Ministerial Exception Doctrine to Development Director's Suit Against Holocaust Education Organization

In Lavy v. American Society for Yad Vashem, (CD CA, Dec. 19, 2024), a California federal district court refused to find that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a pregnancy discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against an organization dedicated to preserving the legacy of Holocaust victims.  The court said in part:

... [T]he record does not support a finding that Plaintiff is a “minister” within the meaning of the ministerial exception. The record does not show that Plaintiff’s job duties required her to be of any specific faith, to educate anyone on a particular religion’s customs or laws, to spread a religious message, or to oversee or participate in any religious ceremonies. Plaintiff’s primary job duty throughout her employment with Defendant was fundraising development....

Defendant does not provide either evidence or legal authority demonstrating that its mission of historical education and memorialization moves it under the broad umbrella of “religious institutions” for purposes of the ministerial exception. Rather, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has raised a genuine dispute that Defendant operates primarily as a fundraising organization. For example, Defendant has not offered any evidence that its bylaws or certificate of incorporation set forth any religious purpose....

The court similarly found that defendant did not show that it qualifies for the religious corporation exemption from California's anti-discrimination law. 

Good News Clubs Sue California School District for Access

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by Child Evangelism Fellowship alleging that a California school district has prevented Good News Clubs from meeting in district elementary schools. The complaint (full text) in Child Evangelism Fellowship NORCAL, Inc. v. Oakland Unified School District Board of Education, (ND CA, filed 12/11/2024), alleges in part:

1. For over two years, Defendant OUSD and its officials have unconstitutionally and impermissibly prohibited CEF from hosting its Good News Clubs in public elementary school facilities owned by OUSD. The Good News Club provides free moral and character training to students from a Christian viewpoint and strategically meets at public schools after school hours for the convenience of parents. CEF’s Good News Club has enriched the emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of students across OUSD for over a decade. 

2. ... CEF was forced to temporarily end its Good News Club meetings in 2020 due to COVID-19 but sought to resume its meetings starting in January 2023. Despite having a long and storied history of providing after-school enrichment programs to students in OUSD, numerous schools within OUSD inexplicably denied the Good News Club access to use OUSD facilities while allowing numerous secular organizations and activities to resume meeting after school hours.  

3. CEF seeks a judgment declaring Defendants’ discriminatory use policies unconstitutional, both on their face and as applied, under the Free Speech, Establishment, and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. CEF also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ... together with damages....

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Challenging Anti-Zionist Proposed Curriculum Is Dismissed

In Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles v. Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, (CD CA, Nov. 30, 2024), a California federal district court dismissed both for jurisdictional reasons and on the merits a suit by plaintiffs who were Jewish Zionists against a group that developed a set of teaching materials that the group hoped Los Angeles Public Schools would adopt. The court said in part:

According to plaintiffs, the challenged curriculum "denounces capitalism, the nuclear family, and the territorial integrity of the lower 48 states of the United States[,]"... and is designed "to expunge the idea of Zionism, and the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel, from the public square[.]"... Plaintiffs allege there is "rank discrimination embedded in the LESMC," ... because the challenged curriculum, among other things, "includes statements that the existence of the State of Israel is based on ethnic cleansing and land theft, apartheid and genocide" and that "Zionism is distinct from Judaism."... Because the challenged curriculum contains anti-Zionist material, plaintiffs allege that the curriculum is antisemitic.,,,

The court held that plaintiffs' claims were not ripe for judicial review and that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims. It went on to also reject plaintiffs' equal protection and free exercise challenges on additional grounds. It held first that the defendants other than the school district were not state actors for purposes of the 14th Amendment. It went on to hold:

... [I]t is clear that the [complaint] is a direct "attack on curricula" — and "absent evidence of unlawful intentional discrimination, parents are not entitled to bring Equal Protection claims challenging curriculum content."... In short, plaintiffs' equal protection claims under both the California and United States constitutions must be dismissed....

In effect, the only hardship plaintiffs allege is that the existence of the challenged curriculum — and its possible adoption — offends them. But mere offense is insufficient to allege a burden on religious exercise....

In short, plaintiffs' claim that the challenged curriculum violates the Free Exercise Clause because it is intended "to suppress public expression of, and public support for, Zionist beliefs and to prevent Zionists from acting on their sincerely held religious belief[,]" ... must be dismissed, as plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a substantial burden on their religious exercise or practice.

The court also rejected claims under Title VI and the California Education Code. It then concluded:

... [I]t must also be noted that significant First Amendment concerns underlie plaintiffs' claims and requested relief.... In effect, plaintiffs seek to litigate the propriety and legality of a potential curriculum with which they disagree. Their claims thus conflict with the First Amendment in several respects, and are largely barred on that basis as well.

Various state law claims were also stricken under California's anti=SLAPP statute.

Noticias Newswire reports on the decision.

Parents Sue California High School Alleging Long History of Tolerating Antisemitism

Suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by parents of six high school students in the Sequoia Union High School District charging the high school with tolerating antisemitism expressed by students and teachers.  The complaint (full text) in Kasle v. Puttin, (ND CA, filed 11/15/2024), alleges in part:

SUHSD has a long history of tolerating casual antisemitism on its campuses.  Students and faculty have openly joked about Nazis and the Holocaust, while certain teachers have peddled antisemitic falsehoods about Middle East history without facing consequences.  District leadership has consistently turned a blind eye to such behavior.  SUHSD’s antisemitism problem worsened significantly after October 7, 2023, when Hamas—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization—invaded southern Israel and then mutilated, raped, and murdered more than 1,200 people.  Although quick to address other global injustices, SUHSD remained conspicuously silent about this historic massacre of Jews, contradicting the District’s professed commitment to equity....

The 64-page complaint alleges violation of Title VI, of the 1st and 14th Amendments as well as of parallel provisions of California law and asks for an injunction in part:

prohibiting Defendants’ discriminatory and harassing treatment of Plaintiffs in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights; 

prohibiting the District, its employees, agents, and representatives from engaging in any form of antisemitic behavior or conduct, including, but not limited to, verbal, written, or physical actions that demean, harass, or discriminate against individuals based on their Jewish identity or their identification with and commitment to Israel;

ordering the District to adopt and implement a clear and comprehensive policy specifically addressing antisemitism, as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism....

It also asks the court to appoint a Special Master to monitor the district's implementation of policies against antisemitism. 

Ropes & Gray issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

Firefighters Can Move Ahead With Title VII Claims Over Forced Leave to Accommodate Religious Objections to Covid Vaccine

In Bingham v. City of San Jose, (CA App., Oct. 30, 2024), a California state appeals court held that five San Jose firefighters who were placed on unpaid leave when they asserted religious objections to the Covid vaccine may move ahead with their claims under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit, the appeals court held in part:

Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the extended and involuntary unpaid leave allegedly imposed on them was not a reasonable accommodation.  By not requiring plaintiffs to take the COVID-19 vaccines mandated by the County vaccination order, the City eliminated the conflict between the order and plaintiffs’ religious beliefs concerning the COVID-19 vaccines.  However, the alleged unpaid leave did not reasonably preserve plaintiffs’ employment status....

... [T]he amended complaint alleges that the City Fire Department was facing a severe staffing shortage and that a County public health order allowed employers facing such shortages to seek a waiver of the vaccination requirement.  Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that they could have been transferred to positions answering 911 calls, which presumably is not a Higher-Risk Setting and therefore would not have required vaccination under the County vaccination order.  If these allegations are accepted as true, as they must be at the demurrer stage... that would have allowed plaintiffs to work without a vaccination.  Thus, far from establishing the City’s undue hardship defense, the face of the complaint shows that the City could have reasonably accommodated plaintiffs’ beliefs without undue hardship. 

CBN reports on the decision.

Eviction Did Not Violate Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

In Wexler v. City of San Diego, California, (SD CA, Nov. 4, 2024), a California federal district court rejected plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was evicted from rental property he had occupied for a few days. The court said in part:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dup-A-Key harmed him by changing the rental unit’s door locks on the Sabbath....  Plaintiff alleges harm from Defendant Rough Rider Real Estate because he “had to record” Defendant’s employee drilling of a “No Trespass” sign onto the property on the Sabbath.... Plaintiff further alleges harm from Defendant Police Officers because the alleged unlawful eviction occurred on the Sabbath....  However, these actions are not violations under the Free Exercise Clause.  Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants Dup-A-Key and Rough Rider Real Estate were government entities.  Nor does Plaintiff sufficiently allege that any government policy was not neutral or not generally applicable.  Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s First Amendment § 1983 claims against all Defendants with leave to amend.

The court also rejected a variety of other challenges to the eviction alleged by plaintiff, including a claim that police officers discriminated against him because he mentioned to them that he was an Orthodox Jewish person.

