexico federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was not provided  a clock, prayer schedule, or Muslim calendar, was deterred from participating in Ramadan and was not allowed to leave the pod on three occasions when Christian sermons were being delivered.

In Hardeman v. Trammell, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39070 (ED OK, March 12, 2019), an Oklahoma federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that limits on the amount of property that an inmate can possess led to confiscation of some of his religious books.

In Orum v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39278 (WD MI, March 12, 2019), a Michigan federal district court adopted in part a magistrate's recommendations (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222616, Dec. 11, 2018), and in a case in which a Jewish inmate complained that he was denied a religious diet and was retaliated against for filing a grievance about it, the court dismissed a number of plaintiff's claims but permitted him to move ahead with some of his RLUIPA and retaliation claims.

In Lombardo v. Freebern, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39355 (SD NY, March 11, 2019), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit filed by a Jewish patient confined at a psychiatric facility. The suit claimed he was deprived of grape juice; denied access to his religious books and items; his conversation with Rabbi Schwab was interrupted; the menorah was broken; he was unable to attend the Passover Seder and the Eid ul-Fitr feast.

In Gates v. LeGrand, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39766 (D NV, March 12, 2019), a Nevada federal district court accepted in part a magistrate's recommendation and allowed a Wiccan inmate to move ahead on his equal protection, but not his free exercise or due process, claim growing out of the denial of incense that he had been permitted to order.

Suit Seeks Change In Allegedly Anti-Semitic High School Curriculum

A suit seeking a writ of mandamus was filed last week in a Massachusetts state trial court against the city of Newton schools seeking a change in the high schools' history curriculum. The 60-page complaint (with over 400 pages of attachments and exhibits) (full text) in Dechter v. Newton School Committee, (MA Super. Ct., filed 3/11/2019) alleges in part:

Anti-Semitism is a deadly hatred. Defendants either disagree with this statement or share in this hatred because, for years, they have stubbornly refused to remove anti-Semitic and anti-Israel materials from the history lessons that they teach in the high schools of the City of  Newton. Despite significant community concerns, scholarly findings of anti-Jewish bias, and formal citizen requests for remedial action, Defendants have categorically and repeatedly refused to remedy the teaching of false and hateful stereotypes about Israel, Israelis, and the Jewish people. These refusals are not simply indecent and vile: they are also illegal under Massachusetts education and civil rights laws.

Newton Wicked Local reports on the lawsuit. (See prior related posting.)

ERISA Pre-Empts Jesuit Order's Claim For Proceeds of Priest's Retirement Account

In Wisconsin Province of the Society of Jesus v. Cassem, (D CT, March 18, 2019), a Connecticut federal district court dismissed breach of contract claims brought by a Jesuit Province against relatives of a deceased Jesuit priest in a suit over the proceeds of the priest's retirement accounts.  Four years before his death, the priest changed the beneficiaries of the accounts from his Jesuit Order to two of his relatives. The court describes the claim at issue:

Plaintiff alleges that the change in beneficiary designation was improper because Fr. Cassem’s vows prevented him from legally acquiring personal property and, therefore, he never owned the Accounts. Plaintiff alleges that “Fr. Cassem’s final vows constitute an enforceable contract among and between the Province and Fr. Cassem, through which Fr. Cassem fully and finally renounced and assigned any and all property then owned or later acquired to the Province.”... The Province argues that because Fr. Cassem was not entitled to retain or direct property for the benefit of any party other than the Province, the original designation of the Province as the beneficiary of the Accounts remains valid and enforceable. 

The court held, however, that plaintiff's contract claim is pre-empted by ERISA, saying in part:

The statute is intended to protect beneficiaries relying on long-accumulated benefits from having to fight challenges to those benefits under disparate standards.

The court rejected the Order's argument that ERISA pre-emption violates its rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:

whether or not the statute can apply to cases between private parties, RFRA certainly cannot be used as a procedural mechanism to legitimize a cause of action that contravenes federal law for a plaintiff that is contesting dismissal.... In any event, even if RFRA is applicable in the present case, it does not preclude ERISA preemption because ERISA does not impose a “substantial burden” on Plaintiff’s free exercise of religion.

Suit Challenging San Diego Schools' Anti-Islamophobia Program Is Settled

Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund announced Monday that it has finalized a settlement agreement (full text) with the San Diego Unified School District, resolving a lawsuit that it filed in 2017 challenging an Anti-Islamophobia program instituted by the school district to combat bullying and harassment of Muslim students.  (See prior posting.)  According to FCDF:

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the District distributed a policy memo to area superintendents and principals regarding the First Amendment’s "limits on the conduct of public school officials as it relates to religious activity."

West Virginia Sues Catholic Diocese For Past Abuse of Minors

As reported by The Hill, West Virginia's Attorney General announced yesterday that the state had filed a civil suit against the Catholic Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston.  The case grew out of Pennsylvania's Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Report on sexual abuse of minors. (See prior posting.)  Some of the priests identified in that Report had at one time been employed by the West Virginia diocese. The complaint (full text) in State of West Virginia v. Diocese of Wheeling Charleston, (WV Cir. Ct., filed 3/19/2019), alleges that the Diocese knowingly employed admitted and credibly accused sexual abusers and hired priests and lay employees without adequate background checks. The suit was brought under West Virginia's Consumer Credit and Protection Act and contends that the Diocese falsely advertised that it provided a safe learning environment and intentionally concealed the danger in its educational and recreational services.

