Religion Clause

Thursday, July 16, 2015

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.

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Jehovah v. Clarke, (4th Cir., July 9, 2014), the 4th Circuit reversed a Virginia federal district court's dismissal of free exercise and RLUIPA claims by an inmate who had a sincere belief in his own version of Christianity based on a version of the Bible he had written. He complained about policies banning consumption of wine during communion, inability to obtain a job that allows him to observe his "Old Jewish" and "New Christic" Sabbaths, and his cell assignment with anti-Christians and unbelievers.

In Harris v. State, 2015 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 282 (NV App., June 2, 2015), a Nevada appeals court affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's complaint that he was required to give up his medically-necessary low-sodium diet during Ramadan in order to receive Ramadan meals.

In Robinson v. Landry, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87025 (D ME, July 6, 2015), a Maine federal district court dismissed because of mootness and unavailability of damages as relief, a Native American inmate's complaint growing out of failure to return his medicine bag, denial of smudge materials, and lack of access to Native American services.

In Ryidu-X v. Maryland Division of Corrections, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87683 (D MD, July 6, 2015), a Maryland federal district court held that the brief inability of an inmate to access the prison commissary using his religious name despite a settlement agreement allowing him to do so did not amount to a violation of constitutional magnitude.

In Daywitt v. Minnesota, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87552 (D MN, July 6, 2015), a Minnesota federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87951, June 17, 2015) and permitted plaintiff, an Orthodox Jew who was civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program to move ahead with his suit for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the ban on his wearing a suit coat as required by his religious beliefs. His complaint regarding a ban on wearing a yarmulke was dismissed as moot since the policy had been changed. Damage claims against officials were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.

In Trotter v. Ramsey, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89106 (WD TN, July 9, 2015), a Tennessee federal district court upheld the requirement that all inmate religious services be supervised by an outside religious leader or staff and dismissed a complaint by an inmate who was an approved group Bible study leader that on two occasions he was not allowed to hold Sabbath/Advent Bible study.

Final Accommodation Rules Adopted For Religious Objectors To ACA Contraceptive Coverage

The Obama Administration on Friday released final rules on accommodating religious objections to the Affordable Care Act requirement for health insurance coverage of contraceptive services. (Full text of Rules and accompanying release). The final rules, which provide for the insurer or policy administrator to provide contraceptive coverage directly when the employer objects to providing coverage, apply to any non-profit that holds itself out as a religious organization and has religious objections to covering some or all contraceptive items or services.

The accommodation also applies to any closely-held for-profit business entity where "the organization’s highest governing body (such as its board of directors...) has adopted a resolution or similar action, under the organization’s applicable rules of governance and consistent with state law, establishing that it objects to covering some or all of the contraceptive services on account of the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs." The final rules define a closely-held entity as one whose shares or ownership interests are not publicly traded and where more than 50% in value of its ownership interests is owned directly or indirectly (e.g. through a corporation or trust) by 5 or fewer individuals or families.

On the important question of the type of notice an objecting non-profit or closely-held business must furnish, the final rules carry forward the procedures currently in place. As summarized by the adopting Release:

These final regulations continue to allow eligible organizations to choose between using EBSA Form 700 [and furnishing it directly to the insurer or third party administrator] or the alternative process consistent with the Wheaton interim order. The alternative process provides that an eligible organization may notify HHS in writing of its religious objection to covering all or a subset of contraceptive services. The notice must include the name of the eligible organization and the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation; its objection based on sincerely held religious beliefs....; the plan name and type...; and the name and contact information for any of the plan’s third party administrators and health insurance issuers.

Health Affairs Blog has more on the new rules. A Friday press release from the Becket Fund continues to express strong opposition to the Final Rules. [Thanks to Mark Scarberry via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Friday, July 10, 2015

Pope In Bolivia Calls For Dramatic Economic and Social Reform

Yesterday, in a speech that CBS News called "one of the most significant ... of his papacy," Pope Francis called for dramatic economic and social change. Addressing the 2nd World Meeting of Popular Movements (full text of remarks) in Bolivia, he said in part:

Do we realize that something is wrong in a world where there are so many farmworkers without land, so many families without a home, so many laborers without rights, so many persons whose dignity is not respected?

Do we realize that something is wrong where so many senseless wars are being fought and acts of fratricidal violence are taking place on our very doorstep? Do we realize something is wrong when the soil, water, air and living creatures of our world are under constant threat?

So let’s not be afraid to say it: we need change; we want change. In your letters and in our meetings, you have mentioned the many forms of exclusion and injustice which you experience in the workplace, in neighborhoods and throughout the land..... Yet there is an invisible thread joining every one of those forms of exclusion: can we recognize it? These are not isolated issues. I wonder whether we can see that these destructive realities are part of a system which has become global. Do we realize that that system has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature?....

Time, my brothers and sisters, seems to be running out.... Today, the scientific community realizes what the poor have long told us: harm, perhaps irreversible harm, is being done to the ecosystem. The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what [one of the first theologians of the Church,] Basil of Caesarea, called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules.... The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home. [Sister and mother earth.]

