On February 3, the Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments in Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society, Inc. v. Bridgewater. (See earlier coverage here and here.) The case involves an organization formed by homeschooling Roman Catholic parents. The group’s purposes include providing students with Catholic educational, spiritual, and social enrichment. The Court will decide whether the group’s decisions about accommodating a student’s dietary needs and later expelling her for filing a complaint fall within state antidiscrimination laws and First Amendment protections for religious organizations.
As Shelley Jackson explained in her earlier posts, one of the students in Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society (FACES) filed a complaint with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission because the group allegedly failed to sufficiently accommodate her dietary restrictions at its 2008 All Souls’ Day Masquerade Ball. After FACES expelled the student, her family brought another complaint alleging unlawful retaliation.
The Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public-interest law firm advocating for pro-life, free expression, and traditional marriage, has defended FACES on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the I.C.R.C.’s determination that FACES did not discriminate against the student but it did retaliate against her for filing the initial action.
At argument, the Supreme Court justices asked questions relating to some well-established and recent opinions of the United States Supreme Court, including Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. The parties also discussed Brazauskas v. Fort Wayne–South Bend Diocese, 796 N.E.2d (Ind. 2003). The Indiana Constitution was not discussed. (This might suggest a strategy to take the case to the United States Supreme Court once the Indiana Supreme Court decides it.)
This case presents two key issues religious groups, schools, and groups that conduct activities related to education should pay attention to. The first is whether FACES discrimination falls within the definition of unlawful discrimination found in Indiana’s civil-rights statute, which prohibits “every discriminatory practice relating to … education.” Ind. Code § 22-9-1-3(l). The second is if the discrimination is related to education and the I.C.R.C. has jurisdiction, is that discrimination protected by FACES’ protections under the First Amendment’s free-exercise and association clauses.
The Supreme Court's answer to these core issues could affect religious organizations that might make decisions that a student could allege amount to discrimination. The case gives the Court an opportunity to answer questions like “Which organizations are covered by the statute?” and “What types of decisions can a religious organization relating to education make without fear of legal action?”
A majority of the justices voted to grant transfer, but the Court doesn’t publish vote counts for cases in which transfer is granted. The justices would have preliminarily voted on the outcome of the case and assigned a majority author after arguments were completed for the day. Once the assigned author finalizes a draft, it is circulated for comment and possible separate opinions. On a rare occasion, a majority opinion will lose one or more vote and become a dissent.
The Indiana Supreme Court last considered questions of religious exercise when it upheld the state’s recently enacted school-voucher law in Meredith v. Pence, (Ind. 2013). (I represented The Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, Holy Cross College, and Marian University as amici curiae supporting the law due to many similarities it has to state-funded college scholarships Christian colleges and universities receive.) But that case involved the Indiana Constitution and not the First Amendment.
Have a question about legal issues affecting religious organizations? Let me know at questions@lawmeetsgospel.com or @LawMeetsGospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment