Denial of Religious Exemption from Vaccine Mandate Upheld

 In Matter of Ferrelli v State of New York, (App. Div., April 16, 2024), a New York state appellate court upheld the denial of religious exemptions from the Covid vaccine mandate imposed for employment in the New York court system, The court held that the mandate was a neutral law of general applicability and thus was subject only to rational basis review. The court went on:

Marie Zweig, submitted her initial religious exemption application asserting that because of her Christian belief in the sanctity of life, she could not "in good conscience receive or benefit from the use of vaccines that are either tested on or produced using human cell lines derived from voluntarily aborted fetuses." On the supplemental form, Zweig acknowledged that she took over-the-counter medicines and would continue to do so, stating that she had "no knowledge that they were originally developed with the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses and [she] [has] determined that [she] can take them in good conscience" because "they were developed and approved long before they were tested on fetal cell lines." Respondents denied Zweig a religious exemption on the grounds that she failed to set forth a sincerely held religious belief....

... While reasonable people may disagree, upon review of Ms. Zweig's application, this Court cannot conclude that respondents' determination to deny her a religious exemption was so irrational as to be arbitrary and capricious....

Inmates Sue Claiming Religious Need to Watch Solar Eclipse

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by six inmates at the Woodbourne Correctional Facility in Sullivan County, New York seeking to enjoin a 3-hour statewide prison lock down scheduled for April 8 that will prevent inmates from viewing the solar eclipse.  Plaintiffs are Christian, Muslim, Santerian and Atheist. The complaint (full text) in Zielinski v. New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, (ND NY, filed 3/29/2024), alleges that plaintiffs "have each expressed a sincerely held religious belief that April’s solar eclipse is a religious event that they must witness and reflect on to observe their faiths." The complaint sets out the nature of each plaintiff's religious belief. It alleges that the lock down violates plaintiffs' rights under RLUIPA, the Free Exercise and the Equal Protection Clauses. CBS News reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: AP, April 5, reports:

Thomas Mailey, a spokesperson for the corrections department, said the department has agreed to permit the six individuals to view the eclipse, while plaintiffs have agreed to drop their suit with prejudice.

Husband's Defamation Action Against Organization Assisting His Wife in Obtaining a Get Is Dismissed

 In Satz v. Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, Inc., (SD NY, March 28, 2024), a New York federal district court dismissed a husband's suit alleging defamation and several other torts brought against an organization that assists Jewish women who have obtained divorces in civil courts but whose husbands refuse to provide them with a Jewish bill of divorce ("Get").  According to the court:

ORA posted on its website a graphic bearing Plaintiff’s picture, labeling him a “GET-REFUSER,” and asserting that “GET REFUSAL IS DOMESTIC ABUSE”.... ORA also posted a copy of a “Psak Din,” a ruling by a rabbinical court, which states that Plaintiff’s “recalcitran[ce]” justifies doing “anything that is not a criminal offense . . . to cause him to comply” with rabbinical court proceedings....

Expressions of opinion are not actionable....  Taken in context, ORA’s statement on the flyer posted on its website that “GET-REFUSAL IS DOMESTIC ABUSE” is not a statement of fact....  In this context, the statement that Get-refusal is domestic abuse clearly is an expression of opinion by an advocacy organization....

Finally, Plaintiff takes issue with the flyer’s statement that “Jewish law forbids” various forms of association with Plaintiff....  [A]djudicating the truth or falsity of ORA’s statement about what “Jewish law forbids,” would impermissibly entangle the Court in an “inquiry . . . into religious law.”...

New York courts also apply a qualified privilege to statements “fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral.” ... [T]here is a colorable argument that rabbis presiding over Get proceedings are engaged in the discharge of a moral duty and, therefore, the statements in the Psak Din, which ORA republished, are privileged.....

For this Court to adjudicate whether ORA defamed Plaintiff by republishing the Psak Din, the Court would have to determine the truth of the challenged statements in the Psak Din, which would impermissibly entangle the Court in questions of Jewish law.

3 More Leaders of Extremist Jewish Sect Convicted in 2018 Kidnappings

In a March 27 announcement (full text), the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York said in part:

Yoil Weingarten, Yakov Weingarten, and Shmiel Weingarten, leaders of Lev Tahor, an extremist Jewish sect based in Guatemala, have been found guilty of kidnapping a 12-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl and transporting the 14-year-old girl outside the United States to continue a sexual relationship with her adult male ‘husband.’  With this verdict, all nine Lev Tahor leaders and operatives charged for these heinous crimes have been held accountable.