AG Says U.S. Government Benefit Programs Will Recognize Same-Sex Spouses In All States

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced yesterday that the Supreme Court's marriage equality decision will be applied across the federal government. She said in part:

[C]ritical programs for veterans and elderly and disabled Americans, which previously could not give effect to the marriages of couples living in states that did not recognize those marriages, will now provide federal recognition for all marriages nationwide.... Just over a year ago, Attorney General Holder announced that agencies across the federal government had implemented the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision by treating married same-sex couples the same as married opposite-sex couples to the greatest extent possible under the law as it then stood. With the Supreme Court’s new ruling that the Constitution requires marriage equality, we have now taken the further step of ensuring that all federal benefits will be available equally to married couples in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the US Territorie

Ontario Court Upholds Law Society's Refusal To Accredit Christian Law School

In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, (ON Super. Ct., July 2, 2015), a 3-judge panel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada to deny accreditation to the law school which Trinity Western University (TWU)-- an evangelical Christian school-- plans to open. The Law Society's denial was based on TWU's Community Covenant that all students are required to sign, and in particular the Covenant's ban on "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman."

According to the court, the Law Society "was essentially asked to approve and accept students from an institution that engaged in discrimination against persons
who did not share the religious beliefs that were held by TWU, and the student body that it prefers to have at its institution." The court went on:

In exercising its mandate to advance the cause of justice, to maintain the rule of law, and to act in the public interest, the [Law Society] was entitled to balance the applicants’ rights to freedom of religion with the equality rights of its future members, who include members from two historically disadvantaged minorities (LGBTQ persons and women). It was entitled to consider the impact on those equality rights of accrediting TWU’s law school, and thereby appear to give recognition and approval to institutional discrimination against those same minorities. Condoning discrimination can be ever much as harmful as the act of discrimination itself.

Mondaq summarizes the decision.

Employee Who Refused Work In Unit Performing Abortions Loses Title VII Suit

In Montgomery v. Cook County, (ND IL, July 1, 2015), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a medical center employee who was fired after she refused an assignment change that would require her to spend half her time in the reproductive health unit of the Planned Parenthood facility at which she was employed. She objected on religious grounds to work in the unit that performed abortions, and said she understood from the time she was hired that this concern would be respected. The court held that plaintiff had not alleged facts showing that she was fired "because of" her religious beliefs. The court conceded that "even if an employer does not intentionally discriminate against an employee, an employer may still be liable under Title VII for failure to accommodate the religious needs of its employees." However here, according to the court:

[Plaintiff] failed to allege any facts regarding whether a request to accommodate [her] beliefs was made... and whether Defendants tried to accommodate [them].... Based on these allegations, I cannot reasonably infer that Defendants failed to try to accommodate Plaintiff's religious beliefs to keep her employed.

It thus dismissed the discrimination claim without prejudice.

The court also rejected Plaintiff's retaliation claim, holding: "Plaintiff has neither plead that she engaged in protected activity nor alleged a substantial link between any protected expression and her termination."

Thursday, July 09, 2015

Decision Is Step Toward Success For Group Seeking To Erect Eruv In The Hamptons

In Suffolk County, New York, a Jewish group seeking to construct an eruv in parts of three towns in the Hamptons moved a step closer to succeeding when a state trial court judge ruled last week that the Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals improperly invoked the local sign ordinance to prevent the construction. New York Jewish Week reports:

Acting Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti ruled June 30 that the board was wrong when it affirmed a town inspector’s opinion that lechis are signs that fall within the town’s sign ordinance. Lechis are wooden or plastic strips affixed to telephone and utility poles to form the boundaries of an eruv, within which observant Jews may carry items on the Sabbath. The association had sought to put 28 of them on 15 poles.

Such a finding is “irrational and unreasonable in that it does not comport with the sign ordinance’s intent,” the judge wrote. “The Court finds that the boundaries are invisible as the lechis are not discernable. … Neither drivers nor casual observers would be able to differentiate the poles which have lechis attached from the other poles.”

Farneti added: “It is well-settled that, while religious institutions are not exempt from local zoning laws, greater flexibility is required in evaluating an application for a religious use and every effort to accommodate the religious use must be made.”

The East End Eruv Association has been litigating in state and federal courts since 2011 in an attempt to get approval. (See prior posting.)

Negligent Supervision Claim Against Diocese By Sex-Abuse Victim Can Proceed

In John Doe 200 v. Diocese of Raleigh, (NC App., July 7, 2015), a North Carolina appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not require dismissal of a sex-abuse victim's negligent supervision claims against the Catholic Diocese of Raleigh. The court held:

Were we to adopt the Diocese Defendants’ argument ..., then the First Amendment would, as a practical matter, serve as a complete shield to tort liability for religious organizations in the sexual abuse context except in those cases in which the plaintiff specifically alleged prior sexual assaults by the cleric at issue. We do not believe the First Amendment requires such a result.... Neutral principles of law allow a civil court to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claim that the Diocese Defendants knew or should have known of the danger posed by Sepulveda [a priest] to Plaintiff because of his sexual attraction to minors.

The court however reached a different conclusion on plaintiff's claim that the Diocese should have required the offending priest to undergo STD testing and should have provided the results to plaintiff:

This claim seeks to impose liability based on the Diocese Defendants’ alleged failure to exercise their authority over a priest stemming from an oath of obedience taken by him pursuant to the church’s canon law. As such, this claim directly “challenges church actions involving religious doctrine and practice” and cannot be adjudicated without entangling a secular court in ecclesiastical matters.