Challenges To New Jersey's Assisted Suicide Act Are Rejected

In Petro v. Platkin, (NJ App., June 10, 2022), a New Jersey state appellate court dismissed constitutional challenges to New Jersey's Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.  It held the plaintiffs-- a terminally ill resident, a physician and a pharmacist-- lack standing because their participation in the procedures permitted by the Act are completely voluntary.  The court also rejected claims that the statute violates the "single object" requirement of the state constitution or state constitutional provisions on the right to enjoy and defend life. It also rejected 1st Amendment free exercise claims, finding that the statute is a neutral law of general applicability.

New Jersey Diocese Settles Abuse Claims Of 300 Survivors For $87.5M

 The Catholic Diocese of Camden, New Jersey announced yesterday:

The Diocese ... and the Official Committee of Tort Claimant Creditors ... which represents the interests of approximately 300 survivors of sexual abuse, have reached a settlement which will provide for the establishment of a substantial trust to compensate survivors of sexual abuse within the Diocese. The trust will be funded with $87.5 million from the Diocese and related Catholic entities over a four-year period. The settlement also includes maintaining or enhancing the protocols for the protection of children, which were first implemented by the Diocese in 2002. The settlement remains subject to Bankruptcy Court approval.

AP reports on the settlement.

3rd Circuit: Foster Parents Have Religious Discrimination Claim For License Suspension Over Their Anti-LGBT Views

In Lasche v. State of New Jersey, (3rd Cir, March 1, 2022), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's dismissal of a suit by former foster parents who alleged that their free exercise rights were infringed when their foster care license was suspended because of their religious opposition to same-sex marriage and their religious belief that homosexual conduct is sinful. The court remanded for further proceedings plaintiffs' claims under 42 USC §1983 and §1985(3).  It also remanded for further proceedings their claim that defendants' action violated New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, finding that the state's Division of Child Protection and Permanency is a "place of public accommodation" under that law.

Synagogue Can Move Ahead With Damage Claim for Zoning Denial

In Khal Anshei Tallymawr, Inc. v. Township of Toms River, New Jersey, (D NJ, Dec. 3, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court allowed an Orthodox Jewish congregation to move ahead with its free exercise, RLUIPA, equal protection and state law claims for damages growing out of the zoning denial of a permit to construct a synagogue in an area zoned rural residential. However, since subsequently the challenged regulations have been amended to permit houses of worship as conditional uses in residential zones, the court denied prospective relief while plaintiff determines whether the zoning board will now permit the construction. The zoning amendments were enacted pursuant to the settlement of a RLUIPA lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice. (See prior posting.)

3rd Circuit Hears Arguments On School's Presentation of Material On Islam

On Sept. 23, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Hilsenrath v. School District of the Chathams (audio of full oral arguments). In the case, a New Jersey federal district court held that the Chathams' 7th grade World Cultures and Geography course presentation of material about Islam did not violate the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports in detail on the oral arguments, saying that the judges "posed tough questions to both sides." [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

No Violation In Refusing To Accommodate Prosecutor's Religious Request For Permanent Remote Work

In Leone v. Essex County Prosecutor's Office, (D NJ, Sept. 23, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court ruled against an assistant prosecutor in the Essex County Prosecutor's Office who sought a religious accommodation that would allow him to continue to work from home indefinitely as pandemic remote-work schedules were phased out. Plaintiff claims that his religion "'requires him to pray, including aloud and spontaneously, throughout each day,' preferably in his backyard to access 'peace and solitude.'" Plaintiff rejected numerous proposed accommodations that would allow him to pray while at his office. The court applied rational basis review to plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim, concluding that defendants had articulated "a myriad of reasons" justifying their denial of plaintiff's requested accommodation. It also concluded that there had not been a violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Challenge To Superseded COVID Order Dismissed As Moot

In Solid Rock Baptist Church v. Murphy, (D NJ, Aug. 16, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed as moot a challenge to a now superseded COVID-19 executive order by the governor of New Jersey limiting the number of people who could attend an indoor religious service. The court also held it will abstain under the Younger doctrine.

