The Rutherford Institute Litigation Report
The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides
legal services at no charge to people whose constitutional and human
rights have been threatened or violated. In addition to the cases
that are in litigation, TRI also actively works to defend the rights
of individuals and institutions by providing them with appropriate
legal information and resources and by writing letters on their behalf
(Need
Legal Help?). The Institute also files amicus briefs in cases
of interest in the United States Supreme Court and lower courts. The
following is a sampling of cases that TRI attorneys are presently
handling in various stages of litigation.
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS: ZERO TOLERANCE
FREE SPEECH
RIGHTS IN THE WORKPLACE
PARENTS’ RIGHTS
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS
PRISONERS’ RIGHTS
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS: FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
State of Michigan Denies Tuition Grant to Divinity Student:
Patrick v. State of Michigan Dept. of Treasury—Office of Financial Aid
Jordan Patrick decided to attend graduate school at Cornerstone University and major in divinity after receiving a tuition grant from the state of Michigan. The state awards such grants to qualified applicants with limited financial resources, and Patrick and his family had met all the criteria to be eligible for the grant. However, after Patrick decided to pursue a master of divinity degree in Pastoral Studies, he was informed by the financial aid office of Cornerstone University that his chosen field of study made him ineligible to receive the tuition grant. The financial aid office was unable to apply the grant toward Patrick’s tuition expenses because the state claimed the money could not be used toward a degree in divinity, theology, or religious instruction. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute are deciding how to proceed with this case after the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Locke v. Davey that a student’s First Amendment rights were not violated when the state of Washington refused to provide him a scholarship because he was pursuing a religious degree. The extent to which the Court’s opinion relied upon the fact that Washington’s constitution contains a provision more stringent than the federal constitution’s Establishment Clause is unclear.
Kindergarten Student Prevented from Distributing Jelly Beans with Religious Poem:
Wuebben v. Kettering City School District
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of M.W., a kindergarten student who was prevented by school officials from distributing bags of jelly beans with a religious poem to her classmates. Just before the Easter holiday, in the spring of 2003, a kindergartner at Orchard Park Elementary School in Kettering, Ohio, requested permission from her teacher to distribute to her kindergarten classmates individual bags of jelly beans with a religious poem attached entitled “The Jelly Bean Prayer.” “The Jelly Bean Prayer,” which provides a code for the colors of the jellybeans, reads: “Red is for the blood He gave. Green is for the grass He made. Yellow is for the sun so bright. Orange is for the edge of night. Black is for the sins we made. White is for the grace He gave. Purple is for His hour of sorrow. Pink is for our new tomorrow. A bag full of jelly beans colorful and sweet, is a prayer, is a promise, is a special treat. May the joy of Christ’s resurrection fill your heart and bless your life.” The teacher denied the request and informed the student’s parents that it was against the school’s policy to allow students to distribute religious literature in the classroom. When the girl’s father met with the Director of Student Services to discuss Orchard Park Elementary School’s policy regarding student distribution of literature, he was informed that his daughter, M.W., would be permitted to distribute objects in the classroom, including jellybeans, provided no religious message was attached. Thus, if M.W. wanted to distribute “The Jelly Bean Prayer,” she would have to do it outside the classroom. In filing their complaint on behalf of the Wuebben family, Institute attorneys pointed out that Orchard Park Elementary School officials have permitted students to distribute secular messages and gifts, including cards and candy, in the classroom on various occasions.
STUDENTS’ RIGHTS: ZERO TOLERANCE
Third-Grader Arrested, Suspended Under School’s Zero Tolerance Policies: Alston v. Irvington School District
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Essex County on behalf of Hamadi Alston, a third-grader at Augusta Street School in Irvington, N.J., who was arrested for using an L-shaped piece of paper as a gun in a pretend game of “Cops and Robbers.” The complaint was filed against the Irvington Board of Education, its superintendent, the presiding principal of Augusta Street School at the time of the incident, Hamadi’s teacher, the school’s resource officer and the Irvington police officers who arrested Hamadi. The complaint makes charges of false arrest, malicious prosecution, violations of Hamadi’s free speech rights and the unconstitutional application of baseless zero tolerance policies.
