Ban on Caste Discrimination Is Constitutional

In Bagal v. Sawant, (WD WA, March 8, 2024), a Washington federal district court rejected First and 14th Amendment challenges to the City of Seattle's adding of "caste" as a protected class under its anti-discrimination Ordinance. The court said in part:

First, Plaintiff argues that incorporating “caste” into existing anti-discrimination laws ipso facto creates a stigma, levelled towards a specific and insular minority group, namely members of the Hindu religion....

Plaintiff simply does not allege they are burdened, in any manner, from practicing their faith.... [H]aving failed to allege a cognizable injury, Plaintiff de facto lacks standing to assert a Free Exercise challenge to the Ordinance. Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is similarly unavailing.... Fundamentally, Plaintiff’s reasoning is that the City of Seattle’s involvement on an issue of equal importance to practitioners of a certain religion becomes, as a consequence, activity in favor or opposition to that religion. And that, because the City of Seattle opted to disfavor caste-based forms of discrimination, a fortiori it condemned all notions of caste as it was understood by any religion. But that logic proves too much. And even assuming, arguendo, that the Ordinance does condemn notions of caste as is believed by a certain religion, that does not constitute activity in support or disparagement of that religion. For instance, birth control is a topic that involves both religious beliefs and general welfare concerns. And yet, no court has ever held that government approval of birth control violates the Establishment Clause....

It is not enough, in other words, that the anti-caste legislation strikes members of a religion as reflecting poorly on their religious beliefs.... In this case, the Ordinance’s principal effect is not to endorse a religion, but simply to bolster local anti-discrimination laws.  Any coincidental reference to a shared phenomenon (such as caste) is secondary, if not wholly, immaterial....

Second, Plaintiff contends that the Ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause....

Nowhere does the text of the Ordinance make use of prohibited classifications.  Rather, the Ordinance is facially neutral and of general applicability.  Moreover, wholly absent from Plaintiff’s complaint are any facts suggesting that the legislative drafters were actually motivated by racial or ethnic animus.... Further to the point, Plaintiff’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the City of Seattle has applied the Ordinance in a discriminatory manner.

Certiorari Denied in Challenge to Conversion Therapy Ban

Today by a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Tingley v. Ferguson, (Docket No. 22-942, certiorari denied 12/11/2023). In the case the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. (See prior posting.) Justice Thomas filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari, saying in part:

Under SB 5722, licensed counselors can speak with minors about gender dysphoria, but only if they convey the state-approved message of encouraging minors to explore their gender identities. Expressing any other message is forbidden—even if the counselor’s clients ask for help to accept their biological sex. That is viewpoint-based and content-based discrimination in its purest form. As a result, SB 5722 is presumptively unconstitutional, and the state must show that it can survive strict scrutiny before enforcing it.

The Ninth Circuit attempted to sidestep this framework by concluding that counseling is unprotected by the First Amendment because States have traditionally regulated the practice of medicine....

This case is not the first instance of the Ninth Circuit restricting medical professionals’ First Amendment rights, and without the Court’s review, I doubt it will be the last.

Justice Alito filed a brief opinion dissenting from the denial of review. Justice Kavanaugh also indicated that he would grant the petition for certiorari.

Christian Non-Profit Cannot Rescind Job Offer Because of Same-Sex Marriage

In McMahon v. World Vision, Inc., (WD WA, Nov. 28, 2023), a Washington federal district court held that a Christian non-profit organization violated Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination when it rescinded a job offer originally made to plaintiff after it learned that she was in a same-sex marriage. Plaintiff had been offered the position of customer service representative which involved telephone cultivation of donor relationships. The court held that the religious employer exemption in Title VII only immunizes religious discrimination by such organizations; it does not immunize them from sex discrimination claims. It also held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply to the position offered to plaintiff.

Similarly, the rejected the bona fide occupational qualification defense, saying in part:

Nothing in the record indicates that being in a same-sex marriage affects one’s ability to place and field donor calls, converse with donors, pray with donors, update donor information, upsell World Vision programs, or participate in devotions and chapel.

The court went on to find that both Title VII and the WLAD are neutral laws of general applicability so that only rational basis review is required. Finally the court rejected defendants' free speech and expressive association claims.