9th Circuit: California IDEA Rules Violate Free Exercise Clause

In Loffman v, California Department of Education, (9th Cir., Oct. 28, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a California federal district court's dismissal of a suit by the parents of a special needs child that challenges as a violation of the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses a portion of California's rules implementing the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In California, a private school may be certified as a NPS (non-public school offering special education programs) so long as the school is non-sectarian. When a local educational agency refers a child to an NPS, the state pays the child's full tuition there. However, religiously affiliated schools may not be certified as NPS's even if the curriculum offered to special needs children is secular. Here, plaintiffs wanted to send their children to an Orthodox Jewish school but obtain the benefits available from an NPS. The 9th Circuit said in part:

 ... [A]ny religiously affiliated school seeking to enter into an NPS contract in California must choose whether to maintain its religious affiliation or to serve as an NPS eligible for consideration ... in determining whether it may be in the best position to provide an IEP [individualized education program] for an individual child.  

Religious entities that are equally or better qualified than secular ones to provide special education and related services are disqualified solely because they are “owned, operated, controlled by, or formally affiliated with a religious group or sect, whatever might be the actual character of the education program or the primary purpose of the facility.”...

As we have previously recognized, a statutory scheme that requires a family to “forgo a sectarian education . . . in order to receive” special education benefits otherwise available in a private school setting imposes a “burden on their free exercise rights.”  ...

Parent Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged “that a government entity has burdened [their] sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not ‘neutral’ or ‘generally applicable,’” so the focus “shifts to the defendant” to show that the challenged action survives strict scrutiny....

[E]ven if the State Appellee could demonstrate a compelling interest in neutrality here, it has failed to demonstrate that the nonsectarian requirement is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.  Thus, we conclude that the State Appellee fails to demonstrate that the nonsectarian requirement satisfies strict scrutiny.

National Catholic Register reports on the decision.

Pregnancy Centers Sue California AG To Stop Enforcement of Business Fraud Statutes Against Them

Suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by a California anti-abortion pregnancy center and a Christian organization of pregnancy centers challenging the California attorney general's attempts to apply the state Business Fraud statutes to plaintiffs' promotion of abortion pill reversal. The 86-page complaint (full text) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Bonta, (CD CA, filed 10/2/2024), alleges that the Attorney General's enforcement threats violate plaintiffs' free speech and free exercise rights, saying in part:

12. Plaintiffs here ... wish to truthfully inform the public that it may be possible to counteract the first abortion drug’s lethal effects if women change their minds and seek treatment within the first three days after taking it. 

13. Plaintiffs wish to say the same (and similar) things about APR that the other nonprofits have. But the Attorney General’s actions show that if they do, they may be subject to injunctions, civil penalties of up to $2,500 per “violation,” and potential jail time....

18. The Attorney General says he supports a woman’s right to choose whether to keep her pregnancy, yet he seeks to deprive a woman who changes her mind, or who was coerced or tricked into taking the first abortion drug, of truthful information about a safe and effective way to save her pregnancy. 

19. The Constitution protects Plaintiffs’ right to speak to the public and women about lawful medical treatments provided by licensed medical professionals.  

20. This action seeks to enjoin the Attorney General from targeting, chilling, and punishing Plaintiffs’ speech about APR and a declaration that his actions violate Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to speak freely, to practice their religion, and to due process under the law.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: Requiring Tree Trimming Did Not Violate Plaintiff's Free Exercise Rights

In Joseph v. City of San Jose, (9th Cir., Sept. 11, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's claim that enforcement of municipal code restrictions violated his 1st Amendment religious free exercise rights. The court said in part:

Joseph asserts that the City’s assessments against his trees placed a substantial burden on the free exercise of his “religious and spiritual beliefs,” which he describes as having “Buddhist, Taoist, Celtic, quantum physics, evolutionary, neurological, numerological, and cosmological foundations.”  Although “[i]t is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants’ interpretations of those creeds,” a court may properly consider “whether the alleged burden imposed by the [challenged state action] is a substantial one.”... We hold that the City’s actions did not create a substantial burden.  Joseph voluntarily complied with the generally applicable municipal code requirements to trim the trees’ overgrown vines, and he stated during his deposition that such trimming did not impair the trees’ spiritual or religious value.... .  “The right to freely exercise one’s religion ... ‘does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’”....