On March 15, 2001, 8-year-old Hamadi and his classmates were directed to take advantage of the school’s “free time” period, during which students are permitted to speak among themselves, read books and play board games that are available in the classroom. When Hamadi and a fellow student selected a book to read, they found an L-shaped piece of paper contained within it. Using the L-shaped item as a paper gun and exclaiming “Pow, pow!” the boys began playing pretend games of “Cops and Robbers” and “Cowboys and Indians.” At no time did the boys threaten to harm each other or anyone else. At the conclusion of their “free time” period, the boys proceeded to their next class, at which point the school’s resource officer for interrogation removed the boys from the classroom and took them to the school office for questioning. At no time did school officials contact Hamadi’s parents. Upset by the interrogation, Hamadi began crying. When Hamadi’s father arrived to pick him up at the end of the day, he found his son crying in the office. When Irvington police officers arrived and asked Mr. Alston to transport his son to the police station, Alston refused. Police officers then arrested Hamadi and charged him with threatening to kill other students. Hamadi was held for 4½ hours before being released into his father’s custody; he was suspended from school for one day. After two court appearances, the criminal charges were dismissed by the prosecutor. Hamadi has since been treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The lawsuit contended that Hamadi suffered substantial emotional and mental injuries from being incarcerated and prosecuted without probable cause. The parties have reached a settlement.
13-Year-Old Student Suspended for Playing With Laser Pointer:
Muller v. Board of Education
Institute attorneys are defending the rights of thirteen-year-old Mitch Muller, suspended from North Valley Middle School in Greeley, Colorado, for handling a classmate's miniature laser pointer during class. Mitch observed a classmate playing with the laser pointer during class and asked to play with it himself, shining the red dot on the classroom wall for only a few minutes. After class, the teacher held all of the students until the toy was produced. Although the toy was shaped like a miniature gun, at no time did Mitch or anyone else believe that the toy was or could be mistaken for a real gun. Nevertheless, Mitch and two other boys were expelled from school for violating the school's zero-tolerance policy forbidding the "possession of a firearm facsimile." Institute attorneys argue that the toy was too small to be mistaken for a weapon. Moreover, Mitch's suspension without the benefit of a public hearing violates his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Colorado law. After a Colorado District Court set aside Muller’s expulsion, it was reinstated upon appeal. TRI attorneys have appealed this decision.
High School Junior Charged With Felony Terrorist Threat For Drawing: Porter/Leblanc v. Ascension Parish School Board (LA)
Rutherford attorneys are defending a high school junior who was charged with felony terrorist threat and possession of a firearm on school property after school officials discovered a two-year-old drawing he had done of helicopters and missiles attacking a school building. School officials saw the drawing when the student’s little brother inadvertently included it among some other drawings he took to school to show his teacher. School officials contacted the police, who then searched the older student and found a box cutter knife, which he used for work. In September 2003, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the school board, prompting the Institute’s appeal. Rutherford attorneys argue that the drawing is protected free speech, and that the box cutter does not constitute a dangerous weapon under school policy, nor was it obtained legally. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Porter’s First Amendment rights were violated but that the school board is protected by qualified immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear The Rutherford Institute's appeal, which challenged the school board's qualified immunity.
FREE SPEECH
Mother Prevented From Reading Bible Passage for 'Favorite Book' Project at Child's School:
Busch v. Culbertson School
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in defense of the First Amendment rights of a mother who was prevented from reading a Bible passage out loud as part of a “Me Week” kindergarten classroom program intended to feature her son and showcase his favorite book. In their complaint, Institute attorneys charged that by singling out and forbidding Donna Busch from reading a Bible passage chosen by her son Wesley because of the reading’s religious content, school officials violated her First Amendment right to free speech, discriminated against her speech on the basis of its religious viewpoint and deprived her of the right to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A copy of the complaint is available here (PDF).
The case began in October 2004, when Donna Busch accepted an invitation to visit her son Wesley’s kindergarten classroom at Culbertson Elementary School in Newtown Square, Penn., and read an excerpt of Wesley’s favorite book to his classmates. Wesley’s teacher had invited Mrs. Busch because Wesley was the featured student of “Me Week,” a school program intended to feature a particular student during the week and emphasize that student’s personal characteristics, preferences and personality in classroom activities. One activity made available to all featured students during “Me Week” is the opportunity to have the child’s parent read aloud from his or her favorite book. Wesley, a Christian, had chosen the Bible as his favorite book, feeling that a reading from the Bible would express to the class an important aspect of his life and personality. Mrs. Busch chose to read an excerpt from Psalm 118 of the Bible. However, on the day of the reading, Wesley’s teacher directed Mrs. Busch not to read the passage until the principal had determined if it could be read to the class. When Principal Thomas Cook was summoned to the classroom, he informed Mrs. Busch that she could not read from the Bible in the classroom because it was against the law and that the reading would violate the “separation of church and state.” Mrs. Busch was then offered the opportunity to read from a book about witches, witchcraft and Halloween, which she declined to do. One day after the incident, Wesley saw his Mother reading the Bible and informed her that it was bad to read the Bible. When asked why he thought this, Wesley said that his teacher had told him so. In their complaint, Institute attorneys note that the “Me Week” reading incident was just one example of the school’s efforts to suppress the right of Christians to freely express their religious beliefs. For example, although Mrs. Busch was not permitted to read from the Bible, other students were allowed to teach the class the dreidel game and participate in making decorations to remember the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah, although students were prohibited from making Christmas decorations.
