Ken at Popehat has picked up primary documents in the case of the lawsuit filed by Beaverton Grace Bible Church of Beaverton, Ore. against a “former parishioner and her family members for negative online reviews.” Earlier here.
{ 0 comments }
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
Ken at Popehat has picked up primary documents in the case of the lawsuit filed by Beaverton Grace Bible Church of Beaverton, Ore. against a “former parishioner and her family members for negative online reviews.” Earlier here.
{ 0 comments }
Among issues in the suit: whether terms like “creepy,” “cult,” “control tactics,” and “spiritual abuse” are defamatory. [Anita Kissee, KATU]
{ 4 comments }
“…your heart will lift up, unless you are the noise nuisance officer of North Somerset….For the time being, the chimes of Wrington have been silenced,” owing to a noise complaint lodged by a weekending Londoner. [A.N. Wilson, The Independent]
{ 3 comments }
“[Glenn] Richter has been collecting food from places like the Ohav Zedek synagogue and bringing it to homeless shelters for more than 20 years, but recently his donation, including a ‘cholent‘ or carrot stew, was turned away because the Bloomberg administration wants to monitor the salt, fat and fiber eaten by the homeless. … Richter said that over the years he’s delivered more than two tons of food to the homeless.” The NYC mayor says he’s not planning to reconsider the recently adopted policy. [CBS-NY] Earlier here (Connecticut), here (N.J.: “retail food establishment”), here, etc.
{ 16 comments }
“A retired semi-professional footballer who claims his faith ruined his chances of playing for Manchester United is suing the Baptist Church for £10 million.” Arquimedes Nganga “quit the sport aged 25 when he converted to the Baptist faith. He said: ‘I could definitely have had a long career in the Premiership’” had he not given it up. [Evening Standard]
{ 5 comments }
{ 5 comments }
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 }
{ 4 comments }
{ 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 }