EEOC Releases Data On Complaints Received

The EEOC last week released its Fiscal Year 2015 Enforcement and Litigation Data. In fiscal 2015, the agency received 89,385 charges of workplace discrimination.  Of those, only 3,502 (3.9%) charged religious discrimination.  A further breakdown of the data shows that the EEOC found no reasonable cause in 68% of the cases of alleged religious discrimination.

Muslim Technician Sues Charging Employment Discrimination

CAIR-Michigan this week announced the filing of a religious discrimination lawsuit in federal district court against an Indiana-based healthcare technology management organization (with an office in Troy, Michigan) on behalf of an American Muslim Egyptian biomedical technician. The complaint (full text) in Hassane v. Trimedx, (ED MI, filed 2/15/2016) says that plaintiff was hired as a technician in a program that included extensive training. However, after he requested the use of two-weeks earned vacation time to travel to Egypt to celebrate Eid-al-Fitr with his family, he was removed from the training program, placed on probation and denied a promotion and salary increase that all others received. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Upholds Voucher Plan Over Blaine Amendment Objections

In Oliver v. Hofmeister, (OK Sup. Ct., Feb. 16, 2016), the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state's voucher program that permits children with disabilities to attend any private school of their choice to obtain special education services, whether the school is sectarian or non-sectarian.  The Court held that the program does not violate the "no aid" clause of Oklahoma's Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 5 (Oklahoma's Blaine Amendment), saying in part:

Because the parent receives and directs the funds to the private school, sectarian or non-sectarian, we are satisfied that the State is not actively involved in the adoption of sectarian principles or directing monetary support to a sectarian institution through this scholarship. When the scholarship payment is directed to a sectarian private school it is at the sole and independent choice and direction of the parent and not the State. The scholarship funded through the Act has no bearing on state control of churches. We are convinced that the scholarships funded by the Act have no adverse impact on the ability of churches to act independently of state control and to operate separately from the state.

Tulsa World, reporting on the decision, says that in 2014-15, 61% of the the $2.5 million total vouchers went to religious schools.

RFRA Excuses Amish Defendant From Being Photographed During Pre-Release Processing

In United States v. Girod, (ED KY, Dec. 30, 2015), a Kentucky federal magistrate judge, accepting a federal RFRA claim, allowed an Amish criminal defendant to be processed for pre-trial release without his being required to pose for identification photographs by the U.S. Marshals Service.  Samuel Girod, charged with selling misbranded drugs in violation of federal law and with obstruction of justice, objected on religious grounds to knowing participation in photography.  Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the district court said in part:

[RFRA] requires that the Court not evaluate the general legitimacy of a stated governmental interest; rather, the Court must judge whether, as to Samuel Girod, the United States has proven a compelling interest servable only by the manner of USMS photography sought.

The court concluded that neither the interest in identifying a defendant if he were to flee nor the interest in pre-rial supervision were compelling as to this particular defendant because of his history of appearing when summoned and his ties to the community.  It added:

If this case centered on rational basis review, the Court likely would require that Girod submit to the Marshals’ processing like everyone else encountering a neutral, generally applied law or policy. Congress elected to revivify a more searching inquiry when a conflict exists between authentic religious exercise and governmental act. To prevent an exemption, the United States must prove, as to the potentially exempt objector, a compelling interest furtherable only by the offending means. The Government has failed in that burden in this particular case, at this particular stage...

Justice Scalia's Opinions on Religion Clauses and Religious Issues (Updated)

The media continue to be filled with tributes to Justice Antonin Scalia who died suddenly over the week end. (See prior posting).  Religion News Service and NPR review Justice Scalia's views on religion, the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment and on social issues that have become religious flash points.