Bavarian Court Upholds Ban On Judges and Prosecutors Wearing Hijab

In Germany, Bavaria's constitutional court yesterday upheld a Bavarian law banning judges and prosecutors from wearing religious symbols in the courtroom. The court said that officials administering justice have a special obligation to be neutral in religion and ideology.  The ban was challenged a Muslim group that objected to the ban's application to the wearing of Islamic head scarfs. DW reports:

The judge voiced the opinion that the ban, which also forbids officials to wear religious symbols such as crosses or a kippa — or yarmulke — during court proceedings, did not go against laws on religious freedom or equality....

The Islamic group had argued that the ban violated both laws, as the Christian symbol of the cross hangs in Bavarian courtrooms.

This argument was not accepted by the court, which maintained that the presence of crosses was a different matter, as it was determined by the court administration and cast no doubt on the neutrality of individual judges or lawyers.

The court also said the ban did not discriminate against women, as other items of clothing with religious significance that were worn by men were also forbidden.

South African Court Invalidates Dutch Reformed Church's LGBT Policy

In South Africa, a 3-judge panel of the North Gauteng High Court set aside as unlawful and invalid a decision on same-sex relationships made by the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church during the Synod's November 2016 meeting. That decision reversed a 2015 policy that recognized same-sex civil unions and allowed the ordination of gays and lesbians.  In Gaum v. Van Rensburg, S.A. High Ct., March 8, 2019), the court said in part:

The Church denied that the 2016 decision prevents the participation of the LGBTQIA+ community in the church community, or that it impedes their private lives, or that the decision violates their constitutional rights.... On behalf of the Church it was submitted that the 2016 decision did not restrict Gaum’s right to freedom of association; Gaum is free to join another Church that interprets the Bible in the way that Gaum does....

The differentiation caused by the 2016 decision does inherently diminish the dignity of Gaum because same-sex relationships are tainted as being unworthy of mainstream church ceremonies and persons in a same-sex relationship cannot be a Minister in the Church....

There is an argument to be made that a Court cannot prescribe who must be appointed as a Minister in a Church. But, if a member of the Church is permitted to study to become a Minister in that Church, but disallowed to engage in his or her profession only due to the fact that he or she would be in same sex relationship there is an inherent contradiction in the conduct of the Church....

The threshold requirement in section 36 of the Constitution is that any limitation of a fundamental right must be “law of general application …” Where a church discriminates, it constitutes private discrimination, with the law of general application not likely to apply.

eNCA reports on the decision.

CORRECTION: SG's Views Sought In Title VII Religious Accommodation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today asked for the Solicitor General to file a brief in Patterson v. Walgreen Co., (Docket No. 18-349, 3/18/2019). (Order List). In the Title VII case, the 11th Circuit held that Walgreens had offered reasonable accommodation for the religious needs of a Seventh Day Adventist employee whose beliefs did not permit him to work on Saturday. (See prior posting.) A prior posting incorrectly reported that cert. had been denied in the case.

Supreme Court Denies Review In B&B's Refusal To Rent To Lesbian Couple

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Aloha Bed & Breakfast v. Cervelli, (Docket No. 18-451, certiorari denied 3/18/2019). (Order List).  In the case, a Hawaii sate appeals court held that a 3-room bed & breakfast violated the state's public accommodation law when the B&B owner refused on religious grounds to accept a room reservation from a lesbian couple. (See prior posting.) The Hawaii Supreme Court denied review. (See prior posting.)

10th Circuit: Suit Against FLDS Leader Warren Jeff's Lawyers Can Move Ahead

In Bistline v. Parker, (10th Cir., March 14, 2019), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversing a district court's dismissal of the case, allowed various former members of the polygamous FLDS Church to move ahead with claims against the law firm that represented FLDS Prophet Warren Jeffs.  The court, in its 72-page opinion, summarizes plaintiffs' allegations:

Plaintiffs allege that defendants: (1) directly worked with Mr. Jeffs to create a legal framework that would shield him from the legal ramifications of child rape, forced labor, extortion, and the causing of emotional distress by separating families; (2) created an illusion of legality to bring about plaintiffs’ submission to these abuses and employed various legal instruments and judicial processes to knowingly facilitate the abuse; (3) held themselves out to be the lawyers of each FLDS member individually, thus creating a duty to them to disclose this illegal scheme; and (4) intentionally misused these attorney-client relationships to enable Mr. Jeffs’ dominion and criminal enterprise.

On plaintiffs' legal malpractice claim the majority said the district court should determine whether a lawyer-client relationship existed between defendants and various plaintiffs, saying:

If individuals have been cut off from outside resources because of sincerely held religious beliefs and have been actively and repeatedly deceived as to an attorney’s responsibilities and allegiances towards them personally, it is plausible that they reasonably believed they were individually and collectively represented by that attorney.

The district court had dismissed many of plaintiffs' claims on statute of limitations grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed, saying in part:

[D]efendants were allegedly tortfeasors who actively concealed wrongdoing from plaintiffs who plausibly contend they did not have enough knowledge to support a duty to inquire. Plaintiffs have alleged facts to support their claim that defendants had a direct fiduciary relationship of trust to plaintiffs, which they intentionally exploited to mislead plaintiffs over an extended period of time and arguably up to the time plaintiffs filed this action. The fraudulent concealment doctrine thus may operate to toll the limitations periods for plaintiffs’ claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy, making it inappropriate to dismiss these claims at this stage.

The court also allowed certain plaintiffs to move ahead with claims under the Trafficking Victim Protection Reauthorization Act. Judge Briscoe filed a dissenting opinion. Courthouse News Service reports at greater length on the decision.

Certiorari Denied In Historic Touro Synagogue Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel, (Docket No. 18-530, certiorari denied 3/18/2019). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals held that Rhode Island's historic Touro Synagogue, and a pair of historic silver Torah ornaments worth some $7 million, are owned by New York's Shearith Israel congregation. (See prior posting and denial of en banc review.) Providence Journal reports on the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari.