Actor's Disparate-Impact Religious Discrimination Claim Is Dismissed

 In Dunbar v. Disney, (CD CA, Nov. 3, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed an amended complaint filed by "9-1-1" actor Rockmond Dunbar in his Title VII disparate-impact religious discrimination claim against Walt Disney Company. Dunbar was denied a religious exemption from Disney's Covid vaccine mandate and was fired when he refused to be vaccinated. He claimed that according to beliefs of his Universal Wisdom Church it is a sacrilege to ingest medication, chemicals, or other foreign matters that defy natural law. His disparate impact claim failed originally because he was unable to identify other Universal Wisdom Church members who were similarly impacted. He then amended the complaint to allege that three other employees of other religious denominations were impacted. The court held, however, that this was insufficient to identify a "protected group" that was impacted because the group he points to is identified solely by the existence of the alleged discriminatory business practices. Hollywood Reporter reports on the decision.

Prof Who Criticized Native American Grave Repatriation Laws Can Move Ahead with Retaliation Suit

In Weiss v. Perez, (ND CA, Oct. 19, 2022), a California federal district court allowed a tenured professor of physical anthropology at San Jose State University to move ahead against most of the defendants she named in a lawsuit alleging that the University has retaliated her against because of her opposition to repatriation of Native American remains.  In a book that Prof. Elizabeth Weiss co-authored that was published in 2020, she argued that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act "undermine objective scientific inquiry and violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by favoring religion over science." She expressed similar views in an op-ed and on Twitter.  Weiss claims that because of her speaking on this issue, the University has interfered with her research and limited her professional activities in a number of ways that have reduced her responsibilities and damaged her professional reputation. The Art Newspaper reports on the decision.

Baker With Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage Did Not Violate California's Civil Rights Law

In a tentative decision which becomes final in ten days unless objections are filed, a California state trial court has concluded that a bakery which refuses on religious grounds to furnish custom designed cakes for same-sex weddings and instead refers customers to another bakery for such items did not violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cathy's Creations, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., Oct. 21, 2022), the court concluded that the state failed to prove intentional sexual orientation discrimination, saying in part:

Miller and Tastries do not design and do not offer to any person-- regardless of sexual orientation-- custom wedding cakes that "contradict God's sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.

The court went on to hold that because California's Unruh Civil Rights Act is a neutral law of general applicability, the state did not violate defendant's free exercise rights. However, application of the Unruh Civil Rights Act here would violate defendants' free speech rights because it would compel expressive conduct based on content or viewpoint. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision.

Profs Sue University for Including Caste in Antidiscrimination Policy

Suit was filed on Monday in a California federal district court by two California State University professors challenging the University's inclusion of discrimination on the basis of caste in its Interim Antidiscrimination Policy adopted in January. The complaint (full text) in Kumar v. Koester, (CD CA, filed 10/17/2022) alleges in part:

[T]he Interim Policy seeks to define the Hindu religion as including “caste” and an alleged oppressive and discriminatory caste system as foundational religious tenets. That not only is an inaccurate depiction of the Hindu religion, but the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits California and CSU from defining the contours of Hinduism (or any religion)....

The Interim Policy also singles out only CSU’s Hindu employees, professors and students, as well as those of Indian/South Asian origin. No other Protected Status in the Interim Policy addresses any specific ethnicity, ancestry, religion or alleged religious practice,,,

Plaintiffs seek a determination that the term “caste” as used in the Interim Policy is unconstitutionally vague, and the Interim Policy as drafted violates the rights of Plaintiffs (and similarly situated individuals) under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as their rights under the California Constitution.

The Hindu American Foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Pre-School Teacher Sues After Being Fired For Her Stance On Same-Sex Marriage

A child-care employee who was fired by her employer for refusing to read to her pre-schoolers books that celebrate same-sex relationships has filed suit alleging religious discrimination, wrongful termination, harassment and retaliation. The complaint (full text) in Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons Children's Center, LLC, (CA Super. Ct., filed 10/13/2022), filed in a California state trial court, alleges that plaintiff's Christian religious beliefs prevent her from promoting messages that support same-sex marriage. After an initial informal accommodation, the school's director, who took personal offense at plaintiff's religious beliefs, refused to grant plaintiff a formal religious accommodation.  As a prelude to her dismissal, plaintiff was forced to leave the school building mid-day in extremely hot weather.  Plaintiff was terminated after she refused the requirement that she receive diversity awareness training. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the law suit.