Rockland/ Westchester Journal News has a lengthier account of the convictions for the 2018 kidnappings, saying in part:

A jury in White Plains federal court took less than four hours to reject the claims of Shmiel, Yakev and Yoil Weingarten that the girl and her 12-year-old brother ... were rescued from abusive treatment in New York and that reuniting the girl with her community and 20-year-old husband had nothing to do with sex.

They face up to 30 years in prison, including a minimum of 10 years on the charge of transporting a minor for sex. They were also convicted of conspiracy charges and international parental abduction. U.S. District Judge Nelson Roman scheduled sentencing for July 9.

(See prior related posting.)

Denial of Church's Property Tax Exemption Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Sandstrom v. Wendell, (WD NY, March 22, 2024), a New York federal district court rejected RLUIPA challenges to local tax officials' denial of a tax exemptions for two properties owned and converted to religious use by the Church of the Holy Redemption. Plaintiff, pastor of the church, argued that his religious exercise was substantially burdened by the denial. Tax officials contended that the Church did not qualify for a tax exemption. The court held in part:

[D]espite Plaintiff’s attempts to recharacterize his claims as amounting to a zoning challenge, ... Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged any burden on his religious beliefs apart from having to apply for tax-exempt status or being required to pay taxes.  At its core, Plaintiff is seeking a federal court ruling on a local tax matter, which is specifically circumscribed by the Tax Injunction Act and principles of comity....

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged that he submitted a meaningful application to challenge the controversy or gave Defendants an opportunity to commit to a position intended to be “final.”  Plaintiff does not allege that he completed the necessary requirements to challenge the properties’ status, commenced any appeal of the determination, or that such efforts would be futile, weighing against a finding that the claims are ripe....

Religious Marriage Without Marriage License and Later Annulled by Religious Court Is Still Recognized By New York

 In T.I. v. R.I., (NY Sup Ct Kings Cty, March 20, 2024), a New York state trial court held that the state would recognize a couple's marriage that was performed in a Jewish religious ceremony even though the couple did not obtain a civil marriage license and the marriage was annulled eight years later by a religious tribunal.  In a long-running dispute between the parties, there had been a prior divorce action which the parties discontinued and there had been protection orders in favor of the wife against the husband issued by the Family Court and Criminal Court. Now the husband, claiming that no marriage between them existed any longer, sought to have the wife's divorce action dismissed so that the court could not issue orders for him to pay child support, spousal maintenance or equitable distribution of property. According to the court:

The husband contends that the rabbinical court invalidated the parties' religious marriage on two Jewish religious concepts: 1) based upon "concealment" because the wife did not disclose her alleged mental health history to him prior to the religious solemnization ceremony; and 2) because the person who conducted the solemnization ceremony was not, although unknown to the parties, authorized to do so by at least some portion of the religious community....

Nothing related to the wife's request for a civil divorce requires this Court to address or assess the religious issues that the husband brought before the rabbinical court or that may have been part of the rabbinical court's determination and, as such, the husband's theory that the issue of whether the wife can seek a divorce of any marriage recognized by the State of New York is not prohibited by the First Amendment. Here, the determination of whether a marriage recognized by the State of New York exists between the parties separate and apart from any religious marriage rests not upon religious doctrine but upon neutral principles of law.

Any religious determinations and any ramification of religious doctrine made by the rabbinical court as to the parties' religious marriage are separate and apart from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over whether, based on neutral principles of law, there exists here a marriage recognized by the State between the parties....

New York's Removal of Religious Exemption from School Vaccination Requirement Is Upheld

In Miller v. McDonald, (WD NY, March 11, 2024), a New York federal district court upheld New York's removal of religious exemptions from its mandatory requirement for vaccination of school children. It rejected Free Exercise challenges by Amish individuals and schools, finding, in part in reliance on the 2nd Circuit's We the Patriots decision, that the law was both neutral and generally applicable, and thus did not trigger heightened scrutiny.  The court said in  part:

... Plaintiffs allege that PHL § 2164 is not neutral because “the State targeted religious adherents by eliminating [the] long-standing religious exemption while leaving the medical exemption process in place.”... This allegation fails to establish non-neutrality.  Nothing in the text of PHL § 2164 as amended demonstrates any hostility to religion.  To the contrary, PHL § 2164 is neutral on its face, neither targeting religious belief nor singling it out for particularly harsh treatment.  And, as previously noted, We the Patriots affirmatively held that the repeal of a previously existing religious exemption is not, of itself, hostile to religion....

