Posts tagged as:

churches

East St. Louis: “In yet another ’swoon and fall’ case against a church, an Illinois woman claims she was injured during a church service when a parishioner who was receiving the ’spirit’ fell backward, knocking several other worshippers into her.” Most “slain in the Spirit” suits are filed either by the worshiper who loses consciousness and falls or by a designated “catcher”; this one is on behalf of an injured bystander [Matthew Heller, On Point News; earlier here, here, here] “New tort: Gottvertrunkenism” [@Sam_Schulman]

{ 2 comments }

HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius said giving church-related sponsors of health plans an additional year to comply with the contraceptive mandate “strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” Really? If religious freedom is in fact at stake, what kind of “balance” is attained if it gets a one-year reprieve but then expires? A balance between current freedom of institutional conscience and future lack of same? [AP] On the Obama administration’s remarkably unfriendly stance toward self-governance by church institutions, see my coverage of this term’s Hosanna-Tabor Supreme Court case. More: Michael Greve has a must-read analysis predicting the directive’s downfall in court, and pointing out the procedural dodginess of this and much other regulation implementing the ACA. And Thom Lambert asks: “What if the Government Ordered the Human Rights Campaign to Cover Conversion Therapy for Gays?”

{ 27 comments }

And I do a little happy dance at Cato at Liberty (earlier)(& Damon Root/Reason, Allahpundit; my background piece in October).

More: Hans Bader points out, regarding the Obama DoJ’s “let them rely on free association” argument, that “free-association defenses, unlike religious-freedom defenses, are generally losers, as the Supreme Court’s Hishon, Jaycees, and New York State Club Association decisions illustrate.” And: “The extreme position taken by the Obama Justice Department in the Hosanna-Tabor case is a reflection of ideologically-based hiring.”

{ 13 comments }

“A youth group adviser from California has brought a class-action suit against her employer, the Orthodox Union. …Her complaint states that in addition to her ‘nine-to-five’ duties of teaching classes, meeting with students and co-workers, cooking for holiday meals and running programs, she also had students at her house on Friday nights, Saturdays and Sundays. She had to make herself constantly available to students and their parents by phone and e-mail, and she worked around the clock while chaperoning Shabbatons and trips.” Overtime was not paid for these duties as legally required, her lawyer says. [JTA via Helfand/Prawfs; related on scope of "ministerial exception" in employment law]

{ 6 comments }

In Morristown, N.J., the city’s decision to reclassify a church-sponsored soup kitchen as a “retail food establishment” is expected to drive up the kitchen’s operating costs by at least $150,000 a year, in part by prohibiting volunteers from bringing in home-prepared food or even aprons. [William McGurn, Wall Street Journal] We’ve covered the issue periodically over the years.

{ 11 comments }

In discussions of the “ministerial exception,” which limits the scope of employment lawsuits against churches and related groups over some jobs important to their mission, the typical example often given of a job not covered by the exception is janitor. Eve Tushnet wonders why that is (scroll to “custodian of souls”; earlier on the pending Supreme Court case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC).

{ 3 comments }

Argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC pits the quasi-religion of employment discrimination law against organized religion of every other sort. Guess which side the Obama administration comes down on? I explain in a new op-ed at The Daily Caller. More background: Christopher Lund (Wayne State), “In Defense of the Ministerial Exception”, North Carolina Law Review/SSRN. And per Rick Garnett at NRO “Bench Memos,” the Court’s justices in their questioning yesterday did not appear friendly toward the idea of overthrowing the exception (& followup). According to the L.A. Times and other reporting, Justice Kagan described the Justice Department’s position as “amazing.” More: Marcia McCormick, Workplace Prof (linking to transcript of oral argument, PDF)(& welcome Damon Root/Reason “Hit and Run” readers).