Court Enjoins Enforcement of NJ Township's Ordinances Aimed At Orthodox Jewish Community

In WR Property LLC v. Township of Jackson, (D NJ, May 5, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of two township ordinances which effectively prevent construction of Jewish schools in most of Jackson Township's residential zones and which interfere with constructing of eruvim  (symbolic religious boundary markings). The court concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise and equal protection claims, finding sufficient evidence that the ordinances were enacted with a discriminator purpose. Both the Department of Justice and the state of New Jersey have previously sued the township over its targeting of Orthodox Jews.

Catholic School Campus Minister's Claims Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Simon v. Saint Dominic Academy, (D NJ, April 28, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court applied the ministerial exception doctrine as defined in recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent to dismiss statutory and contract-based claims by the former Chairperson of the Religious Department and Campus Minister at a women's Catholic high school. Plaintiff was terminated the day after she returned from a leave due to a motor vehicle accident.  She contends that she was dismissed because of her age, disability, and whistleblowing activities. The court said in part:

Plaintiff pleads that she was replaced by a younger individual who was not qualified to teach religion.... Plaintiff’s allegations ... will require the Court to second guess SDA’s decision to terminate a minister, which is precisely what the ministerial exception is intended to prohibit and will necessarily entangle the Court in internal church governance.

New Jersey Sues Township Alleging Anti-Jewish Zoning Actions

New Jersey's Attorney General yesterday announced that the state has filed a lawsuit against Jackson Township (NJ) alleging that in response to residents who have complained about the number of Orthodox Jews moving in, the Township has adopted discriminatory zoning ordinances and enforcement practices. The complaint (full text) in Grewal v. Jackson Township, (NJ Super. Ct., filed 4/27/2021) alleges that New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination has been violated and reads in part:

Defendants have exercised their zoning authority to intentionally target Orthodox Jewish religious practices and rituals, such as communal prayer, the erection of sukkahs, and the establishment of yeshivas and eruvim. They have exercised their zoning authority to enact ordinances for the purpose of deterring Orthodox Jews from building and operating religious schools, as well as the dormitories associated with those schools within the Township. And they have exercised their authority by discriminatorily investigating alleged violations of Township ordinances by Orthodox Jews, while acknowledging that resident complaints have been “exaggerated” and that significant resources have been wasted on enforcement without the discovery of any significant ordinance violations.

Insider NJ reports on the lawsuit.

Justice Department Announces Settlement of RLUIPA Suit Against New Jersey Town

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has filed a proposed consent decree reflecting an agreement with the Township of Toms River, New Jersey. If approved by the court the decree will settle a RLUIPA lawsuit that was filed against the Township:

The complaint alleges that since 2009, Toms River has enacted a series of revisions to its zoning code—including a ten-acre parcel minimum requirement—which greatly reduced both the number of zoning districts in which houses of worship can locate and the number of sites available for houses of worship. These restrictions have had a particular impact on the Township’s Orthodox Jewish population, who, because of their faith and religious traditions, tend to worship at small houses of worship which they walk to and from on the Sabbath and holidays.....

As part of the consent decree, the Township will revise its zoning code to: reduce the minimum acreage required for a house of worship ... to two acres; allow houses of worship as-of-right in certain zoning districts; allow smaller houses of worship to be located on minor collector roads; and treat houses of worship on comparable terms to nonreligious places of assembly....

Discrimination Claim By Muslim Employee of Sheriff's Office Is Dismissed

In Domino v. County of Essex, (D NJ, Feb. 11, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed, without prejudice, a religious discrimination and hostile work environment claim brought by an African American Muslim male who was employed by the Bureau of Criminal Identification in the Essex County (NJ) Sheriff's Office. Plaintiff complained that a series of actions by the sheriff that variously ordered no beards, limited the length of beards and required documentation from his Imam of plaintiff's religious observance infringed his rights under various statutes and constitutional provisions. The court dismissed plaintiff's Title VII claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It dismissed his equal protection claim for failure to allege a discriminatory purpose. It also dismissed claims under New Jersey civil rights laws.