Moreover, the legislative history related to the repeal of the non-medical exemption contains no evidence of hostility towards religious belief.  Those sponsoring the relevant legislation in both the New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly made clear that their concern was public health...

The We the Patriots court explained that “where a law provides for an objectively defined category of people to whom the vaccination requirement does not apply, including a category defined by medical providers’ use of their professional judgment, such an exemption affords no meaningful discretion to the State” and thus does not render the law not generally applicable.

Jewish Students Sue Columbia University Charging Pervasive Antisemitism

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by Jewish and Israeli students at Columbia University charging the University with widespread antisemitism.  The complaint (full text) in Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, (SDNY, filed 2/21/2024) alleges violations of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, of New York state and city Human Rights and Civil Rights Laws, breach of contract and deceptive business practices. The 114-page complaint reads in part:

Columbia ... has for decades been one of the worst centers of academic antisemitism in the United States.  Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel ...antisemitism at Columbia has been particularly severe and pervasive.... 

Columbia’s antisemitism manifests itself in a double standard invidious to Jews and Israelis.  Columbia selectively enforces its policies to avoid protecting Jewish and Israeli students from harassment, hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda, and ignores Jewish and Israeli students’ pleas for protection.  Those professors teach and advocate through a binary oppressor-oppressed lens, through which Jews, one of history’s most persecuted peoples, are typically designated “oppressor,” and therefore unworthy of support or sympathy.  Columbia permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, for the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world....

... Columbia has permitted endemic antisemitism to exclude Jewish and Israeli students from full and equal participation in, and to deprive them of the full and equal benefits of, their educational experience at Columbia, and has invidiously discriminated against them by, among other things, failing to protect them in the same way Columbia has protected other groups.... [I]t has responded to antisemitism with at best deliberate indifference....

Columbia Spectator reports on the lawsuit.

Former Editor of Yiddish Children's Magazine Sues Rabbinical Courts and Others Under RICO and Sherman Act

Suit was filed last month in a New York federal bankruptcy court against several rabbinical courts, rabbis, and other defendants charging Sherman Act and RICO violations. Plaintiff was the co-owner of a Yiddish language children's magazine who claims his former partner conspired with others to destroy his business. (Full text of 93-page complaint in In re Paneth v. Reiner, (ED NY Bkrptcy, filed 1/17/2024)). Shtetl has published a lengthy summary of the complaint, saying in part:

... Paneth claims that investor David Reiner used money and influence to sway leading Haredi rabbinical courts to coerce Paneth into a rabbinic arbitration process over disputes relating to the operation and management of Kindlein magazine.

... Ultimately, the complaint says, the rabbinical courts and Reiner collectively violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by colluding to put Paneth out of business and thereby eliminate Reiner’s only competition. They also sought to deprive Paneth of any employment opportunities and to ostracize him from the Hasidic world, the complaint says.

Mother Sues School for Socially Transitioning Her Daughter

Suit was filed yesterday in a New York federal district court by the mother of a middle school student who contends that her free exercise and due process rights were violated when the school began to socially transition her daughter by using a masculine name and plural pronouns in referring to her without informing the mother of the school's action.  The complaint (full text) in Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Central School District, (ND NY, filed 1/31/2024), alleges in part:

233. Mrs. Vitsaxaki was raised in a Catholic household, but after marrying Mr. Vitsaxakis, joined the Greek Orthodox Church...

262. Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s free-exercise rights include the right to raise her children in accordance with her religious beliefs and the right to direct her children’s education and upbringing consistent with her religious beliefs, including on identity, sex, gender, and fundamental questions of existence like how her children should identify themselves.... 

263. By referring to Jane with a masculine name and incorrect pronouns without notifying Mrs. Vitsaxaki or seeking her consent and by concealing these actions from Mrs. Vitsaxaki, Defendants substantially burdened Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s ability to exercise her religion....

266. During the three-month (at a minimum) period that Defendants were concealing from Mrs. Vitsaxaki the actions taken to socially transition Jane, Mrs. Vitsaxaki was unable to exercise her religion by choosing to educate Jane in an environment that would not have undermined her religious beliefs.

