Mandatory LGBTQ Anti-Discrimination Training Did Not Violate Title VII

In Zdunski v. Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus BOCES, (WD NY, Feb. 16, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed Title VII and state law religious discrimination claims brought by Raymond Zdunski, an account clerk at the Board of Cooperative Educational Services.  BOCES required all of its employees to attend LGBTQ anti-discrimination training after one of its employees requested accommodation for gender transition.  Zdunski refused, contending that the training was aimed at changing his religious beliefs on gender and sexuality and that attending would violate his religious beliefs. He was fired for insubordination. The court said in part:

Mr. Zdunski has not presented any evidence that the trainings were directed toward him or other Christian employees in a discriminatory manner....

Here, Mr. Zdunski's proposed accommodation—that he be excused from the mandatory LGBTQ anti-discrimination training—amounts to more than a de minimis cost to his employer's business operations. BOCES is bound by New York State law to provide annual anti-discrimination trainings for all employees and to maintain "an environment free of discrimination and harassment." See N.Y. Educ. Law Tit. 1 Art. 2 §§ 10, 13. Allowing Mr. Zdunski's requested accommodation to forego anti-discrimination trainings would have put his employer in the position of violating the training requirements set forth in DASA. An accommodation that would require an employer to run afoul of state law constitutes a substantial hardship and would be more than a de minimis cost to the employer.

Department of Education Reaffirms BYU's Exemption From LGBTQ Anti-Discrimination Requirements

The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, issued a determination letter (full text) on Feb. 8, 2022, dismissing a complaint filed by LGBTQ students at Brigham Young University.  The University bans same-sex romantic relationships among its students.  The OCR letter affirms that the University is exempt from the non-discrimination provisions of Title IX:

to the extent that the application of those provisions would conflict with the religious tenets of the University's controlling religious organization that pertain to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The University issued a press release announcing the OCR determination. Salt Lake Tribune reports on the determination and reactions to it.

Trial Set On Why Street Preachers Were Removed From Gay Pride Event

In Waldrop v. City of Johnson City, Tennessee,(ED TN, Jan. 26, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court, in a case on remand from the 6th Circuit, set for trial a suit by two street preachers who were removed from a Pride event. The court said in part:

A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the officers removed Plaintiffs from Founders Park, and if so, whether they did so for a content-neutral or content-based reason.

NY City Council Member Loses Claim This His Expulsion Was Because Of Hostility To His Christian Anti-LGBT Views

In King v. City of New York, (SD NY, Jan. 14, 2022), a New York federal district court rejected a group of 1st and 14th Amendment, as well as state law, challenges by former New York City Council member Andy King to his expulsion from City Council.  He was removed from Council because of alleged ethical misconduct. However King claims that the true motivation of the Council members who voted to expel him was their dissatisfaction with his routine opposition to pro-LGBT issues stemming from his Christian beliefs that sex between members of the same sex is a sin. The court rejected both his free speech and free exercise claims.  Discussing King's free exercise claims, the court said in part:

In support of his Free Exercise claim, King relies on the same factual allegations as those that buttress his Free Speech claim-- namely, Defendants' hostility toward his political views on LGBT issues. But these allegations do not raise the plausible inference that Defendants acted out of hostility against King on the basis of his Christian faith.

European Court Dismisses Challenge To Baker's Refusal To Supply Cake With Pro-Gay Marriage Inscription

In a much-awaited decision, the European Court of Human Rights managed to avoid dealing directly with the central question in a case pitting LGBTQ rights against religious freedom rights of owners of commercial establishments. In Lee v. United Kingdom, (ECHR, Jan. 6, 2022), Gareth Lee, a gay man, ordered a cake from a bakery in Belfast. He asked for the cake to be decorated with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage."  He planned to take it to a private event being held to mark the end of Northern Ireland Anti-Homophobia and Transphobia Week and being held to gather political support for pending legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. The bakery, Ashers Baking Company, rejected the order because the company owners' Christian religious beliefs were opposed to same-sex marriage.