Religious Questioning Of Muslim Travelers By Border Officers Upheld

In Kariye v. Mayorkas, (CD CA, Oct. 12, 2022), three Muslim plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security alleging that border officers routinely and intentionally single out Muslim-American travelers to demand they answer religious questions. The court, in a 71-page opinion in its official format, first dismissed plaintiffs' Establishment Clause challenge. Applying the Supreme Court's test articulated in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court said in part:

The court finds substantial legal authority supporting the government's historically broad authority to implement security measures at the border.... Additionally, the court finds substantial authority holding that maintaining border security is a compelling government interest.

The court rejected plaintiffs' free exercise claim, finding that plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a substantial burden on their religious exercise. It additionally concluded that even if there was a substantial burden, officers' questioning was narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest in protecting borders and preventing potential terrorism.

The court also rejected freedom of association, retaliation, equal protection and RFRA challenges to practices of border officers.

Alternatives For Employees With Religious Exemptions From Vaccination Are Not Discriminatory

In Dollar v. Goleta Water District, (CD CA, Oct. 3, 2022), a California federal district court held that the COVID vaccination policy for employees of the Goleta Water District did not discriminate on the basis of religion against employees who obtained a religious exemption. Plaintiffs contended that the District's policy is discriminatory because it imposes special mask and testing requirements and requires authorization to enter certain buildings for plaintiffs because they have a religious exemption. The court said in part:

[P]laintiffs have not alleged that employees who receive exemptions on religious grounds are treated any differently from employees who receive exemptions on non-religious grounds. Instead, plaintiffs have only alleged that the policy treats them differently from other employees because of their vaccination status, not because of their religion.

City Employees Did Not Show Sincere Religious Objection To COVID Vaccine

In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, (ND CA, Sept. 23, 2022), a California federal district court dismissed a suit by two city employees who objected on religious grounds to the city's COVID vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Neither Plaintiff has demonstrated that their religious beliefs are sincere or that those beliefs conflict with receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. There are no grounds upon which to assert the mistaken conclusion that the FDA-approved vaccines contain fetal cells or are otherwise derived from murdered babies.... Feeling passionately about something or having a specific personal preference does not merit the status of a sincere religious belief....

The court denied a preliminary injunction under Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Law, also concluding: 

It is well-settled law that loss of employment does not constitute irreparable harm for purposes of an injunction....

Suit Challenges California's Linking Of Hinduism With Caste System

A Hindu advocacy organization has filed suit in a California federal district court challenging allegations in the California Civil Rights Department's enforcement actions against caste discrimination that link the caste system to Hinduism. The complaint (full text) in Hindu American Foundation, Inc. v. Kish, (ED CA, filed 9/20/2022), alleges in part:

[A] caste system or discrimination on its basis are in no way a legitimate part of Hindu beliefs, teachings, or practices. 

HAF vehemently opposes all types of discrimination; and takes great exception to the State of California defaming and demeaning all of Hinduism by attempting to conflate a discriminatory caste system with the Hindu religion. 

Worse, California defames Hinduism by doing what the U.S. Constitution says it cannot, assert a government right to resolve questions of religious doctrine....

As a result, the CRD’s violation of the First Amendment rights of all Hindu Americans ... would likely lead employers to actively  discriminate against Hindu and South Asian Americans in order to avoid the undefined maze of  legal uncertainty that would be California’s caste-discrimination bar....

Stopping caste-based discrimination is a worthy goal that directly furthers Hinduism’s belief in the equal and divine essence of all people. But wrongly tying Hindu beliefs and practices to the abhorrent practice of caste-discrimination undermines that goal, violates the First Amendment rights of all Hindu-Americans, and can only lead to a denial of due process and  equal protection to Americans based on their religious affiliation and national origin.

(See prior related posting.) Hindu American Foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

California Governor Signs New Laws Protecting Abortion Rights

Yesterday California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of 13 additional bills to strengthen abortion rights in the state.  According to a press release from his office, these laws will:

further protect people from legal retaliation and prohibit law enforcement and corporations from cooperating with out-of-state entities regarding lawful abortions in California, while also expanding access to contraception and abortion providers in California.

The press release details each of the new laws.