Here are links to cases involving issues of religion, religious exercise or religious speech in which Scalia wrote opinions (either majority, concurring or dissenting):

• Edwards v. Aguillard, (1987) (dissenting opinion)
• Employment Division v. Smith, (1990) (majority opinion)
• Lee v. Weisman, (1992) (dissenting opinion)
• Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, (1993) (concurring opinion)
• Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, (1993) (concurring opinion)
• Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, (1994) (dissenting opinion).
• Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, (1995) (opinion of the court)
• City of Boerne v. Flores, (1997) (concurring opinion)
• Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, (2002) (concurring opinion)
• Locke v. Davey, (2004) (dissenting opinion)
• Van Orden v. Perry, (2005) (concurring opinion)
• McCreary County v. ACLU, (2005) (dissenting opinion)
• Elmbrook School District v. Doe, (2014) (dissent to denial of cert.)
• EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., (2015) (majority opinion)

Here are opinions he wrote on issues of abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage:

• Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, (1989) (concurring in part)
• Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, (1990) (concurring opinion)
• Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, (1992) (concurring and dissenting)
• Shenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, (1997) (concurring and dissenting)
• Stenberg v. Carhart, (2000) (dissenting opinion)
• Lawrence v. Texas, (2003) (dissenting opinion)
• Obergefell v. Hodges, (2015) (dissenting opinion)

These lists are almost certainly incomplete.  I invite readers to continue to send along citations to others that should be added.

Zoning For "Houses of Worship" Does Not Include Homeless Services Site

The Albany Times-Union reports that a New York state trial court judge last week overruled the Albany Board of Zoning Appeals decision that would have allowed the non-profit group Family Promise of the Capital Region to use a building in an area zoned to include "houses of worship" to provide services to homeless families.  The site-- a parsonage of the Bethany Reformed Church-- was used to provide daytime child care, access to computers, career and life counseling and a place to pick up mail and make phone calls.  The Board of Zoning Appeals held that the outreach services were part of Bethany's religious mission.  However the court disagreed, saying that a "house of worship" is a place set aside for for some form of religious devotion, ritual or service showing reverence. Critics of the court's decision say the ruling could create problems for all sorts of congregations that make their basements and meeting rooms available for social programs they deem part of their missions.  Family Promise can still apply for a zoning variance to allow it to continue its operations.

Jehovah's Witnesses In Puerto Rico Win Access To Additional Gated Communities To Proselytize

In 2013, a Puerto Rico federal district court, in a case on remand from the 1st Circuit, ordered neighborhood homeowners' associations (urbanizations) that operate gated communities to provide Jehovah's Witnesses who wish to proselytize in the neighborhood access equal to that of residents. (See prior posting.) There has been a good deal of resistance by urbanizations to complying with the orders, particularly because of concern about crime.

Earlier this month another lawsuit was filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against gated communities in 38 municipalities, a majority of the remaining municipalities not named as defendants in the earlier suit.  In Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Municipality of Aguada, (D PR, Feb. 10, 2016), a Puerto Rico federal district court issued an elaborate temporary restraining order designed to facilitate maximal compliance with the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to obtain access to gated communities, particularly in light of the March 23 Memorial of the Death of Jesus Holiday.  The court ordered that urbanizations in all 38 municipalities must be open for Jehovah's Witnesses to proselytize on Saturday, February 27, 2016 from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Then by March 15, all the municipalities must either notify plaintiffs that they agree to the same kind of open arrangements that were ordered in the earlier case, or else notify the court that they are defending against the lawsuit.  Municipalities that agree to go along with the earlier arrangements will be given time to confer with plaintiffs on implementing an action plan, and will avoid assessment of attorneys' fees.  Others will move to litigation.

Abortion Restrictions In Latin America Remain Despite Zika Virus Spread

With the Zika virus spreading fast in a number of Latin American countries and the disease's link to microcephaly in newborns, the debate over loosening abortion restrictions is increasing. Reuters reported last week that in Brazil-- which has one of the most restrictive abortion laws-- change is unlikely:

Vandson Holanda, head of health for the Catholic Church in Brazil’s northeast, said there was no chance the Church would shift its position on abortion because of Zika.

Suspected cases of microcephaly have topped more than 4,000 – with more than 400 of those confirmed so far – since Zika was first detected in April....

Women’s rights groups in Brazil ... plan to appeal to the Supreme Court to relax Brazil’s abortion laws. They hope to build on a successful case in 2012 that legalized abortion for anencephaly, where the fetus develops without a major part of its brain and skull.

Given the difficulty of identifying microcephaly before the final weeks of pregnancy, Sinara Gumieri, a legal advisor to Anis, said the group would petition the court to legalize abortion for women diagnosed with Zika whose child was at risk of the condition, even if it is not diagnosed in the fetus. She admitted it would be difficult.