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

Denial of Vaccine Mandate Exemption for Nurse Is Upheld

 In St. Hillaire v, Montefiore Medical Center, (SD NY, Jan. 16, 2024), a New York federal district court rejected claims of religious discrimination brought by a hospital's Patient Safety Manager who was denied a religious exemption from a state Covid vaccine mandate and subsequently was fired. Plaintiff is an Apostolic Pentecostal Christian.  Denying Plaintiff's claim under Title VII, the court said in part:

As a New York hospital system, Defendant is legally obligated to comply with the DOH Mandate and is subject to stringent penalties for non-compliance, including loss of its license.... Defendant could not have accommodated Plaintiff’s request because Plaintiff was a registered nurse... and was a person covered by the DOH Mandate. Had Defendant granted Plaintiff’s request for an exemption, it would have been in direct violation of New York State law, thus suffering an undue hardship.

The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim because defendant is not a state actor. 

School Did Not Violate Title VII in Denying Religious Exemption to Covid Rules

In Russo v. Patchogue-Medford School District, (ED NY, Jan. 12, 2024), a New York federal district court held that a school district did not violate title VII's ban on religious discrimination in employment when it refused to accommodate a school psychologist's religious objection to a state mandate to either test weekly for Covid or show proof of vaccination.  Plaintiff considered both of these alternatives to be medical interventions that would violate her faith in God's ability to protect her and keep her healthy.  She instead sought as an accommodation either periodically completing a health questionnaire or working remotely. Rejecting those alternatives, the school placed her on unpaid leave. The court said in part:

The state’s test-or-vaccination requirement was a neutral law of general applicability that only incidentally affected employees with religious objections and did not “target[] religious conduct for distinctive treatment.” ... The requirement is, therefore, constitutionally permissible if it survives rational basis review.... The state’s requirement clearly satisfies this standard....

Plaintiff’s claim that she was unlawfully denied a religious accommodation also fails....

A proposed accommodation becomes an undue hardship for an employer if it would cause the employer to violate the law....

Defendant’s rejection of Plaintiff’s proposed accommodation of working remotely also did not violate Title VII.... [H]er proposal that she be permitted to work remotely going forward included a request that Defendant cut back on her job responsibilities to accommodate remote work.... Plaintiff, therefore, implicitly conceded that her proposed accommodation would “involve the elimination of an essential function of [her] job,” thereby rendering the proposal unreasonable....

The court also concluded that plaintiff's employer did not violate the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act.

Constitutional Challenge to RLUIPA Dismissed on Sovereign Immunity Grounds

In Coritsidis v. Khal Bnei Torah of Mount Ivy, (SD NY, Jan. 3, 2024), a New York federal district court dismissed the portion of the lawsuit naming the United States as defendant. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act discriminates in favor of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. The court did not get to the merits of the constitutional argument, saying in part:

Because Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden to establish an applicable waiver or exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Court dismisses all claims against the United States without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).

The court went on to refuse to exert supplemental jurisdiction over state law nuisance claims against defendant synagogue. Rcbizjournal reports on the decision.

2nd Circuit: Jewish School Prevented From Purchasing Site Meets Standing and Ripeness Requirements To Sue

In Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland v. Town of Clarkston, (2d Cir., Dec. 8, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that an Orthodox Jewish school that was prevented by town officials and a citizens' group from purchasing property on which to build met the standing and ripeness requirements to bring suit under RLUIPA, civil rights laws and state tort law. The court said in part:

ABY argues on appeal that its claims were ripe because nothing more than de facto finality is required for us to review them, and that such finality attached when the Zoning Board informed ABY that it would not entertain its appeal. ABY also argues that the district court erred in holding that ABY failed to satisfy the traceability requirement of Article III standing as to its tortious interference claim because it adequately pleaded that the Town Defendants’ conduct caused its contractual injuries. We agree with ABY and, therefore, we REVERSE the judgement of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

2nd Circuit: NY Ban on Firearms in Places of Worship Violates Free Exercise Rights

 Antonyuk v. Chiumento, (2d Cir., Dec. 8, 2023), is a 261-page opinion upholding in part and rejecting in many other respects constitutional challenges to New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act.  One of the constitutional challenges which the court upheld was a claim by a pastor and his church that applying a firearms ban to non-security personnel in places of worship violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.  In the case, the pastor alleged that the New York restrictions interfere with his religious duty to protect his congregation by being armed in church and by inviting other congregants with concealed carry licenses to bring their firearms. In accepting that argument, the court said in part:

[T]he CCIA is not neutral because it allows the owners of many forms of private property, including many types of retail businesses open to the public, to decide for themselves whether to allow firearms on the premises while denying the same autonomy to places of worship. By adopting a law that applies differently as to places of worship (alongside the other enumerated sensitive places) than to most other privately owned businesses and properties, the CCIA is, on its face, neither neutral nor generally applicable....

