Sunday, August 13, 2017

2nd Circuit: Pregnancy Discrimination Claim Against Synagogue Can Proceed

In Shultz v. Congregation Shearith Israel of the City of New York, (2d Cir., Aug. 10, 2017), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that giving an employee a notice of termination of employment can be an "adverse employment action" under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act even though the notice is rescinded before the date that the firing becomes effective.  The court thus allowed a long-time Program Director for a New York synagogue to move ahead with her claim that she was given a termination notice because of disapproval of the fact that she was pregnant at the time of her recent marriage.  The court also allowed her to move ahead with her claim under the Family Medical Leave Act. [Thanks to Rabbi Michael Simon for the lead.]

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Hoever v. Belleis, (11th Cir., Aug. 10, 2017), the 11th Circuit held that denial of an English language Bible and devotional materials to an inmate for 20 days while in disciplinary confinement did not impose a substantial burden on his religious exercise.

In Harris v. Holmes, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124062 (D NJ, Aug. 7, 2017), a New Jersey federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against a prison's new policy on purchase of religious oils.

In Dunn v. Todd, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124302 (ND NY, July 10, 2017), a New York federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint that he was unable to contact his pastor and family.

In Keaton v. Ponte, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124303 (SD NY, Aug. 4, 2017), a New York federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint about strip searches in the chapel area.

In Shields v. Ahern, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125424 (ND CA, Aug. 8, 2017), a California federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaints regarding halal meals, hiring of a Muslim chaplain, group prayer and study, religious items and books, and receiving packages from an Islamic vendor.

In Buckley v. County of San Mateo, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125420 (ND CA, Aug. 8, 2017), a California federal district court dismissed with leave to amend a former inmate's complaint that his free exercise rights were infringed because Kosher meals provided were not actually Kosher and he was not allowed to wear certain religious items outside of his cell.

In Zapata v. Ducart, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125453 (ND CA, Aug. 8, 2017), a California federal district court allowed a Messianic Jewish inmate to move ahead with his complaint that he was not allowed to participate in the kosher diet program.

In Ali v. Romero, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125696 (D MD, Aug. 7, 2017), a Maryland federal district court refused to dismiss at least until the prison chaplains had been served an inmate's complaint over the lack of Islamic prayer services.

In Holmes v. Engleson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126228 (ND IL, Aug. 9, 2017), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a Rastafarian inmate's complaint that his dreadlocks and beard were removed forcibly.

In Simmons v. Williams, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126294 (SD GA, Aug. 9, 2017), a Georgia federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be allowed to move ahead with his action for injunctive relief (but not his damage claims) under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA for being dragged through a commons area wearing wet boxer shorts, which violated his religious beliefs that he must keep his awrah covered in the presence of others.

Judge Wrongly Relied On Defendant's Christian Religious Background To Enhance Sentence

In Miller v. People of the Virgin Islands, (VI Sup. Ct., Aug. 9, 2017), the Virgin Islands Supreme Court remanded for re-sentencing a case in which defendant plead guilty as an accessory after the fact to embezzlement of funds from a hospital.  The Supreme Court concluded that the sentencing judge wrongly relied on defendant's religion to impose a longer sentence that the one recommended in defendant's plea agreement. The sentencing judge had referred to defendant's "claims to Christianity and her theology degree" in explaining the longer sentence.

Free Exercise Claim Against Hospital Over Diet For Daughter Moves Ahead

In Dixon v. Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MI, Aug. 11, 2017), a Michigan federal district court allowed parents whose daughter was ordered hospitalized for mental health treatment to proceed with several claims.  Among them is a claim that the hospital is violating the parents' free exercise rights by feeding their daughter pork with knowledge of the family's religious beliefs.

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Court Refuses To Enforce Arbitration Award In Church Control Dispute

In Patterson v. Shelton, (ED PA, Aug. 11, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed an attempt to obtain enforcement of an arbitration award entered over ten years ago in a dispute over control of the General Assembly of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The underlying litigation began 22 years ago.  the court said in part:
Petitioner seeks to have this Court adjudicate a church controversy by confirming an Arbitration Award, albeit one that was vacated, which would require extensive inquiry into church matters. A solution to the parties’ problems involves more than mere application of neutral principles of law. It involves a deeper look into the church’s control over its leaders, how they acquire and maintain authority, and how the church is being managed.... Probing deeper into these matters would do exactly what the law prohibits courts from doing: becoming entangled in church issues.
The court also relied on several other grounds in dismissing the case.

Friday, August 11, 2017

Federal Suit By Houston Employees Seeks To Preserve Benefits For Same-Sex Couples

A suit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court by Houston city employees and their same-sex spouses seeking to preserve the same spousal benefits that are received by other city employees. In a decision handed down last month, the Texas Supreme Court kept alive a suit by Houston taxpayers challenging the city's extending spousal benefits to same-sex married couples. (See prior posting.) In the complaint (full text) filed yesterday in Freeman v. Turner, (SD TX, filed 8/10/2017), plaintiffs asked the federal district court to declare that the city may not rely on the Texas DOMA Statute and the Texas Marriage Amendment, which have previously been held unconstitutional by federal courts, to justify depriving city employees with same-sex spouses to to the same spousal benefits extended to other married employees. The complaint also asks the court to find that denial or withdrawal of such benefits would be unconstitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses. Texas Observer reports on the lawsuit.

Court Rejects Challenge To Permit Denial For Outdoor Weddings

In Epona v. County of Ventura, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126533 (CD CA, Aug. 9, 2017), a California federal district court dismissed a free exercise challenge to the denial of a conditional use permit to Epona Estate  that wants to rent out its premises for outdoor weddings. Plaintiff claimed that the county selectively discriminates against weddings. (See prior related posting.)

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Suit Challenges Trump's Reversal of Military Policy On Transgenders

Five members of the military filed suit yesterday challenging President Trump's announcement through Twitter that he will reverse the Obama Administration's policy that allows transgender individuals to serve openly in the military.  The complaint (full text) in Doe v. Trump, (D DC, filed 8/9/2017), contends that the White House counsel's office has turned Trump's decision into official guidance which will be communicated to the Department of Defense.  The suit alleges that Trump's directive unconstitutionally discriminates against transgender individuals, is arbitrary, and that the government is estopped from rescinding plaintiffs' rights.  NPR reports on the lawsuit.

Religious School Asserts Ecclesiastical Abstention Defense

As reported by Houston Chronicle, an Episcopal elementary school in Galveston, Texas has asserted an ecclesiastical abstention defense to a lawsuit filed by the mother of a student alleging an inadequate response by the school to bullying and racial harassment of her sixth-grade son.  Plaintiff says that 3 of her son's classmates gave her son a piece of paper folded to resemble a KKK hood, and bullied them in other ways. The school only required the students to send apology notes, and gave a one day suspension to one of the students.  The defendants' motion to dismiss (full text) in Beans v. Trinity Episcopal School, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 8/1/2017) argues:
As a religious institution, Trinity has a constitutionally-protected freedom to make decisions regarding the discipline of its students without judicial interference. The courts cannot second guess those decisions, even in the guise of purportedly "secular" causes of action arising from tort principles. Plaintiffs' claims ask the Court to intrude upon Trinity's internal affairs and governance relating to discipline, investigation, and standards of conduct—which is precisely what the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine was designed to prevent.

Wednesday, August 09, 2017

Differential Marriage License Requirement For Foreign Born Held Unconstitutional

In Vo v. Gee, (ED LA, Aug. 8, 2017), a Louisiana federal district court granted a permanent injunction, holding unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that treats differently applicants for a marriage license who were born outside the United States from those born in the U.S. or one of its territories.  Under the law a birth certificate must be produced in order to obtain a marriage license, but those born in the U.S. may obtain a waiver of the requirement.  Those born elsewhere, such as the Vietnamese refugee who is plaintiff in the case, are not entitled to the same type of waiver and must also provide a passport or visa.  The court concluded that this violates the Equal Protection clause as well as the substantive due process right to marriage, even though a subsequent Louisiana law allows a judicial waiver of the birth certificate requirement.  Washington Post reports on the decision.