The doctors who led the anencephaly campaign in 2012 do not expect its success to be repeated.

The New York Times last week had more on the Catholic Church's unchanged position.  Meanwhile, the Huffington Post reported that the U.S. Agency for International Development has recommended that the U.S. offer contraceptive and family planning assistance to Latin America.  U.S. law prohibits foreign aid funds being used to pay or advocate for abortion.  At a Feb. 10 House subcommittee hearing on the global Zika epidemic (video of hearing), subcommittee chairman Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said that the push in Latin American countries for greater access to abortion "is heartbreaking, especially since there are different degrees of microcephaly."

Parents Can Move Ahead With Claims Their Daughters Were Lured Into Religious Cult At School

In Doe v. Mastoloni, (D CT, Feb. 12, 2016), a Connecticut federal district court ruled that parents whose three high-school age daughters were allegedly indoctrinated into a religious cult by three Spanish teachers and a counselor at their high school can file an amended complaint to pursue a number of claims.
The court held that plaintiffs had alleged enough to move ahead with claims that the school violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and the equal protection clause, that they interfered with parental rights to raise children in the religion of their choice, and with familial associational rights. It also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with claims against the Board of Education alleging Monell liability. The court dismissed various other claims. (See prior related posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Adriaan Lanni & Victor Bers, Disqualified Olympians: The Skeptical Greek View of Divine Judges, (Mermerlstein & Holtz, eds., The Divine Courtroom in Comparative Perspective (Brill 2014)).
• Michael A. Helfand, Identifying Substantial Burdens, (University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2016).
• Louis-Léon Christians, Ideologically Oriented Enterprises Faced with the Reconfiguration of Ethics and Spiritual Management, (BYU Law Review, Volume 2014, Issue 3, August 2015).
• Rene Provost, Centaur Jurisprudence: Culture Before the Law, (René Provost ed., Culture in the Domains of Law (Cambridge University Press), Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Amnon Lehavi, Residential Communities in a Heterogeneous Society: The Case of Israel, (in: Private Communities and Urban Governance: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives, A. Lehavi (Ed.), New York: Springer (2016, Forthcoming)).
• Khaled A. Beydoun, Beyond the Paris Attacks: Unveiling the War within French Counterterror Policy, (American University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Maria Elizabeth Marais & Loot J. Pretorius, A Contextual Analysis of the Hate Speech Provisions of the Equality Act, (Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2015).

From SSRN (Same-Sex Marriage):

• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Bargaining for Civil Rights: Lessons from Mrs. Murphy for Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Rights, (Boston University Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 3, 2015).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Bargaining for Religious Accommodations: Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Rights After Hobby Lobby, (The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty (Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, Zoë Robinson, eds., Oxford University Press, 2016)).
• Stephen Matthew Feldman, (Same) Sex, Lies, and Democracy: Tradition, Religion, and Substantive Due Process (With an Emphasis on Obergefell v. Hodges), (24 William & Mary Bill of Rights 341 (2015)).
• Yuvraj Joshi, The Respectable Dignity of Obergefell v. Hodges, (California Law Review Circuit, Vol. 6, 2015).

Defamation Suit Stemming From Ground Zero Mosque Plans Dismissed

Forras v. Rauf, (DC Cir., Feb. 12, 2016), is another installment in the battle that began in 2010 over plans to build the so-called "Ground-Zero Mosque" near the site of the 2001 World Trade Center Attacks.  When the plans were announced, former firefighter Vincent Forras filed suit attempting to stop the project, contending it was a public nuisance and asserting claims for infliction of emotional distress and assault. (See prior posting.) In seeking dismissal of the case, defendant Imam Rauf's attorney submitted an affidavit contending that the lawsuit was motivated by "blind bigotry."  Forras' suit was dismissed, but he and his attorney Larry Klayman then sued Rauf and Bailey in federal district court in the District of Columbia for defamation. In this opinion, the D.C. Circuit held that the defamation suit should be dismissed because there is no personal jurisdiction in D.C. over defendants under D.C.'s long-arm statute.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Gupton v. Wright, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14730 (WD VA, Feb. 6, 2016), a Virginia federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that authorities denied publications and holiday packages to Asatru inmates.

In Sands v. Smith, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15200 (ED CA, Feb. 5, 2016, a California federal magistrate judge allowed a Jewish inmate to move ahead with his free exercise and retaliation complaints regarding failure to provide kosher food and Jewish religious services on many occasions.

In Edwards v. Rubenstein, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15236 (ND WV, Feb. 9, 2016), a West Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15237, Jan. 20, 2016) and dismissed complaints of a Muslim inmate about treatment of Muslims less favorably than Christians, and about a now-modified ban on growing beards.

In Irvin v. Yates, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15272 (ED CA, Feb. 8, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be permitted to move ahead with his complaints about a new halal religious diet program, access to chapel and denial of packages containing religious items.

In Amos v. Karol, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15354 (ED MO, Feb. 9, 2016), a Missouri federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was not provided halal meals, was not allowed to possess a prayer rug or hardback Qu'ran, and was not given access to an Imam.

In McDaniels v. Stewart, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15843 (WD WA, Feb. 8, 2016), a Washington federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a suit by a Muslim inmate against of 40 defendants seeking compensatory damages and over $27 million in punitive damages alleging inadequacy of the halal diet and his inability to go back on it after switching to a vegan diet.

In Rodriguez v. Hubbard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16432 (ED CA, Feb. 9, 2016), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing without prejudice for failure to exhaust internal remedies the complaints by a Native American inmate regarding lack of religious services, confiscation of his sacred pipe, sweat lodge access, ceremonial tobacco use, and lack of access to a Native American spiritual advisor, as well as retaliation and lack of protection claims.

In Casey v. Stephens, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16976 (SD TX, Feb. 9, 2016), a Texas federal district court dismissed a suit by a Native American inmate seeking the right to grow his hair long or wear a kouplock; wear a medicine bag; and keep and smoke a personal prayer pipe.

In Chaparro v. Ducart, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17780 (ND CA, Feb. 8, 2016), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by a Jehovah's Witness inmate complaining about the prison's former policy of denying an inmate the right to attend religious services for a month if the inmate missed without a valid reason a service he was scheduled to attend.

Israel Supreme Court Says Public-Funded Mikvehs Must Be Open To Reform and Conservative Conversions

According to Haaretz and Times of Israel, last Thursday a 3-justice panel of Israel's Supreme Court held that state-funded mikvehs  (ritual bath facilities) operated by Orthodox-controlled religious councils must be open for use  by the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements for their conversion ceremonies as well as for Orthodox conversions. Israel's Chief Sephardi Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef called the decision "outrageous."

Justice Scalia Dies; Author of Smith Decision

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died today at age 79. The New York Times eulogized him as a justice whose "transformative legal theories, vivid writing and outsize personality made him a leader of a conservative intellectual renaissance."  In the area of First Amendment religious freedom decisions, Justice Scalia will be particularly remembered as the author of the majority  opinion in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) which rejected use of the "compelling interest" test to validate neutral regulations of general applicability that burden religious practices.  He argued:

Precisely because "we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference," ... and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind 

It was the reaction to this decision that led Congress, in  a nearly unanimous vote, to enact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Magistrate Refuses To Dismiss Suit Against Anti-Falun Gong Organization

In Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16560 (ED NY, Jan. 28, 2016), a group of Falun Gong practitioners in Flushing Queens, New York sued an allegedly virulent anti-Falun Gong organization under federal civil rights laws.The court summarizes facts from plaintiffs' complaint:

Defendant CACWA is a not-for-profit corporation ... [whose] mission is to expose Falun Gong as an evil and dangerous threat to society.... CACWA's printed materials and websites indicate that CACWA was created to wage a "douzheng" campaign against Falun Gong practitioners in New York...  A key objective of a douzheng campaign is the forced conversion of targeted groups by compelling members to renounce their political or religious beliefs, supported by a propaganda campaign which, similar to that which was carried out in Nazi Germany  during World War II, characterizes its victims as appropriate targets of violence and abuse.... Originally initiated in China, the anti-Falun Gong campaign was extended into the United States in 2001 by then Communist Party ("Party") Chief Jiang Zemin.

