EEOC Sues Over Firing of Muslim Employee

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit against KASCO, a St. Louis-based company that manufactures and sells butcher supplies and meat processing equipment. The press release explains:

According to EEOC's lawsuit, Latifa Sidiqi had worked for KASCO since 2008, most recently as a buyer. After she began more seriously practicing her religion in 2012, a supervisor and others began making derogatory comments about her fasting during Ramadan, wearing a hijab, and her native country, Afghanistan. The agency charged that Sidiqi was fired during Ramadan 2013 because of her religion and national origin, and because she complained about her supervisor's treatment.

No-Fault Divorce Does Not Violate Hindu Husband's Free Exercise Rights.

In Bhandaru v. Vukkum, (KY App., Aug. 19, 2016), a Kentucky appeals court rejected an argument that the state's no-fault divorce law violates the free exercise rights of a Hindu husband.  The husband argued that his Hindu religion only permits divorce if some grounds for divorce are stated. The court concluded however that the divorce law is a law of general applicability and the state has a rational basis for it.  It thus survives a 1st Amendment challenge and the free exercise provisions of the Kentucky constitution offer no greater protection than those in the 1st Amendment.  The court also rejected the argument that under notions of comity it should have applied the Indian Hindu Marriage Act.

GSA Requires Rest Rooms In Federal Buildings To Be Open On Basis of Gender Identity

The General Services Administration yesterday published a Bulletin (full text) in the Federal Register requiring federal agencies occupying space in buildings controlled by the GSA to open restrooms to individuals on the basis of their gender identity. The Bulletin said in part:

a. Consistent with the interpretations issued by the EEOC, ED, DOJ, and OPM, the prohibition against sex discrimination ... also prohibits discrimination due to gender identity, which includes discrimination based on an individual's transgender status.

b. Federal agencies occupying space under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of GSA must allow individuals to use restroom facilities and related areas consistent with their gender identity.  ...[T]he self-identification of gender identity by any individual is sufficient to establish which restroom or other single-sex facilities should be used. ...[T]ransgender individuals do not have to be undergoing or have completed any medical procedure, nor can they be required to show proof of surgery to be treated in accordance with their gender identity and obtain access to the restroom corresponding with their gender identity. Further, Federal agencies may not restrict only transgender individuals to only use single-occupancy restrooms, such as family or accessible facilities open to all genders. However, Federal agencies may make individual-user options available to all individuals who voluntarily seek additional privacy.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release strongly criticizing the GSA's action.

RFRA Protects Funeral Home's Gender Stereotyping of Transgender Employee

In EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., (ED MI, Aug. 18, 2016), a Michigan federal district court upheld a funeral home's defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to a charge by the EEOC that the funeral home engaged in gender stereotyping when it dismissed a transgender employee (funeral director/embalmer) who was in the process of transitioning from male to female. In a previous opinion in the case, the court held that Title VII does not bar discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  However the court permitted the EEOC to proceed on the theory that the employee was dismissed for refusing to comply with the funeral home's dress code for male employees.  Citing Hobby Lobby, the court held that the funeral home can assert religious rights under RFRA. The court then said:

Rost [the funeral home's owner] believes “that the Bible teaches that God creates people male or female.”... He believes that “the Bible teaches that a person’s sex is an immutable God-given gift and that people should not deny or attempt to change their sex.”... Rost believes that he “would be violating God’s commands” if he were to permit one of the Funeral Home’s funeral directors “to deny their sex while acting as a representative of [the Funeral Home]. This would violate God’s commands because, among other reasons, [Rost] would be directly involved in supporting the idea that sex is a changeable social construct rather than an immutable God-given gift.” ...

The court went on to say that even if the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination, it has not chosen the least restrictive means of doing so.  It explained:

If the EEOC truly has a compelling governmental interest in ensuring that Stephens is not subject to gender stereotypes in the workplace in terms of required clothing at the Funeral Home, couldn’t the EEOC propose a gender-neutral dress code (dark-colored suit, consisting of a matching business jacket and pants, but without a neck tie) as a reasonable accommodation that would be a less restrictive means of furthering that goal under the facts presented here?

Detroit News reports on the decision. [Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

Pregnancy Resource Center Sues Over Rezoning Denial

In Raleigh, North Carolina on Wednesday a Christian ministry filed suit in federal district court challenging the city's refusal to rezone property adjacent to an abortion clinic for use by the ministry as a pregnancy resource center.  The complaint (full text) in A Hand of Hope Pregnancy Resource Center v. City of Raleigh, (ED NC, filed 8/17/2016), contends that the city's rezoning refusal that prevents the ministry from expanding its services violates plaintiff's rights under RLUIPA as well as under the 1st and 14th Amendments.  WRAL reports on the lawsuit.