Tuesday, August 08, 2017

Case Remanded For Determination of Whether Church Is Hierarchical

In  Slagle v. Church of the First Born of Tennessee, (TN App., Aug. 7, 2017), a case involving a dispute over control of church property after a split among church members, a Tennessee appellate court remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of whether the church was congregational or hierarchical. In doing so, the court noted that a church may be congregational in some respects while it is hierarchical in other respects. The court noted that here the relevant question is whether the church is congregational for purposes of ownership and control of property.

Monday, August 07, 2017

In Zimbabwe, Businessman Sues Church Leader For False Prophecies of A Debt Cancellation Miracle

In Zimbabwe, a suit was filed last week against United Family International Church leader Prophet Emmanuel Makandiwa and his wife Ruth.  According to Bulawayo24 News, former members of the church-- a businessman and his wife from the country's capital of Harare-- are seeking damages of $6.5 million (US), claiming that the Church leader through false prophecies and fraud convinced them to donate over $1.1 million (US) over a 5-year period by telling them that this would lead to a debt cancellation miracle. Plaintiffs also seek damages for various related conduct, including the Church leader's convincing them to hire a disbarred lawyer to try to recover $1.7 million from a lender.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:
From SSRN (International and Comparative Law):
From SSRN (Jewish Law):

Sunday, August 06, 2017

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Henry v. Bright, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119374 (D SC, July 31, 2017), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119701, July 11, 2017) and dismissed a complaint that prison policies do not permit Buddhist inmates to use scented oils.

In Roberts v. Perry, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120621 (WD NC, Aug. 1, 2017), a North Carolina federal district court upheld a prison's refusal to recognize "Nation of Israel" (a white-supremacist group) as an approved religion and the concomitant limit on the number of religious texts that an adherent can possess.

In Evans v. Bilal, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121795 (ND IL, Aug. 2, 2017) an Illinois federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was not permitted to participate in religious services with other Muslim inmates.

In Butler v. California Department of Corrections, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122724 (ND CA, Aug. 3, 2017), a California federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with his attempt to obtain showing of a Nation of Islam video and obtaining a NOI chaplain.

Retaliation Suit By Dismissed Nursing Student Moves Ahead

In Brown v. William Rainey Harper College, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121333 (ND IL, Aug. 1, 2017), an Illinois federal district court allowed a student who was dismissed from the Practical Nursing Certificate Program at William Rainey Harper College to move ahead with her complaint that the action taken against her resulted from her practice of praying with her patients, as well as because of her complaints to the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights.

Friday, August 04, 2017

3rd Circuit Rejects Secular Anti-Abortion Group's Challenge To ACA Contraceptive Mandate

In Real Alternatives Inc. v. Secretary Department of Health and Human Services, (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2017), a 3-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held unanimously that the Equal Protection Clause does not require the government to provide a secular anti-abortion group with the same exemption from the Affordable Care act contraceptive coverage mandate as is provided to houses of worship. The majority said in part:
Real Alternatives is in no way like a religious denomination or one of its nontheistic counterparts—not in structure, not in aim, not in purpose, and not in function. We do not doubt that Real Alternatives’s stance on contraceptives is grounded in sincerely-held moral values, but “religion is not generally confined to one question or one moral teaching; it has a broader scope.”
The court by a vote of 2-1 also rejected a claim under RFRA that religious exercise of employees who oppose contraceptives, but work for secular employers, is substantially burdened when the government requires the employer to include contraceptive coverage in their health plans. Judge Jordan filed an an opinion dissenting on this issue.  He contended that requiring objecting employees to pay for insurance that includes contraceptive coverage creates a substantial burden and that the government had not used the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest. Legal Intelligencer reports on the decision.

Cert. Filed In Wyoming's Disciplining of Judge For Refusing To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court today in Neely v. Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics, (cert. filed 8/4/2017).  In the case, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that a judge who, because of religious objections, refuses to perform same-sex marriages violates the Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct. (See prior posting). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

German Court Says Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster Is Not a Religion

In Germany, a court in Frankfurt an der Oder has upheld a decision by the Infrastructure Ministry of Brandenburg to deny the Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) a permit to put up signs announcing its religious services. As reported this week by The Vanguard, FSM contended that it should be able to erect road signs publicizing its "noodle masses" just as local Catholic and Protestant churches erect signs giving details of their worship services. However the court ruled that FSM is neither a religious community or a community with a common world view.