{ 2 comments }

July 28 roundup

by Walter Olson on July 28, 2011

  • Wild hypotheticals were grist for complaint: “Widener law professor cleared of harassment charges” [NLJ, earlier here, here, here]
  • Ninth Circuit: Facebook didn’t breach user’s right to accommodation of mental disability [Volokh]
  • House Judiciary hearing on litigation and economic prosperity [Wajert]
  • “University of Michigan to stop worrying about lawsuits, start releasing orphan works” [Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing]
  • PBS airs “The Story Behind Wacky Warning Labels” [Bob Dorigo Jones]
  • Fifth Circuit “candy cane” religion-in-schools case controversial among conservatives [David Upham, NR Bench Memos]
  • Great moments in public records law [Cleveland Plain Dealer, earlier related]

{ 4 comments }

July 25 roundup

by Walter Olson on July 25, 2011

{ 5 comments }

Lowering the Bar has more on the trademark dispute between the International House of Pancakes (restaurant) and the International House of Prayer (church)(earlier).

Eugene Volokh has a legal analysis of the ballot proposal, which includes no religious-belief exemption. More: Dave Hoffman.

{ 18 comments }

While the campaign to ban “defamation of religion” appears to have lost some steam at the world body recently, continued efforts to curtail “religious hate speech” could restrict free expression in some of the same ways. [Nina Shea, NRO "Corner"; Ilya Somin, Volokh] Warns Nina Shea:

In 2009, the Obama administration had the U.S. co-sponsor with Egypt, which represented the OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference], a non-binding hate-speech resolution in the Human Rights Council. In contrast to U.S. constitutional law, that resolution urges states to take and to effectively implement “all necessary measures” to combat any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. It thus encourages the worldwide criminalization of religious hate speech.

{ 4 comments }

The so-called ministerial exemption to workplace anti-discrimination laws is not very popular in some quarters of legal academia. Were the courts not to recognize a strong exemption of this sort, however, churches and congregations might be forced to employ teachers or even ministers who hew to doctrines they regard as erroneous or sinful, courts would be thrust into intrusive inquiries as to competing claims of fealty to religious doctrine, and the sorts of court orders often issued to bind the conduct of conventional employers might obstruct believers’ freedom to organize church institutions as they see fit. Now the Supreme Court for the first time has agreed to hear a case construing the scope of the ministerial exemption. As public debate proceeds, some might even wind up concluding that the legitimate liberty interest in freedom of association is so important that non-religious organizations should enjoy it too. [Rick Garnett and Chris Lund, PrawfsBlawg]

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “The parents of a man fatally stabbed at the New Life Evangelistic Center homeless shelter in 2008 have filed wrongful death lawsuits against the center, saying the center did not provide adequate security.” Jeremy Dunlap was 21 years old when he was stabbed at the center by Robert Gamble, another homeless man who was convicted of murder. “We are saddened that the family would claim that we were negligent,” a church assistant said. “We are in the business of trying to help people that nobody else will help.”

{ 9 comments }

Among other counts in her lawsuit, Jeannette Hawkins says she would never have gone to work for Rev. Marcus Lamb had she not been taken in by his show of conformity to “the highest standards of Christian behavior.” [OnPoint News, AP/CBS]

…better check whether your church is licensed as a commercial LatticePiefood-preparation facility [Density Duck in comments:]

…Our local church had to shut down its Feed-The-Hungry operation (where a bunch of retired housewives cooked simple meals and froze them to give to the local soup kitchen.) The reason is that the church kitchen wasn’t certified as a commercial food-preparation facility, as one of the lawyers in the congregation helpfully pointed out to the lady in charge of the program.

We’ve covered the issue periodically before.

{ 3 comments }

When a Holy Saint sues

by Walter Olson on November 8, 2010

For more than three years a Sikh religious leader, styled by some “Third Holy Saint,” has been suing lone journalist Hardeep Singh under United Kingdom libel law over a critical article printed in the Sikh Times, drawing an outcry from some libel-law reformers there [Jack of Kent, Index on Censorship]

The logo on the clerics’ vehicle does look frankly imitative, but was there really a likelihood of confusion? In any case, Best Buy through its lawyers was unforgiving. [Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel]

{ 4 comments }