California Assisted Suicide Law Violates Free Speech rights Of Objecting Doctors

In Christian Medical & Dental Association v. Bonta, (CD CA, Sept. 2, 2022), a California federal district court held likely unconstitutional a provision in the California End of Life Option Act which requires doctors who refuse on conscience, moral or ethical grounds to participate in procedures set out by the act to nevertheless document in a patient's record the date of the patient's request for an aid-in-dying drug. This notation serves as one of two required requests by a patient before the patient may obtain the drug. The court rejected the argument that this violates the free exercise rights of medical providers who object on religious grounds, saying in part:

The court recognizes that Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs, and that compliance with the documentation requirements contained in Section 443.14(e)(2) infringes on the free exercise of their religion. However, under clearly established doctrine in Smith, Lukumi, and Fulton, strict scrutiny does not apply to a neutral and generally applicable law, like the Act here.

The court also rejected equal protection and due process challenges. However, the court did conclude that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their free speech challenges to the requirement, saying in part:

[T]he documentation requirement imposed by the Act “plainly alters the content” of non-participating health care providers’ speech.... The ultimate outcome of this requirement is that non-participating providers are compelled to participate in the Act through this documentation requirement, despite their objections to assisted suicide.

The court issued a preliminary injunction barring state enforcement of the requirement against objecting health care providers. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

California Must Allow Churches To Opt Out Of Abortion Coverage In Their Health Care Plans

In Foothill Church v. Watanabe, (ED CA, Aug. 25, 2022), a California federal district court held that the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) should have taken steps so that objecting churches could be exempt from the Department's requirement that health insurance policies cover abortion services. DMHC argued that only health care plans are subject to its regulation, so exemptions will be granted only to plans, not to employers. Subjecting plaintiffs' Free Exercise claim to strict scrutiny because the DMHC rule is subject to a system of individual exemptions and thus is not "generally applicable," the court said in part:

[T]he court assumes without deciding that the Director’s understanding of the scope of her regulatory authority, that she is limited to regulating health plans, is correct. Nonetheless, nothing in the statutory text explicitly precludes her from fielding requests for exemptions from religious claimants. Likewise, nothing appears to preclude the Director from directing the religious claimant’s plan to submit a revised evidence of coverage document comporting with the religious claimant’s belief to the DMHC for approval. The Director’s authority to give orders to a plan does not foreclose the authority to consider requests for those orders from others. In the end, the Director is still regulating the plan.

... The Director’s denial of the Churches’ request for exceptions to accommodate their religious beliefs, based solely on the fact that those requests did not originate with a plan, was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Last Defendant In Poway Synagogue Tax Fraud Scheme Sentenced

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California announced on Friday that attorney Elliot Adler, the eleventh and last individual being prosecuted for the tax fraud scheme connected with Chabad of Poway, was sentenced to one year and one day in prison, fined $20,000, and ordered to forfeit gold coins purchased with funds used in the fraud. According to the announcement:

Beginning at least as early as 2010 and continuing through October 2018, Adler participated in a so-called “90/10” tax scheme with Rabbi Goldstein. Specifically, Adler gave money to Rabbi Goldstein that purported to be a donation to Chabad of Poway. Goldstein then secretly funneled ninety percent of the funds back to Adler, keeping ten percent of the funds as his fee. None of the donated funds was actually given to the Chabad as a charitable donation. Adler then falsely claimed that the fraudulent donations were tax-deductible on his tax returns, allowing him to reduce his personal income tax liability by approximately $500,000 (cumulatively) for tax years 2011 through 2017.

(See prior related posting.)

Court Reverses Sanctions Imposed On Church For Violating COVID Orders

In People v. Calvary Chapel, San Jose, (CA App., Aug. 15, 2022), a California state appellate court annulled contempt orders imposed by trial courts and reversed trial court imposition of monetary sanctions which resulted from a church's refusal to comply with state COVID public health orders. The order restricted the holding and conduct of public gatherings. The court said in part:

[W]e conclude that the temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are facially unconstitutional pursuant to the recent guidance of the United States Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion in the context of public health orders that impact religious practice (see, e.g., Tandon v. Newsom (2021) ....) As the underlying orders which Calvary Chapel violated are void and unenforceable, we will annul the orders of contempt in their entirety and reverse the orders to pay monetary sanctions.

Advocates for Faith & Freedom issued a press release announcing the decision and reporting that Santa Clara County is still attempting to enforce $2.8 million in fines imposed for violation of county health orders.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Suit By Fellowship Of Christian Athletes On High School Rules

On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education. In the case, a California federal district court upheld a high school's non-discrimination policy for recognized student groups that precluded Fellowship of Christian Athletes from requiring its leaders to agree with and live in accordance with the group's Christian beliefs. (See prior posting.)