Air Force Sgt. Punished for Speaking Out About Tainted Anthrax Vaccine:
Adkins v. Rumsfeld
Rebutting efforts by Department of Defense officials to dismiss the case of an Air Force Sergeant who was sanctioned after voicing concerns that he could be suffering the ill effects of a tainted anthrax vaccine, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to allow the case to move forward. Institute attorneys have filed suit in federal district court on behalf of the First Amendment rights of Air Force Sergeant Jason Adkins, who was sanctioned after reporting to sick call and voicing concerns that he could be suffering the ill effects of a tainted anthrax vaccine administered to select military personnel. Sgt. Adkins is a 14-year decorated airman who served on the first C-5 aircraft flown into Baghdad in the recent Iraq War and other numerous classified special operations missions. All U.S. troops deployed overseas are required by the military to take a series of six or more anthrax vaccinations. Sgt. Adkins, a C-5 aircraft flight engineer, received eight inoculations. However, testing by the Food and Drug Administration discovered squalene in six of the inoculations administered to Sgt. Adkins. Research indicates that even trace amounts of squalene can suppress the immune system, causing arthritis, neurological problems, memory loss and incapacitating migraine headaches. In keeping with flight safety protocol, on Oct. 21, 2004, Sgt. Adkins reported to the Dover Air Force Base flight surgeon with a “crippling” headache and was subsequently grounded from a scheduled flight mission. Shortly afterwards, Sgt. Adkins was given a career ending written reprimand and was accused of dereliction of duty and faking his medical condition, allegedly in retaliation for having voiced his concerns that he might be suffering effects of the experimental anthrax vaccine. Other military personnel have since echoed Sgt. Adkins’ concerns about the effects of the tainted vaccine.
The complaint alleges that for five years the Department of Defense has subjected select military personnel to a dangerous experimental anthrax vaccine with life-threatening and debilitating side effects. Despite the DOD’s insistence that the anthrax vaccine is safe and effective, a federal judge recently ordered the Pentagon to halt the mandatory vaccination program. In addition to the litigation, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute are proposing that Congress adopt legislation to modify the Feres Doctrine, a Supreme Court opinion that arose out of Feres v. United States that shields the government from personal injury claims by servicemembers.
School Officials Remove Religious Brick From Walkway:
Kiesinger v. Mexico Academy
In a case pending before a New York federal district court, Institute attorneys are defending the free speech and equal protection rights of a group of Oswego County residents. Mexico Academy High School in New York engaged in a fundraising effort whereby community members could purchase a brick, have it inscribed with a personal message and placed in the walkway to the entrance of the high school. The residents charge that after encouraging them to purchase, inscribe, and place bricks in the school walkway as part of the fundraiser, school officials removed bricks containing Christian messages. For example, Robert Kiesinger purchased a brick for the walkway and had it inscribed "Jesus Saves." School officials later removed Kiesinger's brick and others from the walkway due to their religious content. In fact, school officials eventually jack hammered out of the walk all bricks inscribed with Christian messages. The school stated that any bricks bearing the name of Jesus were considered to be promoting a particular religion and could not be included. However, officials allowed messages such as "God Bless You" to remain since they did not pertain to a particular religion. The District Court originally denied Institute attorneys' motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting officials from removing the bricks while the case was pending. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, sending the case back to the District Court.