Thursday, August 03, 2017

1st Circuit: Historic Rhode Island Synagogue Owned By New York Congregation

In a decision handed down yesterday, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Rhode Island federal district court (see prior posting) and held that Rhode Island's historic Touro Synagogue is owned by New York's Shearith Israel congregation. In Congregation Jeshuat Israel v. Congregation Shearith Israel, (1st Cir., Aug. 2, 2017), the court also concluded that a pair of historic silver Torah ornaments worth some $7 million are also owned by the New York congregation.  Retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, sitting by designation on the case, wrote the opinion for the court, saying that the court should rely on the parties' own agreements which are the "instruments customarily considered by civil courts."  He said in part:
The district court approached the competing claims ... by a conscientious and exhaustive historical analysis.... Much of that history reflected, albeit without directly addressing, the doctrinal tensions between the CSI congregation, committed to preserving Sephardic practice at Touro, and the later Newport congregation that emerged from the 19th century immigration, which included a significant Ashkenazic element. The district court was scrupulous in avoiding any overt reliance on doctrinal precepts....
Nonetheless, the court's historical investigation was unavoidably an immersion in the tensions between two congregations that were not doctrinally identical.... These are circumstances in which we think that the First Amendment calls for a more circumscribed consideration of evidence than the trial court's plenary enquiry into centuries of the parties' conduct....
AP reports on the decision.

South Carolina Supreme Court Resolves Property Dispute In Episcopal Church

In The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina v. The Episcopal Church, (SC Sup. Ct., Aug. 2, 2017), the 5-member South Carolina Supreme Court in 5 separate opinions spanning 77 pages resolved a property dispute that arose after a split in the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. AP summarized the background:
The conservative Diocese of South Carolina, dating to 1785 and one of the original dioceses that joined to form the Episcopal Church, left the national church in 2012 amid differences over theological issues, including the authority of Scripture and the ordination of gays. The group has since affiliated with the Anglican Church in North America, a group that formed in 2009.
Parishes in the region that didn’t leave the national church formed a diocese now known as The Episcopal Church in South Carolina.
The conservative diocese sued in efforts to protect its identity, the diocesan seal and other symbols it uses, and $500 million in church property, including the individual parishes’ holdings, as well as large properties including an Episcopal church camp in the Charleston area.
While the Supreme Court's opinions are complex, Acting Justice Toal in her dissenting opinion summarized the resulting holdings:
A majority of the Court ... agree that ... in secular church disputes, our state courts should apply neutral principles of law to resolve the case....  [T]he same majority would find this is a secular church dispute, and the Court must therefore apply longstanding trust law to resolve the questions before us. I would find the parties' actions did not comply with the formalities required to create a trust in this state....  Justice Kittredge would find the parties created a revocable trust in favor of the national church, but the plaintiffs later took steps to revoke their accession to the trust.... However ... a ... majority of the Court ... would ... transfer title of all but eight of the plaintiffs' properties to the defendants. While [2 justices] ... would do so because they believe this is an ecclesiastical dispute and the Court must therefore defer to the national church's decision on the matter, [another] would do so because he believes all but eight of the plaintiffs acceded to the Dennis Canon in a manner recognizable under South Carolina's trust law. Thus, the result reached on title is: 1) with regard to the eight church organizations which did not accede to the Dennis Canon, [3 justices] ... would hold that title remains in the eight plaintiff church organizations; 2) with regard to the twenty-eight church organizations which acceded to the Dennis Canon, [3 justices]... would hold that a trust in favor of the national church is imposed on the property and therefore, title is in the national church; and 3) with regard to Camp St. Christopher, [3 justices] would hold title is in the trustee corporation for the benefit of the associated diocese, whereas [2 others] ... would hold that the trustee corporation holds title for the benefit of the disassociated diocese. 
As to the second issue on appeal, involving the plaintiffs' claims for service mark infringement, [3 justices] ... would find the marks are validly registered under state law, but leave the ultimate resolution of the parties' conflicting claims to the pending federal case.
[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]