Lee filed suit in a county court in Northern Ireland claiming a violation of Northern Ireland's Equality Act and its Fair Employment and Treatment Order, which, among other things, bar sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of goods or services and discrimination on the basis of religious belief or political opinion. The case wound its way up to the U.K.'s Supreme Court which concluded that there was no sexual orientation discrimination because the bakery would have refused to supply the cake with that inscription to anyone. It also rejected the political opinion discrimination claim.

Lee appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. In yesterday's decision, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that Lee "did not invoke his Convention rights expressly at any point in the domestic proceedings.  Instead he formulated his claim by reference to [Northern Ireland's domestic law]." By failing to assert his rights under the European Convention in the courts of Northern Ireland, Lee failed to exhaust his domestic remedies.  The court said in part:

75.  ... As the Supreme Court of the United States pointed out in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd, these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.... This is particularly so in Northern Ireland, where there is a large and strong faith community, where the LGBTIQ community has endured a history of considerable discrimination and intimidation, and where conflict between the rights of these two communities has long been a feature of public debate....

Reuters reports on the decision. [Thanks to several readers for alerting me to the decision.]

European Court Says Anti-LGBT Mob Led By Priest and Others Violated European Convention

In Women's Initiatives Supporting Group and Others v. Georgia, (ECHR, Dec. 16, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Georgia's failure to protect LGBT demonstrators from mob violence violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 prohibits "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."  Demonstrators who were marking International Day Against Homophobia were met with violent counter-demonstrators from a so-called Prayer Rally led in part by a prominent clergyman of the Georgian Orthodox Church. Counter demonstrators included priests and parishes from various churches in Tbilisi. The Court issued a press release summarizing the decision.

Ministry Designated As "Hate Group" Asks Supreme Court To Reconsider "Actual Malice" Test For Defamation

A petition for certiorari (full text) has been filed with the U.S. Supreme court in Coral Ridge Media Ministries, Inc. v. Southern Poverty Law Center, (cert. filed 11/24/2021). In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Alabama federal district court's dismissal of a defamation and religious discrimination suit brought by a Christian ministry and media company. (See prior posting.)  Coral Ridge is designated as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of Coral Ridge's religious beliefs opposing LGBTQ conduct. The court dismissed the defamation claim because plaintiff failed to adequately plead actual malice (i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth). The certiorari petition asks the Supreme Court to reconsider the actual malice standard set out in New York Times v. Sullivan. Los Angeles Blade reports on the filing of the cert. petition.

Pastor Sues Real Estate Organization Over Ethics Rule On Hate Speech

Suit was filed last week in a Montana state trial court against a local chapter of the National Organization of Realtors by Pastor Brandon Huber who is also a part-time realtor challenging the National Organization's Code of Ethics provision that prohibits realtors from using "harassing speech, hate speech, epithets, or slurs based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity." The Code of Ethics provision applies to all activities of a realtor, not just to those related to real estate transactions. 

The complaint (full text) in Huber v. Missoula Organization of Realtors, Inc., (MT Dist. Ct., filed 11/3/2021), states that the Missoula Organization of Realtors has scheduled an ethics hearing for Huber after a complaint regarding his use of language about gays and lesbians. Huber says that his church merely ended its partnership with a summer kid's lunch program when it discovered that LGBTQ Pride inserts that violated the church's religious teachings were included with the lunches. The church instead began its own lunch program, and explained its decision in a letter to its congregation. The complaint alleges that the ethics provision is void for vagueness and that the action by the realtors' organization violates Art. II, Sec. 4 of the Montana Constitution which provides:

... Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas.

Volokh Conspiracy reports on the lawsuit.