School Board Bars Religious Motivational Speaker:
Carpenter v. District 10 School Board
In a case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute are defending the First Amendment rights of motivational speaker Jaroy Carpenter. As part of an effort to help students cope with a string of teen suicides and automobile deaths, religious leaders in Dillon, Montana, asked the Dawson McAllister Association, an evangelistic Christian youth organization, to present a Christian youth rally in their town. The Dawson McAllister Association recommended that the group also invite Jaroy Carpenter, a former schoolteacher who has presented over 200 strictly secular school assemblies around the country, to speak to students about respect for self and others and making wise choices. The District 10 School Board in Dillon initially voted to permit Carpenter to present a non-religious voluntary assembly at the Dillon Middle School, asking that he not discuss his religious faith or reference the Dawson McAllister youth rally scheduled for that evening. Even with these limitation on his speech, one board member and a county attorney voiced concern that Carpenter’s evangelical Christian faith and affiliation with the Dawson McAllister Association might put the school at risk of violating the so-called separation of church and state. Thus, the school board called an emergency meeting and rescinded its permission for Carpenter to speak. Institute attorneys argue that the board violated Carpenter’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by discriminating against him on the basis of his religious beliefs and affiliation with a religious organization.
ACLU Sues to Stop School Board Prayer:
Dobrich v. Walls
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss a lawsuit recently filed by the ACLU against Reginald Helms in his official capacity as a member of the Indian River School District Board of Education. The lawsuit, which was filed by the ACLU in February 2005 against school board members in their personal and professional capacities, alleges that school- sponsored prayer “has pervaded the life of teachers and students” in the Indian River District schools. In their motion to have the case dismissed, Institute attorneys argue that as a school board member, Helms should have immunity from liability claims under the established doctrine of absolute legislative immunity.
An official with the Indian River School District Board of Education contacted The Rutherford Institute for help in August 2004, after the Wilmington, Del., branch of the ACLU demanded that IRSD board members stop opening their monthly business meetings with a prayer. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute agreed to represent Reginald Helms, vice president of the IRSD Board of Education, in his individual capacity should the Delaware school district’s practice of opening meetings with a brief prayer be challenged. Despite pressure from the Wilmington chapter of the ACLU to cease issuing prayers at public events, officials with the IRSD opened a school board meeting on Aug. 24, 2004, with a brief invocation. Several hundred members of the community gathered at Frankford Elementary School for the monthly business meeting broke into applause after Board President Harvey Walls asked board member Dr. Donald G. Hattier to lead the board in a word of prayer. Hattier read a prayer given by George Washington during the Revolutionary War. During the business meeting, the board also issued a first reading of a policy concerning school prayer at baccalaureate and commencement ceremonies, which states that student-initiated, student-delivered, voluntary messages may be permitted during graduation ceremonies. Thomas Neuberger, a Rutherford affiliate attorney with the Neuberger Firm, which is based in Wilmington, Del., is defending school board member Reginald Helms against the ACLU’s lawsuit.
School Prohibits Painting Religious Messages on Panels: Harris by Bannon v. Boca Raton School District
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a Florida high school student who was forced to paint over religious words and symbols she had included on a school mural. Institute attorneys asked the court to overturn a 2004 ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that educators at Boca Raton Community High School had the right to exercise greater editorial control, i.e. the censoring of religious speech, because the murals constituted school-sponsored speech. Institute attorneys point out that students were specifically instructed to express themselves freely on the murals, barring offensive or profane speech, thus creating a limited public forum for student expression.
The student council of Boca Raton High, in an effort to beautify the campus, initiated a project to permit individual students to paint the four-foot construction panels near the high school building. The students were only told that the messages could not be profane or inappropriate, but they were not told that religious messages could not be painted. Several members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, a student club, including Sharah and Brittni Harris, painted panels with messages reflecting their religious faith. The messages included “Jesus has time for you,” “God loves you,” and “What part of ‘Thou shall not’ didn’t you understand?” After a teacher complained about some of the messages, the principal ordered that Sharah immediately repaint the panels, eliminating the words “God” and “Jesus.” “Jesus has time for you,” for example, was changed to “He has time for you.” Institute attorneys charge that the principal’s actions violated their rights to free speech and equal protection under the law. The 11th Circuit recently affirmed the District Court’s ruling for the defendants. TRI attorneys appealed and the court entered an order denying the petition for rehearing.
Massachusetts School Censors Politically Conservative Student Speech:
Bowler v. Hudson High School
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern Division of Massachusetts in defense of the First Amendment rights of a high school student whose promotional posters for an extracurricular club were removed and censored by school officials because of their conservative political viewpoint. In their complaint, Institute attorneys charge that by censoring Christopher Bowler’s Conservative Club posters, officials at Hudson High School in Hudson, Mass.—one of only eleven pilot schools in the U.S. that participate in the “First Amendment Schools” program—violated Bowler’s First Amendment right to free speech and expression and discriminated against him and the Conservative Club on the basis of the club’s political viewpoint. First Amendment Affiliate Schools are part of a national network of K-12 public and private schools that agree to the guiding principles of the First Amendment and are committed to educating for freedom and responsibility.