The State provides no explanation for why leaders of religious groups in general, and the Plaintiffs specifically, are less able to “eject persons carrying firearms” than any other property owner who is permitted to make a free choice whether to allow firearms on their premises.... A place of worship that prohibits guns will be equally reliant on the police and the criminal law to eject a person carrying a firearm, whether it does so pursuant to a sensitive place designation or a church policy. Either way, someone will have to call the cops. And if the State has determined that places of worship must be designated as sensitive places because criminal trespass law is not enough to keep out guns, then the decision to regulate places of worship more assiduously than other locations amounts to an unequal pursuit of the interest in preventing gun violence. Such an approach is understandable, but unconstitutional....

Reuters reports on the decision.

NY Court Rules That Parent Body Is Entitled to Possession of Hare Krishna Temple

Kelley v. Gupta, (Sup.Ct. Nassau Cty. NY, Oct. 25, 2023), involves a dispute between two factions of the Hare Krishna movement over control of a temple in Freeport, New York. In this decision a New York state trial court concluded that The Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness ("GBC") is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the Krishna movement, and upheld GBC's expulsion of defendant for engaging in religious practices that are contrary to the teachings of the religion. The court said in part:

GBC has established that ISKCON Global is a religion that operates under a hierarchical system, whereby local temples are subject to review and control by the GBC and its ascending order of authority.... The GBC has continued to pass laws and make rulings on various ISKCON Global issues including religious practices and the management of properties. Among these rulings were the Resolutions prohibiting ritvik theory as "a dangerous philosophical deviation," and the expulsion of those who practiced ritvikism, including the defendant and Mr. Garuda. Accordingly, complete deference must be afforded to the GBC's decision making authority in ecclesiastical matters, and any final decisions of the GBC in such matters are therefore binding on this Court....

The court concluded that trustees of ISKCON "are entitled to immediate possession of the Freeport Temple premises and property belonging to the Temple, including but not limited to deities...."

Crisis Pregnancy Center Sues Protesters Under FACE Act

 A civil suit under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act was filed last week in a New York federal district court by CompassCare which operates an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center in a Buffalo, NY suburb.  The complaint (full text) in Crisis Pregnancy Services, Inc. v. Kamke, (WD NY, filed 10/5/2023), alleges that defendant organized a counter-protest to CompassCare's Walk for Life at which protesters blocked a highway and assaulted walkers and police.  It alleges that subsequently, one of the defendants wrote graffiti on the organization's driveway, intending to deter staff, volunteers and patients from entering, and on another occasion stole a no-trespassing sign. Another defendant allegedly spray painted the word Liars over the center's entrance sign.  Finally it alleges that Jane Doe defendants were involved with a firebombing and graffiti. LifeNews reports on the lawsuit.

New Decisions on Covid Vaccine Religious Objection Claims

Decisions have been handed down in the past few days in several cases in which employees who were denied a religious exemption or accommodation from an employer's Covid vaccine mandate have sued:

In Dicapua v. City of New York, (Richmond Cty. NY Sup. Ct., Sept 18, 2923), 16 employees of the Department of Education brought suit.  A New York state trial court held that ten of the employees should have been granted a religious exemption, saying in part:

This Court sees no rational basis for not allowing unvaccinated classroom teachers in amongst an admitted population of primarily unvaccinated students.

In Mora v. New York State Unified Court System, (SD NY, Sept. 19, 2023), a New York federal district court dismissed a suit by a Poughkeepsie City Court Judge, saying in part:

Here, the Vaccine Mandate has been repealed, and plaintiff has been reinstated to his full in-person duties. Therefore, plaintiff has not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law, or a need for prospective relief...

Damage claims were  dismissed in part on the basis of 11th Amendment immunity and in part because Title VII does not apply to government appointees on the policymaking level. His Free Exercise claim was denied because the vaccine mandate was a neutral, generally applicable rule. Retaliation and equal protection claims were also rejected.