In this opinion, a New York federal magistrate judge recommends refusing to dismiss plaintiffs' 42 USC Sec. 1985(3) claim, saying in part:

Plaintiffs' claims that they were repeatedly attacked ... make it plausible that Defendants "act[ed] at least in part for the very purpose of," ... infringing on Plaintiffs' right to intrastate travel. In terms of class-based animus, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs "misunderstand Defendants' mission" and describe their disagreement with Falun Gong as a mere difference in ideology.... This position must be rejected at least on this motion to dismiss. Frequent threats to "kill" and "dig out [the] hearts, livers and lungs" of Falun Gong practitioners... and the call for a douzheng campaign against Falun Gong, if true, describe religious-based animus sufficient to pursue a claim under § 1985(3).

The court also recommended refusing to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under 18 USC 248(a)(2) which provides a civil remedy against whomever, "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship." Among other things, the court refused to accept for purposes of a motion to dismiss defendants' argument that Falun Gong is not a "religion."

Denial of Permit For Muslim Cemetery Was Arbitrary and Capricious

The Farmington (MN) Independent reported yesterday on a decision last month by a Dakota County, Minnesota trial court judge holding that the Castle Rock Township board of supervisors' decision to deny a permit for a Muslim cemetery was arbitrary and capricious. The Al Maghfirah Cemetery Association sued after the township said the cemetery would cause a loss of tax revenue and expressed concern that the cemetery would not be maintained and would not be open to the public.  It is estimated that the 73-acre cemetery site will accommodate 35,000 burials-- enough to serve the growing Minnesota Islamic community for 200 years.

Title VII Suit Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception

In Moreno v. Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16543 (ED NY, Jan. 20, 2016), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a Title VII action brought by an African-American Episcopal pastor who claimed that his dismissal from his position was the result of racial discrimination.  The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine applied, saying:

The Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of this exception is "not to safeguard a church's decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful — a matter 'strictly ecclesiastical,'—is the church's alone."

Vatican Sends Mixed Messages On Protection of Abuse Victims

Vatican Radio reports that the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors released a communique on Feb. 8 at the end of its week-long Plenary Session. The document details existing and planned initiatives to educate clergy and others on the protection of minors.  However, The Guardian reported in a Feb. 10 article that a training course that is offered for newly appointed bishops sends a different message. Guidelines written by controversial French monsignor and psychotherapist, Tony Anatrella, a consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family, that were released earlier this month by the Vatican for comment are part of the training program.  They tell new bishops that it is up to victims and their families whether to report abuse to police, adding:

According to the state of civil laws of each country where reporting is obligatory, it is not necessarily the duty of the bishop to report suspects to authorities, the police or state prosecutors in the moment when they are made aware of crimes or sinful deeds.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] 

Tribal Council Balks At Posting of U.S. National Motto

According to the Smokey Mountain News, Rick Lanier, head of the U.S. Motto Action Committee, was startled at the reaction to his presentation last week to the Cherokee Tribal Council. Lanier has been trying to get the motto "In God We Trust" placed on government buildings around North Carolina, and his proposal is usually welcomed.  Members of the Cherokee Tribal Council and community members took Lanier to task for not understanding beliefs of the Cherokee, and for not realizing that the Cherokees are a sovereign nation and so would not want to put up the motto of the U.S. government.

Suit Says Zoning Change To Permit Chabad Development Violated Establishment Clause

The South Florida Sun Sentinel  reported yesterday on an unusual lawsuit filed by two Christian residents of Boca Raton, Florida alleging secret arrangements between the city, a developer and Chabad of East Boca to allow Chabad to build a $10 million synagogue and museum on Boca Raton's barrier island. The complaint (full text) in Gagliardi v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, (SD FL, filed 2/8/2016), alleges that the arrangement, undertaken in response to public objections to Chabad's locating in a different area of the city, violated the Establishment Clause, the due process and equal protection clauses, and the state constitution. The complaint alleges that the change in the city code to permit Chabad to locate on the barrier island (followed by variances and other actions to further the project) was a "complete and and express violation of the prohibition of advancing, endorsing or promoting of religion as set forth in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."