Firing Only Unmarried Pregnant Teachers Is Not Proper Enforcement of Catholic School's Morals Code

 In Crisitello v. St. Theresa School, (NJ App., Nov. 19, 2020), a New Jersey state appellate court reversed the dismissal of a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought against a Catholic school by one of its former teachers. The court summarized its holding:

In this action brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, we are asked to determine whether a parochial school's knowledge of the pregnancy of an unmarried lay teacher, who started as a teacher's aide for toddlers, later taught art, and had no responsibility for religious instruction, can serve as the nondiscriminatory basis for the teacher's termination for violating the school's morals code, where the school never made any effort to determine whether any of its other employees have violated the school's prohibition against "immoral conduct" that is allegedly incorporated into each employees' terms of employment. We now hold that knowledge or mere observation of an employee's pregnancy alone is not a permissible basis to detect violations of the school's policy and terminate an employee.

Bridgewater Courier News reports on the decision.

New Jersey School's Presentation of Islam Did Not Violate Establishment Clause

 In Hilsenrath v. School District of the Chathams, (D NJ, Nov. 12, 2020), a New Jersey federal district court held that the 7th grade World Cultures and Geography course presentation of material about Islam did not violate the Establishment Clause.  The court held that a nominal damages claim is sufficient to give plaintiff standing to challenge the course material. The court said in part:

Here, the World Cultures course includes similar units on, for example, Hinduism and Buddhism, in which students watch videos on those religions to understand their tenets and practices.... A reasonable observer would not perceive an endorsement of Islam when the course also presented other religions in a similar manner. Further, Islam is introduced as part of a unit on the Middle East and North Africa in a course covering geography and world cultures, so it is presented in conjunction with nonreligious material about a region of the world....

This case falls into the category of those in which schools permissibly asked students to “read, discuss, and think” about a religion.

TAPinto reports on the decision.

New Jersey COVID Limits On Indoor Church Services Are Upheld

In Robinson v. Murphy, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185070 ( NJ, Oct. 2, 2020), a New Jersey federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction in a suit challenging COVID-19 Orders of the governor of New Jersey. The Orders limit the permitted number of worshipers at indoor religious services and require masks at services. Rejecting free exercise challenges, the court said in part:

[T]he challenged measures are subject to rational basis review because they are generally applicable and neutral laws that burden secular and religious activity alike. The State's policies are designed to combat the spread of COVID-19 in New Jersey given the current understanding of the virus which the Court finds is undoubtedly a legitimate governmental interest....

Furthermore, ... the laws are not substantially underinclusive requiring the application of strict scrutiny, as the indoor gatherings restrictions contain similar exceptions for religious purposes and for secular purposes, indoor religious gatherings have higher maximum capacities than secular indoor gatherings, and, as Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge, there are both feasibility and religious purpose exceptions included in the mask requirements.

Plaintiffs, a priest and a rabbi, had also argued that the orders violate the Establishment Clause:

Plaintiffs assert that the orders violate the Establishment Clause because Defendants are attempting to dictate the precise manner in which Plaintiffs and their congregants worship. They further contend that "by mandating crude and medically useless face coverings," Defendants have made it difficult to say mass or teach the Jewish faith.... The Court finds that the indoor gatherings restrictions and mask requirements pass constitutional muster.

The court, in addition, rejected free speech, equal protection and due process challenges.

Two Catholic Dioceses File For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Reorganzation

In the face of sex abuse lawsuits filed after states enacted legislation reviving previously time-barred claims, on Oct. 1 two more Catholic dioceses filed for bankruptcy reorganization under Chapter 11. 

The Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York (covering Long Island) issued a press release and a letter from Bishop John Barres. The letter said in part:

[I]n the year since the passage of the Child Victims Act, more than 200 lawsuits alleging sexual abuse have been filed against the Diocese of Rockville Centre. What became clear is that the Diocese could not continue to carry out its spiritual, charitable and educational missions while also having to shoulder the increasingly heavy burden of litigation expenses associated with these cases.

Filing for Chapter 11, we believe, is the only way for the Diocese to ensure a fair and equitable outcome for everyone involved.... 

During this period of restructuring, most Diocesan operations and ministries will continue without interruption.... 

Since the parishes and schools of the Diocese of Rockville Centre are separate legal entities, they are not included in this Chapter 11 filing. But it is also the case that after Chapter 11, the Diocese will have fewer financial resources to help struggling schools and parishes.

CNN reports on the filing, noting that this is the largest U.S. diocese to file for bankruptcy.