Religious Exemptions From Title VII Allow LGBTQ Employment Discrimination

In Bear Creek Bible Church v. EEOC, (ND TX, Oct. 31, 2021), a Christian church and a Christian-owned business filed a class action in a Texas federal district court seeking religious exemptions from provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's Bostock case, Title VII's ban on sex discrimination prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The court, in a 70-page opinion, held that as to churches and similar religious employers, the religious organization exemption in Title VII allows more than just religious discrimination:

[A] religious employer is not liable under Title VII when it refuses to employ an individual because of sexual orientation or gender expression, based on religious observance, practice, or belief.

As to businesses that assert a religious objection to homosexual and transgender behavior, the court held that Title VII substantially burdens their religious exercise in conducting business, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as of the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise and Freedom of Association protections.

The court went on to rule on several other questions which the Supreme Court's Bostock decision arguably left unresolved. It concluded: 

• Title VII bars discrimination against bisexuals, just as it does against gays, lesbians and transgender individuals. 
• Policies that require employees to refrain from certain sexual activities, including sodomy, premarital sex, adultery, and other sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman are permitted because they do not apply exclusively to bar homosexual conduct.
• Sex-specific dress codes based on biological sex are permitted because they apply evenly to those who identify with their biological sex and to transgender individuals.
• Policies that prohibit employees from obtaining genital modification surgery or hormone treatment for gender dysphoria violate Title VII.
• Title VII allows employers to have policies that promote privacy, such as requiring the use of separate bathrooms on the basis of biological sex.

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

LGBTQ Discrimination In Placing Unaccompanied Minor Refugees Is Challenged

Suit was filed earlier this week in federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the Office of Refugee Resettlement's contracting with religiously-sponsored agencies (including the USCCB) that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in providing foster parents for unaccompanied minor refugees. The complaint (full text) in Easter v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D DC, filed 10/13/2021), alleges in part:

Some ... organizations ... provide taxpayer-funded foster placement services on the federal government’s behalf in a discriminatory manner that categorically excludes lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from participating as prospective foster parents. They contend that the organizations’ religious beliefs justify denying lesbian, gay, and bisexual people from participating equally in the government program that the agencies receive taxpayer funds to administer....

The United States Constitution constrains the government by requiring freedom without favor and equality without exception in performing its functions. And what the government cannot do directly, it may not do indirectly.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Britain's Court of Appeal Rejects Christian Agency's Ban On Same-Sex Couples Becoming Foster Parents

In The Queen (On the Application of Cornerstone (Northeast) Adoption and Fostering Services, Ltd. v. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills (OFSTED), (EWCA, Sept. 24, 2021), England's Court of Appeal held that Cornerstone, a Christian foster care agency, violated the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 when it required clients with which it placed children to:

Set a high standard in personal morality which recognises that God's gift of sexual intercourse is to be enjoyed exclusively within Christian marriage; abstain from all sexual sins including immodesty, the viewing of pornography, fornication, adultery, cohabitation, homosexual behaviour and wilful violation of your birth sex.

The court said in part:

The detrimental impact on society and on individuals of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation has led the law to set a demanding standard of justification.... [W]e should be slow to accept that prohibiting fostering agencies from discriminating against homosexuals is a disproportionate limitation on their right to manifest their religion....

... [T]here can be no doubting the value of its work or the sincerity of [Cornerstone's] motives. However, in order to justify a policy of this nature, it needed to provide credible evidence that there would otherwise be a seriously detrimental impact on carers and children. The evidence it actually advanced did not go beyond the level of general assertion.... [W]hile I would not rule out the possibility of an organisation in this position putting up a substantial evidence-based case on justification, Cornerstone simply did not do that....

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

After 20 Years Of Litigation, Suit On Religion In Child Placement Is Settled And Dismissed

This week, a Kentucky federal district court dismissed the remaining Establishment Clause claim in Pedreira v. Sunrise Children's Services, Inc., (WD KY, Sept. 8, 2021), after both plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The case, which involves a challenge to Kentucky's funding of treatment for abused and neglected children in facilities operated by Sunrise Children's Services, a Baptist organization, has been in litigation for 20 years. On Sept. 9, Americans United announced that in January the parties had entered an 18-page, single-spaced Settlement Agreement (full text) which sets out in detail provisions to prevent children in child care facilities and foster home placements from having unwanted religious activities imposed and assures respect for a child's religious preference.  It also requires respect for a child's sexual orientation and gender identity. Parts of the settlement were required to be incorporated into state regulations. A previous settlement agreement had been held unenforceable. (See prior posting.)

20 State AG's Sue Feds Over LGBTQ Anti-Discrimination Interpretations

A 20-state coalition led by Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slattery filed suit in a Tennessee federal district court challenging interpretations of anti-discrimination laws by the Department of Education and the EEOC. In response to an Executive Order issued by President Biden, these two agencies issued interpretations protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint (full text) in State of  Tennessee v. U.S. Department of Education, (ED TN, filed 8/30/2021), contends in part:

[T]he Department of Education ... and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ..., each flouting procedural requirements in their rush to overreach, issued “interpretations” of federal antidiscrimination law far beyond what the statutory text, regulatory requirements, judicial precedent, and the Constitution permit.

The relief requested by plaintiffs particularly focuses on concerns over transgender rights under Title VII and Title IX. 

Tennessee's Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Cert. Filed In Case On Washington State's Religious Exemption From Anti-Discrimination Law

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Seattle's Union Gospel Mission v. Woods, (cert. filed 8/2/2020). In the case, Washington state's Supreme Court held that, as applied, the religious and non-profit exemption to the state's anti-discrimination law may be unconstitutional. Plaintiff in the case was denied employment as a staff attorney by a Christian legal aid program for the homeless because he was in a same-sex relationship. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

11th Circuit: Exclusion of Anti-LGBT Group From Charitable Donation Program Is Upheld

In Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (11th Cir., July 28, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Alabama federal district court's dismissal of a defamation and religious discrimination suit brought by a Christian ministry and media company.  At issue is Amazon's customer-choice charitable donation program which excludes as possible beneficiaries organizations that are designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Coral Ridge was listed as a hate group because of its religious beliefs opposing LGBTQ conduct. The court dismissed the defamation claim because plaintiff failed to adequately plead actual malice (i.e., knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth). The court dismissed Coral Ridge's claim of religious discrimination in violation of the public accommodation provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, saying in part:

[T]he district court was correct in finding that Coral Ridge’s interpretation of Title II would violate the First Amendment by essentially forcing Amazon to donate to organizations it does not support.... 

Coral Ridge’s proposed interpretation of Title II would infringe on Amazon’s First Amendment right to engage in expressive conduct and would not further Title II’s purpose....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Israel's Supreme Court Extends Surrogacy Rights To Same-Sex Couples and Single Men

As reported by AP and The Forward, Israel's Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice yesterday ruled that the government must allow same-sex couples and single men to become parents through surrogate mothers on a equal basis with heterosexual couples and single women. Its ruling takes effect in 6 months, in order to give time for the creation of professional guidelines. AP explains:

The court ruled in 2020 that a surrogacy law, which had expanded access to single women but excluded gay couples, “disproportionately harmed the right to equality and the right to parenthood” and was unlawful.

It gave the government a year to draw up a new law, but parliament failed to meet the deadline.

[Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

State Department Will Accommodate LGBTQI+ Citizens In Passport Designations

The U.S. State Department in a press release dated June 30 announced: 

the Department will be taking further steps toward ensuring the fair treatment of LGBTQI+ U.S. citizens, regardless of their gender or sex, by beginning the process of updating our procedures for the issuance of U.S. Passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad (CRBA).

Most immediately, we will be updating our procedures to allow applicants to self-select their gender as “M” or “F” and will no longer require medical certification if an applicant’s self-selected gender does not match the gender on their other citizenship or identity documents.  The Department has begun moving towards adding a gender marker for non-binary, intersex, and gender non-conforming persons applying for a passport or CRBA.  We are evaluating the best approach to achieve this goal.

