In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, Sept. 28., 2022), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA and constitutional claims against the city of Troy, Michigan. Plaintiff alleged wrongful denial of necessary zoning variances so plaintiff could use its property for Muslim religious services and classes. The court said in part:
Plaintiff has identified pieces of circumstantial evidence that may lead a fact-finder to conclude Troy acted with discriminatory animus towards Muslims. Thus, a question of fact on this claim exists and summary judgment is denied....
[T]here exists a question of fact for trial as to whether ZO § 6.21 was actually applied in a neutral manner or whether it was applied for the purpose of excluding Muslim assemblies from Troy...
The record contains ample evidence to support Adam’s contention that Troy’s stated reasons for denying Adam’s variance application were pretextual and intended to prevent Adam from opening a mosque in the City. Thus, a factfinder could conclude that Adam’s constitutional rights were violated.
The court previously concluded that the city had violated the equal terms and substantial burden provisions of RLUIPA, and now ordered a hearing on damages for those violations. Detroit News reports on the decision.