The Diocese of Camden, New Jersey issued a letter from Bishop Dennis Sullivan as well as an FAQ document and a summary of developments. The Bishop's letter reads in part:

The effects of the pandemic, which have curtailed our revenue and deeply impacted our parishioners and neighbors, were further compounded by the over $8 million we have paid out this year through the New Jersey Independent Victims Compensation Program to victims of clergy abuse, money which we have had to borrow. Additionally, the recent repeal of the statute of limitations has resulted in over fifty lawsuits being filed against the diocese involving long-ago claims of abuse. If it were just the pandemic, or just the costs of the Victims Compensation Program, we could likely weather the financial impact; however, the combination of these factors has made that impracticable. Because of this, today I announce that the Diocese of Camden is filing for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Bloomberg News reports on the filing.

Consent Decree Allows Construction of Chabad House

 A consent decree was entered this week in United States v. Borough of  Woodcliff Lake, (D NJ, Sept. 15, 2020), ordering the Borough to grant zoning variances that will permit construction of a Chabad synagogue. The decree, citing RLUIPA, orders zoning approvals in accordance with a site plan approved in the settlement of a parallel private action. The consent decree also contains provisions to assure future compliance with RLUIPA.  NJ.com reports on the consent decree. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

New Jersey COVID-19 Limits On Indoor Church Services Upheld

In Solid Rock Baptist Church v. Murphy, (D NJ, Aug.  20, 2020), a New Jersey federal district court rejected a church's challenge to the limits on indoor worship services imposed in New Jersey governor's COVID-19 orders,  The court said in part:

Although Plaintiffs have made a compelling case that the Executive Orders were crafted with religious indifference, the Court may not invalidate the executive orders on those grounds alone. In the end, Plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that the restrictions on indoor gatherings were crafted with religious animus, have been applied unequally, or lack a rational relationship to a legitimate government objective....

Plaintiffs are rightfully disillusioned that the State has not prioritized indoor religious activity to the same degree as outdoor social justice protests. The State’s apathy to sincerely held religious beliefs, alone, however, does not establish unequal treatment as it pertains to indoor gatherings. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Executive Orders, as they pertain to large indoor gatherings, are not facially neutral and generally applicable, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits.

New Suit Charges Former Cardinal McCarrick With Sexual Abuse and Dioceses With Negligence

Suit was filed in a New Jersey state court this week against two New Jersey Catholic Dioceses, other Catholic entities, and former Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick .  The complaint (full text) in JA/GG Doe 14 v. Diocese of Metuchen, (NJ Super, filed 7/21/2020), charges McCarrick with sexual battery and the Dioceses and schools with negligent training, supervision and retention. A news conference by the lawyers who filed the lawsuit described the suit as:

... [A] new lawsuit filed under the New Jersey Child Sexual Abuse Act (part of the New Jersey Victims’ Rights Bill), by a survivor who was sexually abused by infamous serial sexual predator and former Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick as part of McCarrick’s sordid beach house child sex ring;

... Plaintiff, then a teenager, was groomed, manipulated and coerced by McCarrick into participating in McCarrick’s sex ring along with other kids;

... McCarrick orchestrated and directed the sexual abuse of the Plaintiff by three other priests named in the complaint.

Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.

Court Rejects Claim of Retaliation Because of Foster Parents' Religious Beliefs

In Lasche v. State of New Jersey, (D NJ, June 4, 2020), a New Jersey federal district court rejected claims by a couple who were formerly foster parents that the state acted unconstitutionally when it removed a foster child from their home and when it suspended their foster care license. Plaintiffs claim that they were retaliated against because of their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, or because they shared their religious belief with their child. The court found insufficient allegations to support an equal protection claim. As to plaintiffs' 1st Amendment retaliation claim, the court said in part:

there is no legal support for Plaintiffs’ assertion of a First Amendment right to share their religious beliefs with their foster child, who was neither their biological child nor their adoptive child. In fact, finding that foster parents have an unfettered constitutional right to share their religious beliefs with a foster child would seemingly conflict with the free exercise rights of the foster children and his or her biological parents. Accordingly, I do not find that Plaintiffs can assert a First Amendment retaliation claim based on such a theory.

Rejecting the argument that the state's actions were in retaliation merely for their religious beliefs, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ allegations present a close-question regarding causality, nonetheless, I find that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts demonstrating “a pattern of antagonism,” or other circumstantial evidence from which retaliatory or discriminatory motives can be inferred.