ERISA Church Plan Exemption Held Constitutional

In Smith v. OSF Healthcare System, (SD IL, Sept. 28, 2018), an Illinois federal district court held that the retirement plan for employees of a healthcare system created by the order of St. Francis qualifies as an exempt "church plan" under ERISA. The court went on to conclude that ERISA's church plan exemption does not violate the Establishment Clause, saying in part:

Rather than entangling the government in the affairs of religious organizations, the church plan exemption avoids the entanglement. In other words, by exempting eligible plans from ERISA requirements, religious organizations and their associated entities are relieved from government mandates about how they conduct their affairs, structure their finances and pursue their missions.

Buddhist Center Can Proceed On Some Challenges To Zoning Denial

Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, (SD AL, Sept. 28, 2018), is a challenge to the city's denial of zoning applications to construct a Buddhist meditation center in a residential district. The court denied summary judgement to either side on plaintiff's RLUIPA nondiscrimination and Equal Protection claims. The court said in part:

Defendant’s primary assertion is their Planning Approval decision was based on the poor compatibility of Plaintiffs’ proposed meditation complex within a single family neighborhood, not bias towards Plaintiffs’ religion or practice of meditation.... While this argument supports the level of discretion Defendant claims to possess, Defendant’s evaluation of Plaintiffs’ Applications is riddled with inclinations of discrimination.

The court granted summary judgment to defendant on several of plaintiff's other challenges, including its RLUIPA substantial burden and RLUIPA equal terms claims and its 1st Amendment free exercise claim.

Ministerial Exception In Hostile Work Environment Cases

In Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish, Calumet City, (ND IL, Sept. 30, 2018), an Illinois federal district court set out an extensive analysis of when the ministerial exception doctrine bars claims for a hostile work environment, as opposed to claims involving firing or refusal to hire, under Title VII and the ADA.  In the case, a parish music director claimed damages because of abusive and harassing behavior growing out of his engagement and marriage to a same-sex partner.  The court said in part:

[W]hen a minister brings a claim that does not challenge a tangible employment action, then whether the First Amendment bars the claim depends on a case-by-case analysis on the nature of the claim, the extent of the intrusion on religious doctrine, and the extent of the entanglement with church governance required by the particular litigation. If the nature of the claim would require that a court take stance on a disputed religious doctrine, then that weighs in favor of First Amendment protection for the church....

If, on the other hand, no religious justification is offered at all (for a nontangible employment action), then there would be little or no risk of violating the Free Exercise Clause....

... [L]itigation over Reverend Dada’s alleged harassment based on Demkovich’s sex, sexual orientation, and marital status would excessively entangle the government in religion. To start, the Archdiocese offers a religious justification for the alleged derogatory remarks and other harassment....

... [H]arassing statements and conduct are motivated by an official Church position (or at least the Archdiocese would defend the case on those grounds). Of course, regulating how the official opposition is expressed is not as directly intrusive as outright punishing the Church for holding that position (which a federal court cannot do). But it comes close, and must weigh in favor of barring the claim under the Religion Clauses. 

"So Help Me God" In Citizenship Oath Upheld

In Perrier-Bilbo v. United States, (D MA, Sept. 28, 2018), a Massachusetts federal district court rejected a challenge to the inclusion of the phrase "so help me God" at the end of the oath of allegiance taken by those becoming citizens of the United States.  Rejecting an Establishment Clause claim, the court said in part:

Like the ceremonial prayer in Town of Greece, the inclusion of "so help me God" in the oath of citizenship "is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs." ... The regulation providing for the phrase's inclusion in the naturalization oath does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The court also rejected free exercise, RFRA, equal protection and due process challenges.  According to the court:

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") offered her a private induction which would omit the words she finds offensive. Not surprisingly, she wishes to participate in the public ceremony with other new citizens and their families and friends. USCIS welcomed her at such a ceremony, assuring her she need not herself say those four words and her oath of allegiance and United States citizenship would nonetheless be fully valid.

India's Supreme Court Invalidates Ban On Women In Temple

In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (India Sup. Ct., Sept. 28, 2018), the Supreme Court of India by a vote of 4-1 struck down a rule of the Sabarimala Temple that prevents women between the age of 10 and 50 years from entering. Four separate opinions spanning 411 pages were filed. Chief Justice Misra, who began his plurality opinion by quoting Susan B. Anthony, said in part:

The exclusionary practice being followed at the Sabrimala temple by virtue of Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules violates the right of Hindu women to freely practise their religion and exhibit their devotion towards Lord Ayyappa. This denial denudes them of their right to worship. The right to practise religion under Article 25(1) is equally available to both men and women of all age groups professing the same religion.  

Economic Times reports on the decision.

Arizona's Anti-BDS Law Enjoined

In Jordahl v. Brnovich, (D AZ, Sept. 27. 2018), an Arizona federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Arizona's statute requiring those contracting with the state to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel. Plaintiff Mikkel Jordahl's law firm contracts with the county jail district to provide legal advice to inmates.  Jordahl boycotts consumer goods and services from businesses that support "Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories." The court concluded that "Plaintiffs would at least be able to meet their burden of showing that the Certification Requirement is an unconstitutional condition on government contractors." The court said in part:

The Act thus encompasses and contemplates elements of expressive political conduct protected under the Constitution. As such, the Court finds it highly likely that Plaintiffs will be able to establish that “boycott,” as defined in the Arizona legislature, burdens expressive political activity protected under the First Amendment. The question then becomes whether the State has an adequate interest in restricting companies’ rights to engage in boycotts of Israel by conditioning their government contracts on a promise to refrain from such activity....

Here, the State has proffered two interests to justify the Certification Requirement: (1) an interest in regulating the State’s “commercial activity to align commerce in the State with the State’s policy objectives and values” and (2) an interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of national origin....

The legislative history of the Act calls these stated interests into doubt. The Act’s history instead suggests that the goal of the Act is to penalize the efforts of those engaged in political boycotts of Israel and those doing business in Israeli-occupied territories because such boycotts are not aligned with the State’s values.... If so, such an interest is constitutionally impermissible.

Payson Roundup reports on the decision.

Kentucky Supreme Court Allows Limited Discovery In Suit Against Church

In Presbyterian Church (U.S..) v. Edwards, (KY Sup. Ct., Sept. 27, 2018), the Kentucky Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision affirmed a Court of Appeals decision limiting discovery in a defamation suit against the Presbyterian Church to that necessary to determine if the church is entitled to ecclesiastical immunity.  The issue arose out of a suit by Rev. Eric Hoey who claims that the church defamed him by releasing to Presbyterian news agencies a statement that he had been terminated for committing ethical violations. A dissent written by Justice Venters argued:

To establish his claim of defamation, Hoey must prove that the Church officials were lying when they said that his conduct violated the Church’s ethical rules for its ministers....

It is immediately apparent from the face of Hoey’s Complaint that his claim can be sustained only by second-guessing the decision of the Church’s governing body that Hoey violated the Church’s ethical policies. The only way that Hoey can show that Church officials falsely stated that he violated the Ethical Policy contained in the Book of Order is to prove that he did not violate that policy.

I respectfully submit that only the Church can make that determination and the Government, through its courts, legislature, or executive agencies, cannot supersede that decision.

$35 Million Verdict Against Jehovah's Witness Organization In Sex Abuse Case

NBC News reported yesterday that a Montana federal court jury has awarded $35 million to a woman who contended that the national organization of the Jehovah's Witness church ordered Montana clergy not to report her sexual abuse as a child by a Jehovah's Witness congregation member.  According to NBC:

A judge must review the penalty, and the Jehovah's Witnesses' national organization — Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York — plans to appeal.

Oral Arguments In Prayer At Football Games

Yesterday the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments  (recording of full oral arguments) in Cambridge Christian School v. Florida High School Atletic Association, Inc.  In the case, a Florida federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a Christian high school complaining that it was denied permission to use the stadium loudspeaker system to deliver a prayer at the Championship Game in which its football team was playing.(see prior posting.)

No Preliminary Injunction Against Schools' Anti-Islamophobia Initiative

In Citizens for Quality Education San Diego v. Barrera, (SD CA, Sept. 25, 2018), a California federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against an initiative undertaken by the San Diego school district to address Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bullying. The court held that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause and state constitutional no-aid clause claims. San Diego Union Tribune reports on the decision.

Court Rejects EEOC's "Pattern or Practice" Claims Against Meat Packer

In EEOC v. JBS USAA, LLC, (D CO, Sept. 24, 2018), a Colorado federal district court in a 95-page opinion issued after a 16-day trial dismissed the EEOC's claims that JBS Swift & Co. meat packers engaged in pattern and practice of discrimination against Muslim employees. The suit claimed that the company had refused to reasonably accommodate Muslim employees' needs during Ramadan to pray and break their fast; that employees were disciplined on the basis of religion, national origin and race; and that JBS retaliated against a group of black, Muslim, Somali employees for opposing discrimination during Ramadan. In rejecting the reasonable accommodation claim, the court said in part:

The EEOC presented numerous instances of employees given verbal or written warnings for “unauthorized breaks” that other evidence indicated may have been in relation to prayer.... But, in spite of JBS’s progressive discipline policy, there was no evidence that any such reprimanded employees were ultimately suspended or terminated as a result of such verbal or written warnings.

Therefore, lacking evidence that any employee suffered a detriment to “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s . . . religion” in relation to discipline imposed for unscheduled prayer breaks, the Court concludes that the EEOC has failed to prove its claim that JBS’s policy constituted an unlawful pattern or practice of discrimination.

The discriminatory discipline and retaliation claims were rejected on other grounds.

NOTE ON PUBLICATION SCHEDULE

RELIGION CLAUSE BLOG WILL BE ON A LIMITED AND SPORADIC PUBLICATION SCHEDULE BETWEEN SEPT. 24 AND OCT. 2.  REGULAR POSTINGS SHOULD RETURN ON OCT. 3.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Wolcott v. Board of Rabbis of Northern and Southern California, (9th Cir., Sept. 20, 2018), the 9th Circuit reversed the dismissal of an inmate's claim that his possession and use of Jewish artifacts were restricted, but affirmed the dismissal of his religious conversion claim.

In Goff v. Eppinger, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155455 (ND OH, Sept. 12, 2018), an Ohio federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint regarding delay in placing his name on the kosher meal approval list, and failure to respond to requests for Passover accommodations.

In Wenzel v. Reynolds, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156702 (ND IN, Sept. 13, 2018), and Indiana federal district court allowed an Odinist inmate to proceed with damage claims growing out of denial of his religious book for four days and that he was denied equal access to religious study materials. Claims for confiscation of runes and denial of a Christmas gift were dismissed.

In Cary v. Mox, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156666 (ED MI, Sept. 14, 2018), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157275, Aug. 14, 2018) and dismissed a complaint from a follower of the Native American Traditional Way that his medicine bag had been desecrated by correctional officers searching it.

In Davis v. Harper, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158186 (SD IL, Sept. 14, 2018), an Illinois federal district court allowed a Muslim inmate to move ahead with his complaint that prison dietary staff ignored his documented allergies in preparing his food for Ramadan and related feasts.

In Guillen v. Francisco, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158293 (ED CA,Sept. 17, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that a Native American inmate be allowed to move ahead with his complaint that a correctional officer touched plaintiff's medicine bag during a search.

In McCoy v. Aramark Correctional Services, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159871 (D KA, Sept. 19, 2018), a Kansas federal district court held that issues of fact remain which preclude summary judgment for an Orthodox Jewish inmate who contends that certified religious diet meals do not meet his religious requirements.

6th Circuit: Moving Street Preachers Away From Pride Festival Violated Their Free Speech Rights

In McGlone v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, (6th Cir., Sept. 19, 2018), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that the free speech rights of two sidewalk preachers were infringed when they were required to move their amplified anti-homosexuality preaching across the street from the park where a Pride festival was being held. The majority held:

Nashville excluded McGlone and Peters from a traditional public forum for expressing a message opposed to homosexuality and Nashville provides no compelling reason for doing so. Indeed, Nashville does not even argue that its restriction of McGlone and Peters’ speech could survive strict scrutiny review. We therefore end our inquiry here.

Judge Moore dissented, saying in part:

I believe that it was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction for ... Nashville ... to require ... John McGlone and Jeremy Peters ... to cross a downtown street if they wished to continue shouting disruptive messages through bullhorns during a permit-authorized event in a public park....

European Court Says Catholic Hospital May Have Illegally Fired Doctor

In IR v. JQ, (COJ, Sept. 11, 2018) the Court of Justice of the European Union held that in Germany, a Catholic hospital may have discriminated illegally when it dismissed the head of its Internal Medicine Department for remarrying in a civil ceremony without his first marriage being annulled. According to the press release summarizing the Grand Chamber's holding:

[T]he national court hearing the action must satisfy itself that ... the religion or belief is a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement in the light of the ethos in question.

... [T]he Court observes that adherence to the notion of marriage advocated by the Catholic Church does not appear to be necessary for the promotion of IR’s ethos due to the importance of the occupational activities carried out by JQ, namely the provision of medical advice and care in a hospital setting and the management of the internal medicine department which he headed. Therefore, that does not appear to be a genuine requirement of that occupational activity. This is corroborated by the fact that similar posts were entrusted to employees who were not of the Catholic faith and, consequently, not subject to the same requirement to act in good faith and with loyalty to IR’s ethos....

However, it is for the Bundesarbeitsgericht to determine whether IR has established that, in the light of the circumstances of the case, there is a probable and substantial risk that its ethos or its right of autonomy will be undermined.

National Secular Society reported on the decision.

Vatican Reaches Provisional Agreement With China Over Recognition of Bishops

As reported by Crux, the Vatican yesterday announced that it has signed a provisional agreement with China that would resolve the long-standing conflict over the appointment of bishops.  Pope Francis will officially recognize eight bishops named by the Chinese government's Patriotic Association, but previously not recognized by the Vatican. A Vatican spokesman said:

The objective of the accord is not political but pastoral, allowing the faithful to have bishops who are in communion with Rome but at the same time recognized by Chinese authorities.

For nearly 70 years, Chinese Catholics have been split between an official church recognized by the Chinese government and an underground church loyal to the Vatican.

European Court of Human Rights OKs Injunctions Against Anti-Abortion Activist

In four related Chamber Judgments issued on Sept. 20, the European Court of Human rights upheld injunctions and the award of damages in the cases that doctors brought against an anti-abortion activist for calling doctors who performed abortions aggravated murderers and comparing abortion to the Holocaust. The court issued a press release summarizing the holdings in Annen v. Germany (No. 2 to 5):

The cases concerned a series of complaints by an anti-abortion activist, Klaus Günter Annen, over civil court injunctions on various actions he had taken as part of an anti-abortion campaign. The plaintiffs in the domestic proceedings were four doctors who performed abortions.

The Court held in particular that the injunctions had interfered with Mr Annen’s freedom of expression, but had been necessary in a democratic society. When examining whether there had been a need for such interferences in the interests of the “protection of the reputation or rights of others”, namely of the doctors, the Court’s role was only to ascertain whether the domestic courts had struck a fair balance when protecting the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 and the right to respect for private life protected by Article 8 of the [European] Convention [on Human Rights].

The press release contains links to the full text of each of the four decisions. [Thanks to Paul deMello Jr. for the lead.]

European Court's Advocate General Says Halal and Kosher Meat Can Be Labeled "Organic"

In a September 20 press release, the Court of Justice of the European Union announced the proposed finding of the Advocate General in a reference from France's Administrative Court of Appeal on whether under EU rules halal and kosher meat may be labeled as "organic":

[T]he Advocate General proposes that the Court find that the Regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products and the Regulation on the protection of animals at the time of killing do not prohibit the issue of the European ‘organic farming’ label to products from animals which have been the subject of ritual slaughter without prior stunning carried out in the conditions laid down in the latter regulation.

The Advocate General said, in addition however, that a contrary ruling would not be an interference with freedom of worship. [Thanks to Paul deMello Jr. for the lead.] 

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the Advocate General's opinion in  Œuvrestance d’assistance  aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v. Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation.

Cert Filed In Title VII Sabbath Accommodation Case

Last week, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Patterson v. Walgreen Co. (cert. filed 9/14/2018).  In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Walgreens had offered reasonable accommodations under Title VII for the religious needs of a Seventh Day Adventist employee whose beliefs did not permit him to work on Saturday. The employee, a training instructor, was fired in the aftermath of his refusal to conduct an emergency training session on a Saturday. (See prior posting.)  The Seventh Day Adventist Church issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Israeli Court Fines Orthodox Jewish Station For Excluding Women On Broadcasts

Times of Israel reported yesterday:

In a precedent-setting ruling, the Jerusalem District Court fined the ultra-Orthodox Kol Berama radio station NIS 1 million ($280,000) on Thursday for excluding women from the airwaves.

The judge ordered the money be held in a designated fund that will later be distributed to various organizations helping ultra-Orthodox women.

The ruling comes six years after the Reform Movement’s Israel Religious Action Center and the religious women’s rights group Kolech filed a class action lawsuit against the radio station for its refusal to broadcast women on any of its programming.