Religious Organization Lacks Standing to Challenge Interpretation of State Anti-Discrimination law

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Wash. v. Ferguson, (ED WA, Sept. 1, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Washington Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's anti-discrimination law. The state Supreme Court in a prior case interpreted the statute's exemption for non-profit religious organizations to be limited to situations covered by the ministerial exemption doctrine.  In this case, plaintiff that operates a homeless shelter and thrift store and also provides social services sought a declaration that religious organizations have a constitutional right to hire, even in non-ministerial positions, only those who agree with its religious beliefs and who will comply with its religious tenets and behavior requirements. In dismissing the lawsuit, the court found that there was no credible threat of enforcement against plaintiff, and that this suit was a disguised attempt to appeal a Washington Supreme Court decision in violation of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.

Conscience Clause in Health Insurance Mandate Does Not Violate Church's Free Exercise

In Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler, (WD WA, July 25, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed a free exercise challenge by a church to a Washington law requiring all health insurance plans that provide maternity coverage to also provide substantially equivalent abortion coverage. Under the law, employers with religious or moral objections to specific services do not have to purchase coverage for those services, but enrollees must still be able to access coverage for the services. The court said in part:

None of the State’s arguments seem to fully address the crux of Cedar Park’s facilitation complaint: that its employees would not have access to covered abortion services absent Cedar Park’s post-SB 6219 plan. This fact is undisputed and undoubtedly true. Because of SB 6219, Cedar Park’s employees gained coverage for abortion services under their employer-sponsored health insurance plan that they would not otherwise have. Even if the “facilitation” is somewhat minimal, SB 6219 requires Cedar Park to facilitate access to covered abortion services contrary to Cedar Park’s religious beliefs....

Because the Court concludes that SB 6219 is neutral and generally applicable, the law is valid if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose....

The Washington legislature identified multiple legitimate governmental purposes for enacting SB 6219, including promoting gender equity, promoting economic success of women, improving women’s health, and protecting privacy.

State Law May Bar Women's Spa from Refusing to Serve Transgender Women Who Have Not Had Sex-Confirmation Surgery

In Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, (WD WA, June 5, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a suit by a Korean style spa designed for women. The suit challenges Washington's public accommodation law which bars discrimination, among other things, on the basis of gender expression or identity.  Because spa patrons are required to be naked during certain spa services (massages and body scrubs), the spa refuses to serve transgender women who have not gone through post-operative sex-confirmation surgery. The spa advertises itself as welcoming "biological women." Three of the spas employees and one of its patrons are also plaintiffs in the case.  Plaintiffs claim that their requiring them to service nude males and females in the same rooms substantially burdens the exercise of their religious beliefs.  The court held however that because the public accommodation law is neutral and generally applicable, it needs to meet only rational basis review and does so because of the state's interest in ensuring equal access to public accommodation. 

The court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that their free expression rights were violated by requiring them to remove language from their website that only "biological women" are females. The court said in part:

The WLAD [Washington Law Against Discrimination] bars Olympus Spa from denying services to customers based on sexual orientation and, in this regard, it incidentally burdens Olympus Spa’s speech by prohibiting advertisement of discriminatory entrance policies (e.g., one that permits only “biological women”). But that does not convert the WLAD into a content-based regulation....

Finally, the court dismissed plaintiffs' freedom of association claims, saying in part:

The Court does not minimize the privacy concerns at play when employees are performing exfoliating massages on nude patrons. Aside from this nudity, though, there is simply nothing private about the relationship between Olympus Spa, its employees, and the random strangers who walk in the door seeking a massage. Nor is there anything selective about the association at issue beyond Olympus Spa’s “biological women” policy. The Court therefore has little difficulty concluding that the personal attachments implicated here are too attenuated to qualify for constitutional protection.

Governors In Minnesota and Washington Sign Bills Protecting Access to Abortion and Gender-Affirming Care

On April 27, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed three bills protecting right to abortion and gender-affirming health care.  A press release from the Governor's Office describes the legislation:

Chapter 28, House File 16 prohibits mental health practitioners or mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to vulnerable adults and clients under age 18. The bill also prohibits fraudulent or deceptive advertising practices relating to conversion therapy.

Chapter 29, House File 146 prevents state courts or officials from complying with child removal requests, extraditions, arrests, or subpoenas related to gender-affirming health care that a person receives in Minnesota....

Chapter 31, House File 366 , the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act, ensures that patients traveling to Minnesota for abortion care, and the providers who serve them, are protected from legal attacks and criminal penalties from other states.

In Washington state, on April 27 Governor Jay Inslee signed five bills protecting access to abortion and gender-affirming services. A press release from the Governor's office describes the legislation:

In anticipation of a Trump-appointed judge’s ruling pulling a common and safe abortion pill from shelves nationally, the governor acted quickly to secure a three-year supply of mifepristone for the state that could be distributed regardless of federal court action.