Responding to what they perceived as a persistent anti-Bush, anti-conservative environment at Hudson High School during their junior year in high school, Christopher Bowler and fellow student James Milello formed the Hudson High School Conservative Club as a forum for pro-American, pro-conservative dialogue and speech and to advocate respect and tolerance for their conservative point of view at school. In the fall of 2004, school officials officially recognized the Conservative Club as a Hudson High School student club, which qualified them to meet on school property during non-instructional time, as well as have access to school facilities for club-related activities and place posters in authorized locations throughout the school. Bowler and Milello chose to affiliate their club with a national organization, High School Conservative Clubs of America (HSCCA), whose stated mission is “to support the United States Constitution, uphold the Bill of Rights, advocate the moral standards of our Founding Fathers, encourage traditional American values, and assist students to form chartered conservative clubs in high schools throughout the nation.” In an effort to publicize and promote the club and its meetings, Club members prepared and placed ten posters, which included information about the club and a reference to HSCCA’s website, on walls and bulletin boards throughout Hudson High School on Friday, Nov. 12, 2004. By the following Monday, school officials had removed seven of the ten club posters, allegedly out of a concern that they promoted violence and were anti-gay. School officials reasoned that because the posters referenced the HSCCA website, which contained references to visual depictions of beheadings of hostages by Iraqi insurgents and terrorists, the posters thereby promoted violence, were inappropriate, and could not remain posted. In filing a First Amendment lawsuit against Hudson High school officials, Institute attorneys are asking the court to rule that school officials violated Christopher Bowler’s constitutional rights and order the school to allow the Conservative Club posters to be displayed without censorship.
RIGHTS IN THE WORKPLACE
Employee Fired for Religious Expression in Workplace:
Dunlavey v. TruGreen/Chemlawn LLC
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a complaint in an Indiana District Court on behalf of Kerry Dunlavey, who was fired from his job after his employer learned that he had discussed his religious beliefs and prayed with fellow employees. After Dunlavey was hired, he introduced himself to the office by attesting to his Christian beliefs and expressing his hope that God would bless the business. Dunlavey's supervisor then approached him and told him not to avow his beliefs anymore. Other employees approached Dunlavey and privately asked him about his faith. The supervisor later learned that Dunlavey and these other employees prayed together, and Dunlavey was later fired. The company contends that Dunlavey was fired for not notifying the office that he needed to leave to take his wife home due to illness.
Navy Discriminates Against Evangelical Chaplains:
Adair v. England (Sec. of Navy)
Rutherford attorneys filed a Petition for Certiorari with the U. S. Supreme Court, appealing a D.C. Court of Appeals holding that a statute prohibited releasing members of the chaplaincy promotion boards from their vow of secrecy, even for depositions in a civil case. TRI attorneys are representing a group of 34 evangelical Navy chaplains in a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Navy. The chaplains contend that the Navy has engaged in a pattern of religious discrimination against evangelical chaplains. Institute attorneys have charged that the Navy established and maintained an unconstitutional religious quota system and discriminated against evangelical chaplains in promotions, assignments and job retention. Among the discriminatory policies and practices cited are the Navy’s practice of identifying a candidate’s denomination to the chaplain promotion board; the practice of forcing non-liturgical churches off base while Catholic and liturgical Protestants enjoy spacious on-post facilities; senior Catholic and liturgical Protestant chaplains routinely giving non-liturgical chaplains lower performance ratings than similarly situated Catholic and liturgical Protestant chaplains; and the Navy’s practice of holding only "General Protestant" religious services, instead of accommodating particular denominations of seamen. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute argue that the Navy’s discriminatory policies and practices toward evangelical chaplains violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 22, 2005. Adair is a companion case to Veitch v. Danzig and Larsen v. England (see below).
Larsen v. England (Sec. of Navy)
Attorneys for the Institute have filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of four evangelical ministers denied commissions as chaplains in the U.S. Navy. The Navy informed the chaplains that it had "no quota" for the ministers’ religious denomination and that their denomination did not fit "the needs of the Navy." One minister was also informed that if were a "baby baptizer," an off-hand reference to a liturgical minister, he would have been viewed as "more qualified" and would have received a commission. Institute attorneys argue that the Navy violated the ministers’ First and Fifth Amendment rights, maintained an unconstitutional religious quota system, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and fraudulently concealed evidence of the violations against the ministers. The District Court dismissed the RFRA claim.
