Religious
Freedom in Focus is a
monthly email update about the Civil
Rights Division's religious liberty
and religious discrimination cases.
Assistant Attorney General R. Alexander
Acosta has placed a priority on these
cases. Through vigorous enforcement
of:
- Federal
statutes prohibiting religion-based discrimination
in education, employment, housing, public
facilities, and public accommodations;
- Federal
laws against arson and vandalism of houses
of worship and bias crimes against people
because of their faith; and
- The
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA);
and
through participation as intervenor and
friend-of-the-court in cases involving
the denial of equal treatment based on
religion, the Civil Rights Division is
working to protect the right of people
of all faiths to participate fully in public
life.
More information about this initiative, and back issues
of this newsletter, may be found on the
religious discrimination home page of the Civil Rights
Division website. |
IN
THIS ISSUE:
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Equal Access for New Jersey Good News Club
On October
15, a
federal appeals court ruled that a New
Jersey school district violated the constitutional rights of a Good
News Club seeking to distribute permission slips and flyers through
school facilities that were made available to other community groups.
The Civil Rights Division had submitted a brief
in the case, Child
Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey v. Stafford Township School
District, and argued the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia.
Assistant
Attorney General R. Alexander Acosta applauded the decision:
"Allowing groups serving children the ability to communicate with
parents without discrimination based on their religion is not only
good educational policy, it is the law. We are pleased that the
Court of Appeals has reinforced the principle that equal access truly
means equal access."
The
Stafford Township school district had a policy of opening school
facilities for use "to the fullest extent possible by community
groups and agencies." Accordingly, the Township permitted groups
such as 4-H, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, sports leagues and
other groups providing children’s activities to send flyers and
permission slips home to parents by giving them to the school for
distribution in students' take-home folders. They also permitted
these groups to post materials on a bulletin board and have tables
at back-to-school night.
Good News
Clubs are Christian youth organizations that sponsor weekly meetings
to teach boys and girls character and values through Bible lessons,
games, and songs. The local Good News Club chapter sought to
distribute flyers and permission slips to parents through the same
distribution means available to other groups serving children. The
school district, however, barred them from doing so, citing concerns
about the establishment of religion. It did so despite the fact
that
the flyers explicitly stated that the Good News Club's activities
were not school-sponsored.
The Good
News Club filed suit against the Township, claiming discrimination
based on its religious viewpoint. The Good News Club in Stafford
Township contended that the principles in the Supreme Court's Good
News Club v. Milford (2001) decision requiring equal treatment for
religious groups in access to space for their activities also require
equal access to ways to communicate with parents about those
activities. In Good News Club v. Milford,
the Supreme Court ruled that once a school has
opened its facilities to community groups that "promote[] the moral
and character development of children," it cannot discriminate
against those that do so from a religious viewpoint. The trial court
agreed that this principle applied equally to the means of
communication regarding the use of school space, and found the
school's practice to be unconstitutional.
The School
appealed, and the Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief
supporting the Good News Club's position. The United States argued
that the Supreme Court's Good News Club decision was directly
applicable to this situation, and that the school could not
discriminate against the Stafford Good News Club because of its
religious approach. The brief also stated that allowing access on
equal terms would not violate the Establishment Clause:
Stafford
would not violate the Establishment Clause by allowing the Good News
Club to promote its after-school activities on equal terms with other
organizations. To the contrary, permitting access on an equal basis
would preserve the neutrality toward religion required by the
Establishment Clause.
The brief
also observed that the Supreme Court in Good News Club had
in fact noted that students could only attend Good News
Club meetings with
their parents' permission as a way of ensuring that no one could
mistake the Good News Club meetings as being sponsored by the school.
The brief suggested that it was ironic that the school invoked the
Constitution to bar the distribution of permission slips
that the Supreme Court said helped avoid any Establishment Clause
confusion.
The Court
of Appeals agreed with the Civil Rights Division and affirmed
the decision. The Court found that the Township had allowed access
to
numerous groups engaged in substantially similar activities to those
of the Good News Club. The only difference was that the Good
News Club was religious. And, the court held, allowing equal treatment
would not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court ruled that the
effect of equal treatment "would be to inform school families
about
available community activities and to foster a wide range of
activities in the community. While some religious groups would
benefit from equal access, so would a great many secular groups."
This, the Court held, was not an Establishment Clause violation.
Civil Rights Division Defends California Good
News Club's Right to Equal Access
In another
important case involving continued resistance to the Supreme Court’s
ruling in Good News Club v. Milford, the Justice
Department filed a brief on October 20 supporting
a California Good News Club’s efforts to obtain equal access to
school facilities. In Child Evangelism Fellowship of Southern
California - Pomona Valley Chapter v. Lenz, a local Good News Club
chapter was charged a fee for use of school facilities after school,
even though other groups such as the YMCA, the Boy Scouts, the Girl
Scouts, and Camp Fire were permitted to use school facilities for free.
Assistant
Attorney General R. Alexander Acosta remarked: "The Supreme Court
has stated that religious youth organizations are entitled to
equal
access. The Constitution does not tolerate a sliding fee scale based
on one's religious views."
An Upland
School District policy gives free access to school facilities
for youth activities drawing at least half of their participants from
the
local community. The policy, however, specifically provides that
"religious activities" must pay a fee. The policy is based on a
California law which mandates that school facilities be open to
community groups, but requires religious groups to be charged an
access fee.
The local
Good News Club chapter sought to meet at a local elementary
school on
the same terms as the other youth organizations, but was told that
because its activities were religious, it had to pay to use the
facilities. It filed suit against the school in federal court,
asking the court to rule that the school policy and the California
statute on which it was based unconstitutionally discriminate based on
religion.