With the 30,000 doses being held by the state Department of Corrections, all that was left to do was pass a bill that authorized the department to distribute the medication to health providers.... SB 5768 ... does just that....

... Shield Law, HB 1469... prohibits compliance with out-of-state subpoenas related to abortion and gender affirming care services; prevents cooperation with out-of-state investigations; bans extraditions related to abortion and gender affirming care services that occur legally in Washington; and protects providers from harassment for providing these services.....

Inslee also signed a bill to ensure health providers can’t be disciplined for providing legal reproductive health services or gender affirming care in Washington. HB 1340... protects health providers from disciplinary action or having their licenses revoked for “unprofessional conduct” if the care provided follows state law, regardless of where their patient resides.....

HB 1155, the “My Health, My Data” Act, ... will increase privacy protections around collecting, sharing and selling consumer health data. Some popular consumer products can track and share data on individuals’ health — and protections around the use of that data became more necessary with the attack on abortion care in other states....

Patients often face cost-sharing [under their health insurance plans] for receiving abortion care. SB 5242 eliminates cost-sharing for abortions and protects patients from unexpected expenses they may not be able to cover.

Supreme Court Review Sought in Challenge to Conversion Therapy Ban

On March 27, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Tingley v. Ferguson. In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing of a 3-judge panel's decision rejecting free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. Conversion therapy encourages change in sexual orientation or gender identity. (See prior posting). SCOTUSblog  reports on the petition for review.

Contradictory Orders From 2 District Court on FDA's Approval of Abortion Pill

In Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, (ND TX, April 7, 2023), a Texas federal district court held that plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the FDA's 2021 action allowing the abortion drug mifepristone to be distributed by mail violates the Comstock Act and thus was also in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also concluded that the FDA's approval in 2000 of doctors prescribing mifepristone violated the agency's rules for approval of new drugs. The FDA rules (Subpart H) relied upon to approve the drug apply to "new drug products that have been studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments...."  The court said in part:

[T]o satisfy Subpart H, FDA deemed pregnancy a “serious or life-threatening illness[]” and concluded that mifepristone “provide[d] [a] meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments.” See 21 C.F.R. §§ 314.500; 314.560. FDA was wrong on both counts....

Pregnancy is a normal physiological state most women experience one or more times during their childbearing years — a natural process essential to perpetuating human life. Defendants even admit pregnancy is not an “illness.”...

FDA also exceeded its authority under the second requirement of Subpart H. In addition to treating a serious or life-threatening illness, chemical abortion drugs must also provide a “meaningful therapeutic benefit” to patients over surgical abortion... [T]his cannot be the case because chemical abortion drugs do not treat “serious or life-threatening illnesses” — a prerequisite to reaching the second requirement.... Similarly, chemical abortion drugs cannot be “therapeutic” because the word relates to the treatment or curing of disease.

The court stayed the FDA's approval of mifepristone, but stayed the effectiveness of its order for 7 days so the government can appeal to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for emergency relief.  President Joe Biden issued a statement (full text) criticizing the court's decision and reporting that the Justice Department has already filed an appeal.  Vice President Kamala Harris also issued a statement (full text) criticizing the decision.

Meanwhile, in State of Washington v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, (ED WA, April 7, 2023), a Washington federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the FDA from "altering the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of Mifepristone" in the 17 states and District of Columbia that are plaintiffs in the case. Plaintiffs are challenging certain requirements for prescribing mifepristone added in 2023.

Seattle Times reports on the decisions.

Christian Mission Challenges Narrowing of Washington State's Religious Exemption From Employment Non-Discrimination Law

Suit was filed yesterday in a Washington federal district court by a Christian social service agency contending that the Washington Supreme Court's recent interpretation of the state's employment discrimination law violates the First Amendment. The complaint (full text) in Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Wash. v. Ferguson, (ED WA, filed 3/3/3023) alleges in part:

The Mission’s employees must adhere to certain Christian belief and behavior requirements—including abstaining from any sexual conduct outside of biblical marriage between one man and one woman—in order to properly live out and represent a Christian lifestyle and to not undermine the Mission’s religious message....

The WLAD [Washington Law Against Discrimination] used to protect the Mission by exempting religious nonprofit organizations from its provisions, but the Washington Supreme Court recently gutted the religious employer exemption, reducing it to the “ministerial exception.” See Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, 197 Wash. 2d 231 (2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1094 (2022).... 

Post-Woods, Defendant Ferguson has made clear the State’s position that the WLAD now prohibits religious organizations from considering sexual orientation in hiring their non-ministerial employees....