Veitch v. Danzig
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed a complaint in a Washington, D.C., federal court, on behalf of Philip Veitch, a former chaplain in the U.S. Navy who was forced to resign his commission as a Lieutenant Commander because he refused to stop preaching conservative evangelical doctrine central to his denomination’s and most Protestants’ beliefs. Veitch, an ordained minister of the Reformed Episcopal Church, a theologically conservative church, had a successful Navy career until he complained of being improperly excluded from preaching in the General Protestant service aboard the USS Enterprise in Norfolk, Virginia. Veitch was warned that challenging the Chaplaincy Corps would end his career. When Veitch reported for duty to his next station at Naples, Italy, he was ordered to refrain from preaching "divisive" Protestant doctrines by his Roman Catholic senior chaplain. Veitch was accused of being "insubordinate" to his senior chaplain and of continuing "to preach non-inclusiveness and non-pluralism." Under threat of court-martial, Veitch was forced to resign his commission. The case was dismissed by the district court, and that decision is now being appealed.
Job Corps Employee Fired for Opposing Gay and Lesbian Pride Celebration:
Gee vs. Department of the Interior (Job Corps)
Attorneys for the Institute have filed a complaint in the District Court of Idaho on behalf of Kenneth Gee, a Job Corps employee who cited his religious beliefs when responding to an email from the Department of the Interior that encouraged participation in the celebration of Gay and Lesbian Pride. On June 3, 2000, Kenneth Gee received an email from his employer regarding President Clinton’s Proclamation encouraging government employees to celebrate and “observe gay and lesbian pride” during the month of June. In addition, the email contained a link to a web site that included the statement, “Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people we personally dislike.” On June 6, 2000, Mr. Gee emailed his employer, notifying his supervisors of his sincere religious objection to receiving the emails, based upon his belief that homosexuality is sinful. Mr. Gee’s employer then asked him to retract and delete his email questioning the Department’s policy of promoting and celebrating homosexuality. Mr. Gee obeyed the order and deleted the email. Four days later, though, Mr. Gee was formally chastised in a meeting with three supervisors, informed that his email violated federal policies, was inappropriate, an embarrassment to the Department, and was grounds for dismissal from federal employment. Within two weeks, the harassment of Mr. Gee continued, and he was eventually informed that management would review all of his outgoing email, and that random checks of his computer and email would be done to ensure his compliance with Department policies. In addition, the Department’s emails encouraging its employees to observe and celebrate homosexual behavior continued, even after President Bush refused to order a similar proclamation in June of 2001, and the Department continued to threaten Mr. Gee with dismissal if he questioned the Department’s policy regarding homosexuality. Institute attorneys are arguing that Mr. Gee had a right to free speech in sharing his objections to the email.
Cosmetology Teacher Released for Giving Christian Literature to Gay Student:
Piggee v. Carl Sandburg Community College
TRI attorneys have filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois on behalf of Louise Piggee. In June of 2002, Ms. Piggee, a cosmetology teacher at a community college, was approached by a student outside of class who inquired as to her religious beliefs. Ms. Piggee informed the student that she was a Christian and the student responded that he was Jewish. They had an amicable discussion about their faiths. Some time after this initial conversation, the student informed Ms. Piggee that he was gay. Following this conversation, the student and Ms. Piggee had numerous friendly interchanges in the ordinary course of college activities and classes. In September of 2002, as the student was leaving the campus, Ms. Piggee presented him with some Christian tracts that addressed the Christian viewpoint regarding homosexual behavior. The student expressed appreciation for the information and took the literature. Shortly after this exchange the student filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Ms. Piggee, and she went through the administrative hearing process and was severely reprimanded. Subsequently, her teaching contract was not renewed. Institute attorneys argue that not only did Ms. Piggee have a right to free speech, especially after being approached by an adult student, but that her actions in no way could be considered sexual harassment. Ms. Piggee had an exemplary teaching record with the school, and Institute attorneys argue that the College’s failure to renew her contract constituted retaliation for her religious beliefs.