Suit Challenges California's Ban on School Parental Notification Requirements as to Gender Transitioning

A school district and parents of school-age children filed suit this week in a California federal district court challenging California's recently-enacted AB 1955.  The statute prohibits school districts from requiring notification of parents when their children are socially transitioning their gender in school, unless the student consents to the disclosure. The complaint (full text) in Chino Valley Unified School District v. Newsom alleges that the statute violates parental rights to control the upbringing of their children and parents' free exercise rights as well as being preempted by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The complaint alleges in part:

The Parent Plaintiffs have each alleged that they are devout Christians who believe God created man and woman as distinct, immutable genders; their religious beliefs require that they be notified if their child requests to socially transition at school so that they may be involved with their child's treatment at school.

ABC News 10 reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit: Zen Apprentice's Suit Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc., (9th Cir., July 17, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal under the ministerial exception doctrine of a disability discrimination suit brought by plaintiff who worked at the Zen Center as a Work Practice Apprentice.  The court said in part:

Behrend ... appeals, arguing that he was not a minister because he performed mostly menial work and did not have a “key role in making internal church decisions and transmitting the faith to others.”...

Behrend was tasked with performing maintenance, kitchen, and guest services. But he was also responsible for assisting with rituals, participating in meditations and services, cleaning the temple, attending talks and classes, and performing doan ryo ceremonial tasks like ringing bells and cleaning altars. He lived and worked full time at the temple as a monk. While Behrend may not have taught and was not a part of the hierarchical leadership structure, he “performed vital religious duties” as part of the Center’s WPA program.... In short, were the court to adopt a rule like the one Behrend suggests, we would be “interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select” who may or may not serve as a live-in monk.

State Funding of Only Secular Home-School Materials Upheld

In Woolard v. Thurmond, (ED CA, June 10, 2024), a California federal district court rejected challenges by parents of children enrolled in home study programs through California public charter schools to the requirement that state funds be used only for secular instructional materials. Parents contended that refusing to fund faith-based curricular materials denied families equal access to state benefits solely because of their religious nature.  The court disagreed, saying in part:

The state action of failing to provide requested religious curriculum is not an infringement on Plaintiffs’ freedom of exercise.  As confirmed in Plaintiffs’ own cited case, Carson v. Makin, states are allowed to provide a strictly secular education in its public schools....  A strictly secular education does not substantially burden the Plaintiffs’ practice of religion....

This case involves California’s laws and regulations for state funded public schools, not private schools.  There are no “public benefits” in the form of grants or otherwise that the state is excluding Plaintiffs from....

UCLA Students Sue University For Failing to Protect Jewish Students

Three Jewish students at UCLA yesterday filed a civil rights lawsuit in a California federal district court alleging that the University, by tolerating widespread antisemitic behavior, has violated a lengthy list of state and federal statutory and constitutional provisions.  The complaint (full text) alleges in part:

1.  The University of California, Los Angeles ..., has deteriorated into a hotbed of antisemitism. This rampant anti-Jewish environment burst into view on October 8, 2023, the day after Hamas terrorists attacked Israel....

2. In the wake of these horrifying events, UCLA should have taken steps to ensure that its Jewish students were safe and protected from harassment and undeterred in obtaining full access to campus facilities. Instead, UCLA officials routinely turned their backs on Jewish students, aiding and abetting a culture that has allowed calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, Nazi symbolism, and religious slurs to go unchecked....

4. Starting on April 25, 2024, and continuing until May 2, 2024, UCLA allowed a group of activists to set up barricades in the center of campus and establish an encampment that blocked access to critical educational infrastructure on campus....

6. With the knowledge and acquiescence of UCLA officials, the activists enforced what was effectively a “Jew Exclusion Zone,” segregating Jewish students and preventing them from accessing the heart of campus, including classroom buildings and the main undergraduate library....

11. Yet even as the activists continued to enforce the Jew Exclusion Zone, Defendants not only failed to marshal resources to intervene— they adopted a policy facilitating the Jew Exclusion Zone.....

19. The administration’s cowardly abdication of its duty to ensure unfettered access to UCLA’s educational opportunities and to protect the Jewish community is not only immoral—it is illegal.  

20. Specifically, it violates numerous federal and state constitutional guarantees, including the Equal Protection Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, and the freedom of speech.  

21. And it contravenes the basic guarantee of equal access to educational facilities that receive federal funding, as well as numerous other statutory guarantees of equality and fair treatment.

Fox 11 reports on the lawsuit. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the suit.