As a result of the judicially re-written WLAD, and Defendants’ enforcement of the WLAD, the Mission now faces significant penalties for using its religiously-based hiring criteria for “non-ministerial” employees.

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

Seattle Becomes First U.S. City To Outlaw Caste Discrimination

Seattle, Washington this week became the first U.S. city to add "caste" discrimination to its anti-discrimination laws. The Ordinance (full text), enacted on Feb. 21, in Section 14.04.030 defines caste as:

a system of rigid social stratification characterized by hereditary status, endogamy, and social barriers sanctioned by custom, law, or religion.

The Ordinance begins with some two-dozen "Whereas" clauses. They assert in part that:

... caste discrimination is based on birth and descent, and occurs in the form of social segregation, physical and psychological abuse, and violence; and

... caste discrimination manifests in employment, education, and housing....

 Time has a lengthy background article on the new legislation.

Suit Says Sheriff's Office Pressures Employees to Join Favored Church

Suit was filed this week in a Washington federal district court by an ex-deputy sheriff who alleges that Chelan County (WA) Sheriff's Office employees pressured him to join the "'alt-right' militant" Grace City Church and to attend its 12-week marriage counseling program. The complaint (full text) in Shepard v. Chelan County, (ED WA, filed 2/14/2023), alleges in part:

Defendant Chelan County Sheriff's Department targeted law enforcement officers who are not Grace City Church members by disciplining, terminating, and denying advancement to them for alleged internal Chelan County Sheriff's Office policy violations by arbitrarily enforcing certain policies against those employees and officers for the same conduct they allow, promote, or engage in themselves.

The suit alleges violation of Title VII, the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Establishment Clause. NCWLIFE reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Conversion Therapy Ban

In Tingley v. Ferguson, (9th Cir., Jan. 23, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an en banc rehearing of a 3-judge panel's decision rejecting free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors. Judge O’Scannlain, joined by Judges Ikuta, R. Nelson and VanDyke, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of en banc review, saying in pat:

Our decision in Pickup [v. Brown] is, I suggest, no longer viable. While Pickup may have seen no distinction between “treatments … implemented through speech” and those implemented “through scalpel,” ... the First Amendment recognizes the obvious difference, and protects therapeutic speech in a way it does not protect physical medical procedures....

[T]he panel majority here entirely ignored the First Amendment’s special solicitude for religious speech. Instead, it commended Washington for concluding “that health care providers should not be able to treat a child by such means as telling him that he is ‘the abomination we had heard about in Sunday school’.”...

Judge Bumatay also filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of review, saying in part:

[W]e also cannot ignore that conversion therapy is often grounded in religious faith. According to plaintiff Brian Tingley, a therapist licensed by the State of Washington, his practice of conversion therapy is an outgrowth of his religious beliefs and his understanding of Christian teachings....

Because the speech underpinning conversion therapy is overwhelmingly—if not exclusively—religious, we should have granted Tingley’s petition for en banc review to evaluate his Free Speech claim under a more exacting standard. It may well be the case that, even under heightened review, Washington’s interest in protecting minors would overcome Tingley’s Free Speech challenge. But our court plainly errs by subjecting the Washington law to mere rational-basis scrutiny. 

State Religious Discrimination Claims Against Airline Union Are Pre-empted By Federal Law

In Brown v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., (WD WA, Nov. 23, 2022), a Washington federal district court dismissed state-law religious discrimination claims brought against the flight attendants' union by two of its members.  Alaska Airlines fired plaintiffs because they posted comments on the company's internal intranet opposing the Airline's support for a federal statute that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal anti-discrimination laws. Plaintiffs claimed their comments were grounded in their religious beliefs. The Union unsuccessfully represented the flight attendants at a hearing appealing their termination.  Plaintiffs then sued claiming not only that Alaska Airlines discriminated against them because of their Christian faith, but that the Union did not defend them as vigorously as it defends other flight attendants because of the flight attendants' religious beliefs. The court dismissed the flight attendants' claims against the Union that were brought under Washington and Oregon anti-discrimination laws.  It concluded that that the "duty of fair representation" stemming from provisions of the federal Railway Labor Act pre-empts claims brought under state anti-discrimination laws where the charge is that a union did not adequately represent an employee in the grievance process.