PARENTS’ RIGHTS
School Fails to Gain Parental Consent Before Distributing Survey:
Nunn v. Ridgewood School District
In New Jersey, attorneys for the Institute are defending the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of three New Jersey students and their parents. A school district distributed a highly personal survey about students’ personal and family lives to 7th through 12th grade students. The survey asked questions about students’ sexual behavior, use of illegal drugs, mental and psychological problems and family relationships. Prior parental consent was not given, and the survey was not administered anonymously. School officials maintain that the survey was voluntary, although students were apparently not so informed. In June 2004, the District Court granted summary judgment to the school district. Institute attorneys have appealed.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
Texas City Tries to Close Church’s Nonprofit Prison Ministry:
Barr v. City of Sinton
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have appealed to a Texas Appeals Court on behalf of Pastor Rick Barr and his nonprofit ministry, Philemon Homes. Pastor Barr’s church housed nonviolent former inmates in two houses next to the church as a nonprofit ministry. The purpose of the ministry was to provide the former inmates with religious instruction. Although none of the former inmates had been convicted of violent crimes and there was no evidence of anything but the peaceful operation of the ministry, the City of Sinton, Texas, passed an ordinance intended to close it down. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute argue that the city’s actions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Mass. Town Denies Permit for Church Building Plans:
First Congregational Church of Hamilton v. Hamilton, MA
TRI attorneys filed a complaint in the Superior Court for Essex County, Massachusetts on behalf of the First Congregational Church of Hamilton, which traces its origins to 1713 and predates the establishment of the Town of Hamilton. The church has outgrown the existing facilities and in March of 2002, sought to remove an existing storage shed in order to construct a Fellowship Hall/Education Building, install sidewalks, and landscape portions of the property. However, the town’s Historic District Commission denied a permit for aesthetic reasons. The church then made modifications to the proposed buildings and resubmitted the revised plans. The Historic District Commission again denied the permit. The church and its attorneys specifically requested that the Commission make suggestions as to how the church improvements could be more consistent with the Commission’s expectations. The Historic District Commission has refused to recommend any specific revisions. Further, the Commission has never adopted or published written design guidelines or standards applicable to proposed construction activities with the Hamilton Historic District. Institute attorneys argue that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act the church should be permitted to make the necessary changes to the property.
Illinois County Taxes Portion of Christian School Property:
Heartland Schools v. Illinois Department of Taxation
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute are appealing an administrative decision that denied tax-exemption status for part of a Christian school's property. Heartland Schools is a non-profit, Christian school operating in Illinois for students in pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade. The county in which it is seated wishes to tax the portion of the property that is devoted to children under the age of five because the state does not believe that portion of the property is being used for school-related purposes.
Ohio School District Discriminates Against Christian Rock Band:
Golden, et al. v. Rossford Exempted Village School District
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed suit in the U.S. District Court on behalf of some of the members of Pawn, an Ohio rock band that was prevented from performing at a school-sponsored anti-drug assembly allegedly because members of the band are Christians and over concerns about having religious music played in a public school. In December 2004, school officials arranged for Pawn to perform at a school-sponsored anti-drug assembly that was scheduled to take place on Dec. 21, 2004, at Rossford High School in Rossford, Ohio. Pawn performs original compositions written by its band members, all of whom are Christians, and attempts to convey positive messages through its music, including messages that oppose the use of drugs, the use of alcohol and sexual promiscuity. Pawn agreed to perform at the assembly and to present anti-drug and anti-alcohol messages to the students between songs. Pawn also agreed that its statements between songs would not be religious and would be limited to the “Just Say No” anti-drug, anti-alcohol message of the assembly. Attendance at the assembly was to be purely voluntary; all students were to be given the option of attending Pawn’s performance, attending a study hall or attending a movie. Both the school and Pawn began making immediate preparations for the assembly. Pawn’s performance was announced to students, and posters were printed to promote the event. The schedule for the school day was rearranged as well to accommodate the assembly and Pawn’s performance. The band’s manager arranged for the erection of scaffolding at the performance site, and the members of Pawn began work on various visual effects for the performance. However, on December 13, a week prior to the assembly, school officials rescinded their invitation and invited another local band to perform in Pawn’s place. In filing suit against the Rossford Exempted Village School District, Institute attorneys charge that school officials violated the band members’ constitutional rights by preventing Pawn from performing at the assembly because of the musicians’ religious beliefs and the content of their songs.