San Francisco Permit Requirement For Park Church Services Enjoined

In Stewart v. City and County of San Francisco, California, (ND CA, June 22, 2022), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a provision in the San Francisco Park Code requiring a permit for any religious event held in a public park involving 50 or more persons. The court found the provision to be a content-based restriction that triggers strict scrutiny, and concluded that it violates free speech and free exercise protections. However the court upheld a provision requiring a permit for events utilizing sound amplification equipment. Plaintiffs hold their weekly church services in public parks.

Suit Over Content Of Subway Tuna Sandwiches Moves Forward

In a case that is important to those whose religious beliefs prohibit consumption of meat or pork products, a California federal district court in Amin v. Subway Restaurants, Inc., (ND CA, July 7, 2022), refused to dismiss a suit alleging that Subway's tuna sandwiches contain non-tuna products. As reported by Reuters, the suit, alleging fraud and violations of California's consumer protection statutes, contends that DNA analyses of tuna from Subway indicates it contains other fish species, chicken, pork and cattle. According to the court:

Subway argues that any non-tuna DNA discovered when testing its tuna products must come from the eggs in mayonnaise or from cross-contact with other Subway ingredients.... Although it is possible that Subway’s explanations are the correct ones, it is also possible that these allegations refer to ingredients that a reasonable consumer would not reasonably expect to find in a tuna product.

ADA Does Not Justify Lower Priority For Employees With Religious, Rather Than Disability, Exemptions From Vaccine Mandate

In UnifySCC v. Cody, (ND CA, June 39, 2022), a California federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of one portion of a California county's complex policy on accommodating county employees who have exemptions from the county's COVID vaccine mandate. While upholding significant portions of the county's policy, the court found Free Exercise problems with one part of the arrangement. Exempt employees in high-risk job settings were placed on administrative leave, with the possibility of being transferred to a lower risk job setting. The county gave priority in obtaining a lower-risk position to those with medical and disability exemptions over those with religious exemptions, arguing that this was required by the Americans With Disabilities Act and comparable California regulations. However, the court said in part:

Even if federal or California disability law requires priority consideration of disabled applicants for open government positions, the County cannot grant that class of individuals priority consideration over those with religious exemptions in violation of the First Amendment....

The different reasons for an exemption do not affect the amount of risk the exempt employees pose to other employees or the populations the County serves. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that while the general Accommodations framework is facially and operationally neutral, the part of the framework that prioritizes employees in high-risk roles with secular exemptions over those with religious exemptions for consideration for vacant County positions is not neutral....

Another Challenge To School District's Vaccine Mandate Fails

 Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, (SD CA, June 21. 2022), is another attempt by parents and students to challenge the school district's COVID vaccine mandate that does not provide for religious exemptions. The 9th Circuit last year ultimately upheld the school district's prior policy, and the Circuit denied en banc review. The court said in part:

Even Plaintiffs concede that substantively, the new COVID-19 vaccinate mandate is largely the same as before, with a new implementation timeline.... Plaintiffs’ new claims in the FAC are still premised on violations of the Free Exercise Clause, just as the claim in the original complaint was. Accordingly, the Court is bound by the law of this case.

High School Rules Barring Religious Requirements For Christian Student Organization Leaders Is Upheld

In Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, June 1, 2022), a California federal district court upheld a high school's non-discrimination policy for recognized student groups that precluded Fellowship of Christian Athletes from requiring its leaders to agree with and live in accordance with the group's Christian beliefs. In rejecting challenges to the policy, the court said in part:

[P]olicies meant “to ensure that the school’s resources are open to all interested students without regard to special protected classifications” are similar to the antidiscrimination laws intended to ensure equal access that the Supreme Court has concluded are viewpoint and content neutral.... The fact that the Policy allows clubs to set “non-discriminatory criteria” but not criteria based on religion, sexual orientation, or other protected classifications does not mean the Policy aims at the suppression of speech....

Plaintiffs have not shown that the Policy, as written, clearly violates their right to free exercise of their religion. The District’s Policy applies to all ASB student clubs. It does not “impose special disabilities” on Plaintiffs or other religious groups, but instead affects those groups in ways incidental to the general application of the Policy....