In Trusov v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Sept. 20, 2023), an Oregon federal district court dismissed some of the claims brought by a registered nurse who was denied a religious accommodation, and deferred consideration of another of her claims.  The court said in part:

Regarding Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s First Claim, alleging religious discrimination in employment, the Court finds that OHSU’s arguments about undue hardship must await a motion for summary judgment, at which time the Court may consider matters outside the pleadings and, if necessary, motions to exclude expert testimony. Regarding Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s second claim brought under § 1983 against the individual Defendants, the Court dismisses that claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Regarding, Defendants’ challenge to Plaintiff’s request for prospective declaratory relief, the Court dismisses that request for lack of standing.

In Mathisen v. Oregon Health & Science University, (D OR, Sept. 19, 2023), an Oregon federal district court rejected claims brought by a research laboratory manager who was denied a religious exemption as well as a medical exemption. The court said in part:

In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Title VII claim fails because OHSU offered to accommodate Plaintiff’s religious beliefs by offering an accommodation—masking—to which Plaintiff has alleged no objection based on religion....

Plaintiff’s assertion that masking would not promote safety is a secular objection, not a religious one. That objection, therefore, does not establish that the offered accommodation to her religious objection was not reasonable for purposes of her claim of religious discrimination.

Other of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed on qualified immunity and standing grounds.

Court OK's Denial of Unemployment Benefits for Religious Objector to Covid Vaccine Mandate

In In re Parks v. Commissioner of Labor, (NY App., Aug. 31, 2023), a New York state appellate court affirmed the decision of the state Unemployment Insurance Appeal Bord denying unemployment compensation to a medical center security guard who was fired for refusing to comply with a Covid vaccine mandate. The court said in part:

Although claimant refused to comply with the mandate for personal reasons that he characterized as based upon his religious beliefs, the state mandate did not authorize a religious exemption. Contrary to claimant's contention that the vaccine mandate violates his First Amendment religious and other constitutional rights, religious beliefs do not excuse compliance with a valid, religion-neutral law of general applicability that prohibits conduct that the state is free to regulate, as the Board recognized.... When employment is terminated as a consequence of the failure to comply with such a law, including noncompliance with a religious motivation, the First Amendment does not prohibit the denial of unemployment insurance benefits based upon that noncompliance where, as here, the mandate has a rational public-health basis and is justified by a compelling government interest....

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Jewish Faculty at NY College Can Move Ahead with Hostile Work Environment Lawsuit

In Lax v. City University of New York, (NY Kings Cty. Sup. Ct., Aug. 24, 2023), a New York state trial court allowed five Orthodox Jewish faculty members at Kingsborough Community College to move ahead with their religious hostile work environment and retaliation claims against the school, the faculty union and others (except for certain claims that duplicated ones being pursued administratively). According to the court:

Plaintiffs allege that they and other observant Jewish faculty and staff members at Kingsborough have faced pervasive, anti-religious discrimination from a particular segment of fellow faculty members who are the leaders of a faculty group called the Progressive Faculty Caucus of Kings borough Community College (PFC).... The New Caucus closely coordinated with the PFC.... Plaintiffs claim that the New Caucus members collaborated with the PFC members to dominate campus elections and call for the removal of observant Jewish faculty members, administrators, department chairs, and others at Kings borough. Plaintiffs allege that each of the defendants actually participated in, and aided and abetted, the conduct giving rise to their discrimination and retaliation claims.

Plaintiffs assert, among numerous alleged acts of discriminatory conduct, that ... the PFC and the New Caucus members lobbied against ... observant Jewish candidates running in campus elections; that the PFC members called for the removal of observant Jewish faculty members...; that the PFC organized an anti-discrimination event for a Friday night ... with the purpose of excluding Sabbath-observant Jewish members...; that the Union leaders applied pressure to Kingsborough's chief diversity officer ... to suppress the investigation of the Friday Night Event....

... CUNY claims that it is not responsible for the alleged discrimination against plaintiffs by a faculty group, i.e., the PFC, or the political party composed of certain members of the faculty, i.e., the New Caucus. CUNY maintains that plaintiffs lump all of their disparate allegations together in an attempt to hold it responsible for the alleged actions of the other defendants. 

An employer, such as CUNY, however, can be held liable for an employee's discriminatory act where "the employer became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it"....

Legal Insurrection reports on the lawsuit.