Israel's Rabbinical Courts Grapple With Unrealistic Marriage Contract Terms

In Israel, an interesting contract question is being increasingly faced by state rabbinical courts that have jurisdiction over divorce actions. Traditional Jewish marriage ceremonies involve the husband signing a ketubah, or Jewish wedding contract.  The traditional form of the ketubah  includes the pledge of a sum of money which must be paid to the wife upon the husband's death or upon divorce. (Background.) Again traditionally the amount was set at "200 zuz" which has been seen as equating to around $750 (US).  However it has become a custom in Israel for grooms to demonstrate their love for their bride by inflating the amount in the ketubah by large multiples.  That is background to this report yesterday from JTA on a request from Jerusalem's regional rabbinical court to the Chief Rabbinate to limit the practice by capping the amount that can be set out in the ketubah to 1 million Israeli shekels ($264,000 US):

The unusual request earlier this month follows a divorce in which a man’s ex-wife demanded he pay her 555,555 shekels — approximately $145,000 — because that was the sum he pledged to pay on his ketubah.... Her ex-husband argued that he made the pledge as a testament of his love and appreciation for her, not thinking it would be legally binding.....  

Many grooms pledge sums they cannot afford, attaching many zeros to the number 18 – which is associated with life because of Jewish numerology – or the 555,555 figure, which is especially popular among Sephardic Jews who believe it is lucky. The custom of reading out the ketubah to the wedding guests adds incentive to name high figures, which the court defined as unrealistic.

The panel of three rabbinical judges ... reviewing the divorce case in question was divided, with one judge ruling in favor of the ex-wife’s demand. But his colleagues were of the opinion that the ex-husband should not be made to pay the full sum[, and] finally awarded the woman the equivalent of $31,600 from her ex-husband, or 120,000 shekels.

Defense Counsel's Prayers on Facebook Pose Concerns

Prayers posted on Facebook by an Ellis County, Texas defense attorney have come under scrutiny of trial judges after complaints by the county district attorney's office that running commentary on ongoing trials is included in his prayers.  As reported Tuesday by CBS DFW, prosecutors are concerned that jurors might come upon the posts during the trial  So far judges have not totally barred attorney Mark Griffith from posting prayers online, but they have ordered that the prayers not contain a running account of the trial. Griffith says he will appeal.

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Bars ADA Claim By Adventist Music Teacher

In Curl v. Beltsville Adventist School, (D MD, Aug. 15, 2016), a Maryland federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to prevent a music teacher at a Seventh Day Adventist school from pursuing federal claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.  The teacher sued when her contract was terminated because she was unable to return fully to work a number of months after being seriously injured in a fall at work. In finding that plaintiff 's position was ministerial in nature, the court said in part:

Although a portion of Plaintiff's responsibilities were secular in nature, Plaintiff acknowledges that she is personally a Seventh-day Adventist whose role at the School included teaching religious music and leading prayer services.... [S]he agreed to abide by the Education Code, which "requires that schools employ only those who live in complete harmony with the beliefs and practices of the Church" and therefore required that all School teachers be "baptized Adventists committed to the Church's program of ministry."... [A] portion of her salary was paid by tithe funds, which are intended to be used for ministry.... Moreover, Plaintiffs performance was evaluated in part based on her spiritual leadership.

Suit Challenges Latin Cross In County Seal and Flag

A suit was filed in federal district court this week seeking to enjoin Lehigh County, Pennsylvania from continuing to display the current county seal and county flag that includes a Latin cross (partly hidden by a depiction of the county courthouse) as a prominent part of the design.  The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. County of Lehigh, (ED PA, filed 8/16/2016) contends that the cross amounts to an endorsement of Christianity, while the county Board of Commissioners says the cross was made part of the design to honor the original settlers of Lehigh County who were Christian. FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Settlement Reached Permitting "8THEIST" License Plate In New Jersey

Last week, a New Jersey federal district court approved the parties' settlement agreement (full text) in Morgan v. Martinez.  In the case,  an atheist sued New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission challenging provisions in state regulations barring issuance of personalized license plates with letters or numbers "that may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency." Authorities had refused to issue Shannon Morgan a plate with the characters "8THEIST". Under the settlement, the Commission will issue Morgan the requested plate. The settlement also stipulates that a number of other specific alphanumeric combinations reflecting humanism, feminism and LGBT concerns are consistent with the Commission's regulations. The Commission also agreed to pay $75,000 in damages.  Americans United issued a press release discussing the settlement.

Canadian Court Finds Human Rights Act Violation In School's Denying Prayer Space To Muslim Students

In Webber Academy Foundation v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), (AB QB, Aug. 10, 2016), a Canadian trial court in the province of Alberta upheld a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Commission finding that a private school violated the Alberta Human Rights Act by refusing to allow Muslim students a place for their daily prayers. The school argued that it is non-denominational and no kinds of religious activities are to be carried out on campus. Affirming the Human Rights Commission's $26,000 damage award, the court said in part:

Webber Academy, to its credit, adopted a public policy of welcoming young people of many faiths and cultures, and to exemplify its policy, published photographs of students with turbans and facial hair even though these practices contravened usual school policies.

For some reason, it drew the line at Sunni prayer rituals, conducted in private, in a place that was convenient to the school and the students from time to time. Its policy thus discriminated against the belief of the complainant Sunni Muslim students as compared, for example, to students who overtly averred their religious affiliation by forms of dress and grooming. There was no demonstrated hardship, let alone undue hardship, motivating this policy.

Canadian Press reports on the decision.

Reinstatement Precludes Pregnancy Discrimination Suit Against Synagogue

In Shultz v. Congregation Shearith Israel of the City of New York, (SD NY, Aug. 15, 2016), a New York federal district court dismissed (with leave to amend) a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by Alana Shultz, the long-time program director of a New York City Upper-West Side Orthodox Jewish congregation. Plaintiff claimed that the purported elimination of her job position when she returned from her honeymoon was a pretext for firing her because she had been pregnant at the time of her marriage.  When Shultz threatened to sue, the congregation reinstated her to her position. (See prior related posting.) The court held that Shultz's reinstatement eliminated any adverse job action-- a prerequisite to an employment discrimination claim-- saying:

 An employer may validly rescind a termination merely to avoid liability, even begrudgingly, so long as the employer restores the employee to her position with no material change or consequence. 

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Suit Seeks $25M Damages For Islamophobic Bullying of Special-Needs 12-Year-Old

Islip Patch reports on a federal court lawsuit filed Monday by the parents of a 12-year old Muslim special needs student alleging that he was the victim of Islamophobic harassment by fellow-students and school personnel of the East Islip, New York School District. According to the complaint, Nashwan Uppal (whose family is from Pakistan) was bullied by a group of students who called him a terrorist and asked him what he was going to blow up next. Thinking "terrorist" meant "tourist," Uppal eventually said he was going to blow up the fence.  The next day Uppal was interrogated by the principal and assistant principal who searched his backpack and locker and demanded that he write a confession that he was part of ISIS. Subsequently he was questioned by police while his mother waited outside the school.  New York Post adds:

Officials eventually let [Uppal] call his mother, Nubaisha Amar, who was told her son had pledged allegiance to ISIS and was going to blow up the school. Cops escorted mother and son back to their home before searching the entire house and concluding he was no threat. But Uppal was suspended for a week for “criminal activity.”

The suit seeks $25 million in damages for severe and extreme emotional distress.

Suit Over MLK's Nobel Peace Prize Medal Settled

Reuters reports that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s heirs have settled their dispute over who owns MLK's 1964 Nobel Peace Prize medal.  As previously reported, Bernice King has been seeking to prevent her two brothers (who control the King estate) from selling the medal and MLK's famous "traveling Bible."  Last month the court ruled that the Bible belongs to the estate.  In an order signed on Monday-- the day trial was scheduled to begin-- the court approved a motion filed by all the parties to dismiss the remaining litigation and turn over the keys to the safe deposit box where the medal is held to Martin Luther King III who controls the estate. In a joint statement, the siblings said that former President Jimmy Carter had assisted them in coming to an agreement.

Plaintiff Dismisses Suit Against Maryland Ten Commandments Monument

Plaintiff in Davis v. Allegany County Commissioners, has filed a motion (full text) voluntarily dismissing his lawsuit challenging a Ten Commandments monument located on the courthouse lawn in Cumberland, Maryland. (See prior posting.) The court approved the motion to dismiss on Monday.  Plaintiff offered no reason for his decision to dismiss the suit.  ADF issued a press release reporting on the motion.

Florida Appeals Court Says Challengers Of Tax Credit Scholarships Lack Standing

In McCall v. Scott, (FL App., Aug. 16, 2016), a Florida appeals court held that a group of plaintiffs-- advocacy organizations, teachers, parents and religious and community leaders-- lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of Florida's Tax Credit Scholarship Program.  The court concluded that plaintiffs had not shown either special injury standing or taxpayer standing. It concluded, among other things, that the state constitution's "no-aid" provision (Florida's Blaine Amendment) only limits the legislature's spending authority, and not its authority to grant tax deductions or credits. Pensacola News Journal reports on the decision.

State Department Issues 2015 International Religious Freedom Report

Last week, the U.S. State Department issued its 2015 Annual Report on International Freedom.  In an August 10 press conference presenting the report, Deputy Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken (full text of remarks) said in part:

[T]he purpose of this annual report is not to lecture; it is to inform, to encourage, and ultimately, to persuade. Bigotry and intolerance can be found in every part of the world, including the United States. But every country has an obligation to respect religious liberty and freedom of conscience; we encourage every country to do so. This report, which is based on a wealth of objective research, is one of many ways we give life to that advocacy....

This past March, Secretary Kerry made clear his judgment that Daesh is responsible for genocide against religious communities in areas under its control.... They’ve not only killed, they’ve sought to erase the memory of those they’ve killed, destroying centuries-old religious cultural sites.

Naming these crimes is important, but our goal is to stop them. That’s why President Obama has mobilized a coalition of more than 65 partners from every corner of the world to combat and ultimately defeat Daesh.

Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom David Saperstein also spoke at the press conference and answered reporters' questions. (Full text of remarks.) He said in part:

While the report touches on all manner of restrictions to religious freedom, I want to highlight this year the chilling, sometimes deadly effect of blasphemy and apostasy laws in many places of the world, as well as laws that purport to protect religious sentiments from defamation. Roughly a quarter of the world’s countries have blasphemy laws, and more than one in 10 have laws or policies penalizing apostasy, and the existence of these laws has been used by governments in too many cases to intimidate, repress religious minorities, and governments have too often failed to take appropriate steps to prevent societal violence sparked by accusations of blasphemy and apostasy. And when these claims turn out to be blatantly false accusations made to pursue other agendas, governments will often fail to act to hold perpetrators accountable. These government failures weaken trust in the rule of law, creating an atmosphere of impunity for those who would resort to violence or make false claims of blasphemy.

UPDATE: In connection with the State Department report, the White House issued a Fact Sheet: Promoting and Protecting Religious Freedom Around the Globe. Also the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release welcoming the State Department's report and urging additional actions under the International Religious Freedom Act.

Texas AG Opinion OK's Courtroom Chaplains

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton yesterday issued Attorney General Opinion No. KP-0109 (Aug. 15, 2016), responding to three Establishment Clause concerns.  The Opinion first concludes:

Courts do not violate the Establishment Clause by opening court proceedings with a statement such as, "God save the State of Texas and this Honorable Court."

It then moves to questions about the more controversial practice of a Texas justice of the peace who is also the county coroner.  As previously reported the judge created a volunteer chaplaincy program to help grieving family, friends and witnesses at death scenes to which the coroner is called.  To recognize these volunteer chaplains, they are also invited to give a brief prayer to open justice of the peace court proceedings. The state's Commission on Judicial Conduct had urged an end to these practices.  However, yesterday's AG opinion concluded that each of these practices is constitutional. A press release from First Liberty Institute discusses the AG opinion.

FLDS Fraud Defendant Says 1st Amendment Protects His Letters To Jailed Leader

As previously reported, in February eleven members of the polygamous FLDS Church were indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit food stamp fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.  Now, as reported by Fox13 News, one of those defendants, Preston Barlow, is objecting to a change in the conditions of his pretrial release.  Earlier this month after he was incorrectly charged with violating conditions of his release, the limits on his contacting co-defendants were expanded to include a ban on any contact with FLDS leader Warren Jeffs who is in prison on other charges. In a motion (full text) filed with the Utah federal district court yesterday, Barlow argued that there is no basis for the expansion, and that it violates his religious freedom rights, saying:

The tenets of Mr. Barlow's sincerely held religious beliefs require him to maintain a conduit of connection and communication with his prophet. He does so by writing to Warren Jeffs approximately one time per month. The writings do not generate a direct response from Warren Jeffs.... [R]estricting the communication would have a devastating impact on Mr. Barlow's religious practice, and on his ability to maintain such religious practice consistent with what  he believes are the necessary requirements for eternal salvation.

Olympic Village Now Includes Brazilian-African Religions With Others

Crux reported yesterday that in Olympic Village in Rio de Janeiro, the interfaith center this year includes priests from the Brazilian-African Candomble and Umbanda faiths.  When the International Olympics Committee initially chose only five official religions-- Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism-- to be represented, Brazil's Federal Public Ministry (at the urging of activists) complained arguing that the religious diversity of the host country needed to be represented.  Brazilian law gives Africa-based religions proportional representation in official activities in the country.