 

Lifeguard Sues L.A. County Over Required Flag Raising for Pride Month

A suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by plaintiff who is employed as a lifeguard by Los Angeles County objecting to the requirement that he raise the Progress Pride Flag at his lifeguard station during June which has been designated as LGBTQ+ Pride month. The complaint (full text) in Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department, (CD CA, filed 5/24/2024), alleges in part:

Captain Little is ... an evangelical Christian with beliefs on marriage, family, sexual behavior and identity that align with the traditional and orthodox biblical-social teachings....

... While Captain Little understands that the government can speak its own messages, and thus may promote Pride Month, he believes that he cannot personally do so by raising the Progress Pride Flag. Doing so would be to personally participate in, espouse, and promote messages contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs, similar to how many courts have recognized that Jehovah’s Witnesses may not salute or pledge allegiance to the flag of any nation or state....

The complaint alleges that requiring him to raise the Pride Flag, refusing to provide him with a religious accommodation and taking retaliatory action against him violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Law, the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. and California Constitutions and the Free Speech clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Los Angeles Times has additional details.

UPDATE: According to a June 5. 2024 press release from the Thomas More Society, Los Angeles County has agreed to give plaintiff a partial accommodation by not requiring him to raise the Progress Pride Flag as part of his job for the remainder of June.

Civil Court Must Accept Disciplinary Actions by Hierarchical Church's Parent Body

In San Jose Korean Central Church v. Korean Evangelical Church of America, (CA App., May 29, 2024), a California state appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, holding that a trial court was required to accept as binding internal disciplinary judgments by a church's parent body, Korean Evangelical Church of America (KECA).  At issue was an attempt by a local congregation, San Jose Korean Central Church (SJKCC) to disaffiliate from KECA. As explained by the court:

... [T]he board of SJKCC, led by its senior pastor, Francis Chung, purportedly approved new bylaws and voted to disaffiliate itself from KECA.  One week later, at a special meeting set by the board, the congregation ... approved the new bylaws and voted in favor of SJKCC’s disaffiliation from KECA.  Prior to these actions, however, KECA had issued a disciplinary judgment suspending Chung from performing his duties as an SJKCC board member.  KECA therefore contended that the purported actions taken by the SJKCC board, with Chung acting as its chairman ... were void.  As a result of Chung’s disobedience of the judgment of suspension, ... KECA entered a further disciplinary judgment revoking Chung’s SJKCCs pastorship and excommunicating him from KECA.  Shortly before that date, ... KECA entered a disciplinary judgment against two Chung allies, Ki Soo Kim, Jung Young Lee, removing their status as elders and as members of the SJKCC board....

... [I]t is plain that the May 26, 2019 judgment suspending Francis Chung—being a disciplinary action taken by the national hierarchical church, KECA, through the Judgment Committee of its Northern California District Conference—was an internal ecclesiastical decision that was not subject to review by the civil judicial system.  The rule of judicial deference to ecclesiastical matters applies not only to decisions related to matters of religious doctrine; it “also [applies to] issues of membership, clergy credentials and discipline, and church polity and administration.... The rule of deference to internal decisions of clergy discipline applies irrespective of whether the action taken was “by a procedure contrary to church law and regulations, and for improper, false and fraudulent motives.” ...

Churches' Challenges To Day Care Licensing Dismissed

In Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, (SD CA, May 20, 2024), a California federal district court dismissed challenges by three churches to the California Child Day Care Facilities Act. The churches wish to open day cares but object to the requirement that they obtain a license to do so. The opinion relates to plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint after a prior dismissal. (See prior posting.) The court said in part:

... [I]ndignation is not injury and Plaintiffs have provided no further grounds for standing to challenge the licensure requirement itself beyond that they do not want a preschool that operates at the pleasure of DSS through the State’s licensing scheme...

The court also dismissed claims relating to removal of a preschool director and actions against it for refusing to comply with a past masking mandate over the objection of parents to the mandate. Plaintiffs' Establishment Clause, free speech and due process claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Suit For Misappropriating Church Funds Not Precluded by Church Autonomy Doctrine

In Buck v. Peace Apostolic Church, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., March 8, 2024), a California trial court rejected the contention that the church autonomy or ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from adjudicating a claim that two church officers and directors improperly spent church funds.  The court said in part:

The First Amendment does not immunize the Church or the individual defendants from illegal acts that apply equally to everyone, religious or not. The Plaintiffs alleged and proved that Defendants committed fraud and engaged in false advertising. Defendants solicited donations from the public promising that “no part of the income or assets of this corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any director, officer, or member thereof or to the benefit of any private person.”... Prince used her position in the church and the representations made by her and by the church to enrich herself. While Brown did not enrich herself, she facilitated the enrichment of her son, Howard Woods. The defendants cannot take money based on a representation that it would be used for charitable purposes and church mission and use it for personal benefit. That's not internal church governance. That's fraud. The activities that occurred in that case are not protected by the First Amendment.... 