Football Coach Sues After Being Fired for Religious Refusal of Covid Vaccine

Suit was filed last week by the former head football coach for Washington State University who was fired after refusing on religious grounds to comply with the state's Covid vaccine mandate for state employees. The Athletic Department refused to grant him a religious accommodation, questioning the sincerity of his religious objections as well as the University's ability to accommodate his objections. The complaint (full text) in Rolovich v. Washington State University, (WA Super. Ct., filed 11/14/2022), alleges that the coach's firing amounts to religious discrimination in violation of state and federal law and infringement of plaintiff's free exercise and due process rights. Campus Reform reports on the lawsuit.

Indictment Handed Down in 2018 Shooting of Jehovah's Witness Building

The Justice Department announced yesterday that a federal grand jury in Seattle, Washington has indicted Mikey Diamond Starrett, aka Michael Jason Layes, on one count of damaging religious property and one count of using a firearm during a crime of violence. According to the indictment, in May 2018 Starrett used a semi-automatic rifle to damage the Jehovah’s Witnesses Kingdom Hall of Yelm, Washington because of its religious character. He had also previously been charged with possession of an unregistered firearm.  If convicted, he faces a sentence of up to 20 years in prison on the charge of damaging religious property, plus up to ten years on the other charges. Last September, in U.S. v. Layes, (WD WA, Sept. 14, 2021), a federal magistrate judge ordered Starrett to be held in pre-trial detention.

Christian University Trustees Sued Over LGBTQ Hiring Policy

Suit was filed this week in a Washington state trial court against six members of the Board of Trustees of Seattle-Pacific University challenging the University's policy of refusing to hire LGBTQ faculty or staff if they are in a same-sex marriage or a same-sex relationship.  The complaint (full text) in Guillot v. Whitehead, (WA Super. Ct., filed 9/11/2022), brought by a group of students, faculty and staff, alleges breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and interference with contractual relationships. It contends that "rogue" members of the University Board of Trustees have misled other Board members about the vote necessary to eliminate the hiring policy. The University, which was founded by the Free Methodist Church of North America, defines itself as a Christian university. One-third of its board members and its president must be members of the Free Methodist Church. The complaint alleges in part:

1. This case is about six men who act as if they, and the educational institution they are charged to protect, are above the law.

2. They are powerful men who use their positions, as trustees of Seattle Pacific University (“SPU”), to advance the interests of a religious denomination at the expense of the students, alumni, staff, and faculty of the university....

102. SPU is a university in crisis, stemming from the abusive leadership of entrenched interests who usurped control of the BOT to place it in service of sectarian-motivated LGBTQ+ discrimination....

AP reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Upholds Washington's Ban On Conversion Therapy

In Tingley v. Ferguson, (9th Cir., Sept. 6, 2022), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected free speech, free exercise and vagueness challenges to Washington state's ban on practicing conversion therapy on minors.  The court said in part:

Washington’s licensing scheme for health care providers, which disciplines them for practicing conversion therapy on minors, does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. States do not lose the power to regulate the safety of medical treatments performed under the authority of a state license merely because those treatments are implemented through speech rather than through scalpel....

SB 5722 is a neutral law targeted at preventing the harms associated with conversion therapy, and not at the religious exercise of those who wish to practice this type of therapy on minors.

 Judge Bennett concurred in part.  Courthouse News Service reported on the decision.

Washington's State Employee Vaccine Mandate Upheld

In Pilz v. Inslee, (WD WA, May 27, 2022), a Washington federal district court upheld a Proclamation by Washington's governor that requires health care, education, and state-agency workers to be vaccinated against COVID.  Among other challenges in a suit brought by 100 state employees, plaintiffs claim the Proclamation infringes on religious beliefs that conflict with vaccination in violation of the Free Exercise clause. The court said in part:

[T]he Proclamation is in no way directed at any religious exercise and, at most, has an incidental impact on some state employees with particular religious beliefs. Therefore, the Court finds that the Proclamation is neutral and generally applicable. The Proclamation is accordingly subject to rational basis review and must be upheld if it is “rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.”

Free Exercise Challenge To Washington Vaccine Mandate Is Dismissed

 In Wise v. Inslee, (ED WA, April 27, 2022), a Washington federal district court dismissed various challenges to Washington state's vaccine mandate for certain state employees, including free exercise, Title VII religious discrimination, and Establishment Clause claims. The court said in part:

... [T]he State clearly has a legitimate government interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19, an interest that has been endorsed by the Ninth Circuit.... Additionally, the Proclamation is rationally related to that interest because it is based on overwhelming evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective, and increasing vaccination rates among those employees who come into regular contact with vulnerable populations is a rational action to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Accordingly, the Proclamation easily survives federal constitutional scrutiny....