TLDEF issued a press release reacting to the announcement.

Indian Court Orders Wide-Ranging Protections For LGBTIA+ Community

In an unusual 107-page opinion earlier this month, a Justice of the Madras High Court in India handed down a wide ranging series of directives to be undertaken by various government agencies to protect the safety of the LGBTQIA+ community, and to eliminate prejudice against them.  In Sushma v. Commissioner of Police, (Madras High Ct., June 7, 2021), Justice Venkatesh set out at length the process he went through to educate himself on the challenges faced by the LGBTQIA+ community. The decision says in part:

[I]t is no longer open to doubt that Article 21 of the Constitution protects and guarantees to all individuals, complete autonomy over the most intimate decisions to their personal life, including their choice of partners. Such choices are protected by Article 21 of the Constitution as the right to life and liberty encompasses the right to sexual autonomy and freedom of expression. That apart, sexual autonomy is an essential aspect of the right of privacy which is another right recognised and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. LGBTQIA+ persons, like cis persons, are entitled to their privacy and have a right to lead a dignified existence, which includes their choice of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender presentation, gender expression and choice of partner thereof.

The case was brought originally by a lesbian couple seeking protection from their parents, and police with whom their parents had filed missing person complaints, interfering with their relationship. Jurist also reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Social Services In Its Refusal To Certify Same-Sex Couples As Foster Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court today in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia,  (Sup. Ct., June 17, 2021), held unanimously that Philadelphia has violated the free exercise rights of Catholic Social Services by refusing to contract with CSS to provide foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the court which was joined by five other justices, avoiding the question of whether to overrule Employment Division v. Smith. The Court said in part:

Smith held that laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable.... CSS urges us to overrule Smith, and the concurrences in the judgment argue in favor of doing so.... But we need not revisit that decision here. This case falls outside Smith because the City has burdened the religious exercise of CSS through policies that do not meet the requirement of being neutral and generally applicable....

Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature....

[S]ection 3.21 incorporates a system of individual exemptions, made available in this case at the “sole discretion” of the Commissioner. The City has made clear that the Commissioner “has no intention of granting an exception” to CSS.... But the City “may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to cases of ‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” Smith, 494 U. S., at 884....

The question, then, is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS. 

Once properly narrowed, the City’s asserted interests are insufficient.

Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kavanaugh and (except for one paragraph) by Justice Breyer, saying in part:

In my view, the textual and structural arguments against Smith are more compelling. As a matter of text and structure, it is difficult to see why the Free Exercise Clause—lone among the First Amendment freedoms—offers nothing more than protection from discrimination.

Yet what should replace Smith? The prevailing assumption seems to be that strict scrutiny would apply whenever a neutral and generally applicable law burdens religious exercise. But I am skeptical about swapping Smith’s categorical antidiscrimination approach for an equally categorical strict scrutiny regime, particularly when this Court’s resolution of conflicts between generally applicable laws and other First Amendment rights—like speech and assembly—has been much more nuanced.

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed a 77-page opinion concurring in the judgment, arguing that the Smith case should be overruled. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and contending that Smith should be overruled.

CNBC reports on the decision. 

DOE Says Title IX Bans LGBT Discrimination

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights yesterday issued a Notice of Interpretation (full text) extending Title IX's non- discrimination provisions to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. This reverses a DOE interpretation issued by the Trump Administration just days before the change in Administrations. (See prior posting.) The new Interpretative memo states in part:

[T]he Department has determined that the interpretation of sex discrimination set out by the Supreme Court in Bostock—that discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity—properly guides the Department’s interpretation of discrimination “on the basis of sex” under Title IX and leads to the conclusion that Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity....

Consistent with the analysis above, OCR will fully enforce Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the Department.

The Interpretation notes in a footnote, however:

Educational institutions that are controlled by a religious organization are exempt from Title IX to the extent that compliance would not be consistent with the organization’s religious tenets. See 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3).

Deseret News reports on the DOE's action.