Michigan Health Department Violates Religious Freedom:
Mast, et al. v. Central Michigan District Health Department
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on behalf of six Amish farmers who were denied religious accommodation by the Central Michigan District Health Department. When the Health Department issued an order requiring the Amish residents of Gladwin County, Mich., to install complex septic and sewage disposal systems to prevent runoff from household wastewater, the Amish were reluctant to comply. The traditional Amish lifestyle does not include indoor plumbing aside from kitchen sink dishwater flowing into tile-lined septic systems in their yards. Aware that the health department’s sanitary code allows for alternate systems, six Amish farmers proposed a simple alternate system of wastewater removal that would allow them to safely and effectively remove wastewater while adhering to their Amish religious beliefs and traditional practices. According to an independent hydrologist called in to review the farmers’ proposal, the system not only met but far exceeded the sanitary code’s requirements. Nevertheless, the health department refused to grant the Amish their variance request. In their federal complaint, Institute attorneys argue that forcing the Old Order Amish farmers to introduce such modern amenities is unnecessary and would threaten their religious way of life. The Old Order Amish, also referred to as the “Plain People,” have practiced a way of life centered around their deeply held religious beliefs for over 300 years. The Amish believe in following the Bible literally and cite Romans 12:2, “Be ye not conformed to the world,” as their chief tenet. They maintain an attitude of separation from the world, wearing plain clothing and generally opposing automobiles, electricity, telephones and formal higher education beyond the eighth grade. They also do not use commercial chemicals or chlorofluorocarbons. Because many in the Amish community are adamant about not compromising their religious beliefs, they continue to encounter opposition from various state officials.
PRISONERS’ RIGHTS
Colo. Prison Prevents Muslim Inmates From Gathering for Prayer:
Ahmad v. Furlong
Attorneys for the Institute have filed a lawsuit in a Colorado federal district court on behalf of Said Ahmad, a Muslim inmate in a Colorado prison. Ahmad sought to gather with his fellow Muslim inmates for prayer, but prison authorities prevented them from doing so. Although officials at the correctional facility permits adherents of other faiths to pray together, they refuse to permit Muslims to do so, citing “security precautions.” Institute attorneys argue that the policy violates the Muslim inmates’ First Amendment rights to the free exercise of their religious beliefs as well as their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Muslim Prisoners Prohibited From Attending Friday Worship Services: Brooks v. Dept. of Corrections
In a case before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, TRI attorneys are representing Muslim prisoners prohibited from attending Friday worship services at the California Medical Facility Prison. No accommodations were made for inmates participating in the work incentive program that allowed the inmates to leave work early or arrive late after attending services. Institute attorneys argue that the policy violates the Muslim inmates’ First Amendment rights to the free exercise of their religious beliefs as well as their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Hotel Chain Discriminates Against Hip-Hop Producer:
Riley v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
An affiliate attorney for The Rutherford Institute has filed a racial discrimination suit in the U. S. District Court of Delaware on behalf of Edward T. Riley, a.k.a. Teddy Riley, an award-winning African-American music producer, song writer, and musician who, along with other African-American companions, was denied rental of a room at the Hampton Inn in Seaford, Del., a franchise of the Hilton Hotels Corp. On April 3, 2002, Riley and his co-workers were traveling by bus through Delaware. At about 11:30 pm, they stopped at the Hampton Inn in Seaford to use the restroom. The complaint alleges that when the night manager on duty saw Riley and his African-American companions approaching the door to the hotel, he locked and barred it, refusing their entreaties to use the rest room under the pretext that only guests could use the restrooms. When Riley asked if he could book a room for the night, the manager stated that the hotel was full. However, one glance around the sparsely populated parking lot indicated to Riley that the hotel was not fully booked, which was confirmed when Riley telephoned the Hampton Inn toll-free reservation line and made a confirmed reservation for the hotel. Still, the night manager refused to unlock the doors and honor Riley’s room reservation. Instead, he called the Seaford Police to have Riley and his companions arrested for disorderly conduct. After investigating the matter, the police informed the night manager that his conduct was unlawful. Undeterred, the man continued to refuse service to Riley and his companions, stating that he “didn’t like the way they looked.” Institute attorneys charge the Hilton Hotels Corp. with intentionally discriminating against Riley and his companions because of their race in violation of the Civil Rights Acts, which were designed to remove racial prejudice from American life. Although primarily known for his work with urban artists, Riley has worked with artists as varied as Aretha Franklin, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, N’SYNC, Mary J. Blige and the Rolling Stones, and has been responsible for 30 platinum and multi-platinum records and 20 gold records. He received two Grammy Awards and produced songs for the movies How the Grinch Stole Christmas, Do the Right Thing, and New Jack City.