The Civil
Right's Division's friend-of-the-court brief argues that both
the school district policy and the state statute on which it
was based unconstitutionally discriminate against religious views.
The brief
points to other Supreme Court and lower court decisions holding that
where funds are made available for the dissemination of certain
content, discrimination in access to those funds on the basis of
religious viewpoint is comparable to discrimination in access to
public meeting space on the basis of religious viewpoint. The brief
states that treating the Good News Club equally with other groups
would not endorse religion, but rather would "ensure the State’s
neutrality toward religion, the very opposite of endorsement."
Civil Rights Division Files Religious
Discrimination Suit Against New York MTA
In a case
defending the rights of people of faith to work in the public sector,
the Civil Rights Division on September 30 filed a religious
discrimination lawsuit against the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) and the New York City Transit
Authority (NYCTA). The suit alleges that the defendants
discriminated against Muslims, Sikhs, and others who wear religious
head-coverings.
The
complaint alleges that the
MTA and the NYCTA selectively enforced their uniform policies against
employees who wear religious head-coverings and failed to reasonably
accommodate these employees' religious practices and beliefs as
required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, and
national origin in hiring and in
the terms and conditions of employment. Title VII requires employers
to make a reasonable accommodation of employees' religious beliefs
and practices, unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the
employer.
"Public
employees should not have to sacrifice their religious beliefs
to
enjoy the same employment benefits as their coworkers," said R.
Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights
Division. "While public employers have the authority to set
reasonable dress standards, they cannot selectively apply them at the
cost of civil rights. We will continue to closely monitor public
employers to guard against illegal religious discrimination."
According
to the complaint, in early 2002 the MTA and the NYCTA began enforcing
uniform policies against Muslim and Sikh employees who wear
headscarves or turbans. The MTA and the NYCTA involuntarily
transferred these employees to yard or depot jobs where they would
not be seen by or interact with the public. These jobs are less
desirable, and provide diminished seniority benefits and fewer
overtime opportunities. Prior to 2002, many Muslim and Sikh
employees had been wearing their religious head coverings without
incident. Other employees have routinely worn non-MTA headwear,
such as baseball caps, and the MTA and the NYCTA continue to permit
them to do so.
The
filing in this case comes on the heels of the Division's lawsuit
against the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority
for failing to consider
schedule-accommodation requests by Sabbath-observant Jews and others
who must refrain from work on certain days or times. The complaint
in that case was filed on September 16.
Follow-Up: Guilty Plea in Mosque E-mail Threat Case
The
Justice Department announced on September 30 that Jared Bjarnason of
El Paso, Texas, had pleaded guilty to sending email threats to the
Islamic Center of El Paso this past April. As previously reported
in Religious Freedom in Focus, Bjarnason admitted to
sending an email to the mosque on April 4, 2004 in response to the
taking of hostages in Iraq, threatening to turn the Islamic Center
into a "center of death and destruction" and to burn the mosque to
the ground if hostages held in Iraq were not freed within three days.
Bjarnason was apprehended within two days of sending the message by FBI
agents, who used a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act
to identify him as the sender.
The charges to which he pleaded guilty to included threatening
violence in order to obstruct mosque members in the free exercise of
their religion and transmitting a communication containing a threat
of injury.
R.
Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights
Division, applauded the swift apprehension and plea agreement: "As
President Bush has said, 'Those who feel like they can intimidate our
fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best
of America; they represent the worst of humankind, and they should
be
ashamed of that kind of behavior.'"
U.S.
Attorney Johnny Sutton of the Western District of Texas said, "In
these difficult times we cannot lose sight of the freedoms we hold
dear in the United States, including the freedom to worship as we see
fit. Our office will aggressively prosecute anyone who, through
criminal acts, threatens, intimidates, or harms people on account
of
their religious beliefs."
To
apprehend Bjarnason, the FBI employed a provision of the USA PATRIOT
Act that permits internet service providers to give information
about
electronic communications to law enforcement officials "if the
provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate
danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies
disclosure of the information."
With the
PATRIOT Act's authority, the FBI was able to trace the threatening
e-mail well before the expiration of the three-day deadline contained
in the threat and request information from the internet service
providers through which the email had traveled. Absent this
provision, the FBI would have had to obtain a separate search
warrant from each service provider, a process which could have taken
over 30 days.
Bjarnason
faces up to twenty years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Sentencing
is scheduled for December 21, 2004.
This was
one of two incidents of violence against the Islamic Center
this
year. A complaint recently filed in federal court alleges that on
September 17, 2004, Antonio Nunez-Flores threw two "Molotov
Cocktails" at the Islamic Center building. The charges against
Nunez-Flores carry a maximum possible sentence of ten years in prison
and a $250,000 fine. All suspects are considered innocent until
proven guilty in a court of law. The fact that complaint has
been
filed is not evidence of guilt.
The Civil
Rights Division, United States Attorneys' Offices, and the FBI
have
investigated more than 600 incidents of alleged bias-motivated crimes
against individuals perceived to be of Middle Eastern origin
since
September 11, 2001. The Justice Department has brought 19 federal
prosecutions against 24 defendants to date. In addition, with the
substantial assistance of the Justice Department in many cases,
there have been nearly 150 state and local prosecutions. More
information about these cases and other efforts by the Civil Rights
Division to counter backlash against Muslims, Sikhs, Arabs and South
Asians may be found at the Initiative to Combat Post-9/11
Discriminatory Backlash home page.
United
States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt