In Erie v. Hunter, (MD LA, March 23, 2022), a Louisiana federal district court rejected a qualified immunity defense raised by a psychiatric aide employed by a state mental health facility. Plaintiff, who had been civilly committed to the facility, contended that he was forced to attend a Christian religious service. He sued for damages, alleging an Establishment Clause violation. Defendant argued that she was the only aide on the ward and could not leave any patient in their room with no one on duty. Therefore she was faced with the choice of requiring plaintiff to attend or prohibiting all patients on the ward from attending. The court said in part:
Defendant contends that she exercised "fair and reasonable judgment in ensuring the safety and security of the residents under her care while also allowing those residents who wish to attend the service to do so."...
This argument fails on multiple levels. First, the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis does not measure the reasonableness of a defendant's actions against the circumstances presented; rather, it measures the reasonableness of the defendant's actions against the "state of the law" at the time the defendant acted....
Second, assuming for present purposes that Defendant only had two options available to her, she nonetheless chose the option that favored religion.... Ultimately, whether Defendant's choice to force Plaintiffs attendance at the religious service violated the Establishment Clause's guarantee of religious neutrality will turn on whether she acted with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion." ...
[W]hile Defendant's motive/intent may ultimately bear on the outcome of Plaintiffs Establishment Clause claims—particularly if those motives are consistent with the state's interest in maintaining safety of all ELMHS residents—such issues cannot be determined from the allegations of Plaintiffs complaint and require factual development through discovery.
[Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]