On December 19, 2023, the Court ordered injunctive relief. In part, PAC was ordered to post warnings that read “WARNING: A Jury has found that Tamara Swancy-Prince, Priscilla Woods Brown and Peace Apostolic Church have improperly misappropriated donations.” PAC objects to the injunction arguing that the Court misapplied the law.... The Court is simply not convinced that similar abuses won’t recur.

DOJ Sues California Prisons for Failing to Accommodate Officers' Religious Beard Requirements

The Department of Justice this week filed suit in a California federal district court seeking to enjoin the California correctional system from requiring its peace officers to be clean shaven in contravention of their sincerely held religious beliefs.  The problem arose for Muslim and Sikh correctional employees when they were required to meet the conditions for wearing tight-fitting respirators.  The complaint (full text) in United States v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (ED CA, filed 3/25/2024), contends that the Department of Corrections has not attempted to accommodate the peace officers' concerns by offering them positions in the Department that do not require wearing of respirators or by offering alternative respirators that could be worn with beards.  The complaint alleges in part:

The Charging Parties allege that CDCR has discriminated against them on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)(2), by: a. Failing to provide a religious accommodation;  b. failing to adequately engage in the interactive process with the Charging Parties, including by failing to make good faith efforts to consider whether alternative accommodations will eliminate the conflict between the Charging Parties’ religious beliefs and CDCR’s clean  shaven policy; and c. failing to demonstrate that implementing the alternative accommodations proposed by the Charging Parties would pose an undue hardship.

The Department of Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. AP reports on the lawsuit.

California's Removal of Personal Belief Exemption from School Immunization Requirement Is Upheld

 In Royce v. Bonta, (SD CA, March 25, 2024), a California federal district court upheld the constitutionality of a law enacted by California in response to a 2015 measles outbreak. The law removed the personal belief exemption, but retained the medical exemption, from the requirement that school children enrolled in public and private schools be immunized against nine specific diseases.  The law also gives immigrant and homeless children a grace period in which to prove compliance with the immunization requirement. The court rejected parents free exercise challenge to the law, concluding that the law is neutral and generally applicable, saying in part:

In considering California’s interest in the health and safety of students and the public at large, the risk posed by SB 277’s enumerated exemptions does not qualify as comparable to the risk posed by a personal belief exemption....  Accordingly, SB 277 is generally applicable....

There is a legitimate State interest in protecting the health and safety of students and the public at large, and SB 277’s repeal of California’s prior personal belief exemption is rationally related to furthering that interest.  Because Plaintiffs fail to allege facts from which an inference can be drawn to hold otherwise, SB 277 survives rational basis review.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claim fails as a matter of law.

National Guard General Seeks $1.6M Damages for Antisemitic Harassment and Termination

A suit charging antisemitic discrimination was filed last week in a California state trial court by a retired Brigadier General in the Air National Guard against his former supervisor as well as against the state of California, the California Military Department and California Governor Gavin Newsom seeking $1.6 million in damages and injunctive relief. The complaint (full text) in Magram v. Beevers, (CA Super. Ct., filed 1/24/2024), alleges in part:

This case is an action for Religious Discrimination, Harassment, and Wrongful Termination in violation of California Government Code § 12940, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) arising out of Magram’s 37-plus years of employment with the California Air Guard and United States Air Force, which includes 14-plus years as a full time officer on State Active Duty with the CMD. Beevers discriminated against Magram by harassing and wrongfully terminating Magram because of Magram’s Jewish faith, Jewish heritage, and Magram’s complaints about Beevers’ anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment. Beevers’ discrimination against Magram violated FEHA and California public policy. The State of California, CMD, and Governor Newsom were aware of Beevers’ anti-Semitism, Beevers’ anti-Semitic campaign, and Beevers’ retaliation against Magram. The State California, CMD and Governor Newsom facilitated and ratified Beevers’ anti-Semitism and Beevers’ anti-Semitic campaign against Magram.

Stars and Stripes reports on the lawsuit.