Tag Archives: litigation

Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Right of Churches to Keep Government Out of Hiring, Firing Decisions

(WASHINGTON, DC) In a unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that churches have a First Amendment right to keep the government out of its employment decisions. The case tested the limits of “ministerial exception,” a First Amendment doctrine that bars many employment-related lawsuits brought against religious organizations by employees performing religious functions. In deciding the case, the Court determined that the ministerial exception can be applied to a teacher at a religious elementary school who teaches the full secular curriculum, but also teaches daily religion classes, is a commissioned minister and regularly leads students in prayer and worship. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed a “friend of the court” brief in the case on behalf of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, asking the Court to adopt a standard that defers to the church’s determination of whether and how an employee is important to the spiritual mission of the church.

The Supreme Court opinion and The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. are available at www.rutherford.org.

“This is an important victory for religious freedom. When a church is forced to make employment decisions based on a lawsuit rather than spiritual needs, the end result is that its core activities and spiritual message are inevitably altered in order to accommodate or protect against government pressures or expectations,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “Churches must be free to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church governance as well as those of faith and doctrine.”

The case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. relates to an employment claim made by Cheryl Perich, who was hired as a “called” teacher for Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in 2000. As a “called” teacher, Perich had to be recommended for appointment by the church’s elders and board of directors. Perich taught math, language arts, social studies, science, gym, art and music. She also taught a religion class four days per week (two hours total), attended chapel with her class once a week and led chapel services twice a year. In June 2004, Perich fell ill, was placed on disability and eventually was diagnosed with narcolepsy. When the school began the process of cutting ties with Perich because she could not perform her duties, Perich brought a claim against the school under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The claim was dismissed under the “ministerial exception” doctrine, which precludes courts from becoming involved in claims that would decide the employment relationship of “ministerial” employees. However, the dismissal was overturned on appeal by the Sixth Circuit.

In filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute asked the Court to reject the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that whether an employee is a “minister” for purposes of this exemption depends on whether “the employee’s primary duties consist of teaching, spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or participation in religious ritual and worship.”

Planned Parenthood Ignores Fetal Pain; Goes After Personhood Amendments

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have filed an appeal to the State Supreme Court against Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment, Amendment 26, despite numerous rulings against them.

In July of 2010, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU filed suit to disallow Mississippi voters from voting on the Mississippi Personhood Amendment. In October, the lawsuit was rejected. The Court decision read “Initiative Measure No. 26 has received more than the required amount of signatures to be placed on the ballot and the Constitution recognizes the right of citizens to amend their Constitution.”

Now Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have appealed to the State Supreme Court, a decision made especially conspicuous by Planned Parenthood’s recent refusal to challenge various “Fetal Pain” bills. According to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, one abortion in 2010 would have been prevented by the Fetal Pain bill. By contrast, Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment 26 would make all abortion illegal by recognizing the personhood rights, first and foremost the constitutional right to life of all children, born and preborn.

This is not the first time that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have tried to stop Personhood USA – numerous lawsuits have been filed, albeit largely unsuccessfully, in an attempt to stop Personhood USA and its state affiliates.

“Of course we expect Planned Parenthood and the ACLU to continue their unholy alliance in attacking personhood bills and amendments,” explained Keith Mason, cofounder of Personhood USA. “They are terrified that abortion will be made illegal. Planned Parenthood, with the help of the ACLU, is fighting for their ‘right’ to kill children for profit.”

Personhood Amendment 26 states, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”

“Personhood Amendments and bills nationwide merely recognize that all human beings are people,” continued Mason. “Recognizing that all human beings have rights is a sentiment the ACLU should be fighting FOR, not against. Instead, the ACLU has teamed up with Planned Parenthood to ensure that Planned Parenthood’s deep pockets are protected. It is outrageous that the billion dollar abortion industry’s bottom line is more important to them than over one million innocent human lives taken every year by abortion.”

Personhood USA’s amendments and bills recognize that every human being is a person, and every person has a right to life. Personhood amendments and bills protect every child, no matter their size or age.

Visit the Personhood USA website to learn more about its mission and Petition to the Ohio Legislature.

Ohio Case Roe v. Planned Parenthood is Resolved — What is There to Hide?

Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) is pleased to announce that the Ohio case, Roe v. Planned Parenthood, Case No. A0502691, Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, has been “resolved and dismissed,” according to a statement by the attorney for the plaintiffs, Brian Hurley (Crabbe, Brown & James LLP).

Resolution of the case comes just months after a major blow to Planned Parenthood’s (PP) defense on the applicability of Ohio’s informed consent statute. Judge Jody Luebbers ruled that the doctor for PP of Southwest Ohio breached her legal duty by not having an “informed consent” meeting with Jane Roe 24 hours in advance of her abortion, and by failing to obtain written informed consent from Jane and at least one of her parents since Jane was a minor at the time.

In addition to the lack of informed consent, the plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages against PP for failure to comply with their statutory duty to inform Jane Roe’s parents of her intended abortion. Jane, at age 14, had been impregnated by her 21-year-old soccer coach, also the man who brought her in for the abortion. Instead of notifying Jane’s parents, as required by Ohio law, PP phoned the sexual predator. PP’s failure to notify Roe’s parents and to gain informed consent resulted in Jane not only undergoing the abortion, but also in the continued cover-up of the sexual abuse, demonstrating a disturbing trend in PP clinics: disregard for the health and wellbeing of women and children.

“Resolution of this case must have been an act of desperation on the part of PP,” states Dana Cody, LLDF’s President and Executive Director. “They went, in a matter of months, from litigating every inch of their defense to a sudden willingness to resolve the matter. I would speculate that had PP gone to trial there would have been too much exposure of how they do business. After all, they are currently experiencing public outrage over their apparent willingness to cover up the sexual exploitation of children. What more might they have to hide?”

LLDF commends Brian Hurley for his tremendous work on Roe. His diligence and perseverance continues in another Ohio case, Fairbanks v. Planned Parenthood, case no. A0901484, Hamilton County, Ohio, where Mr. Hurley is representing Denise Fairbanks. The claims include PP’s failure to report statutory rape by Ms. Fairbanks’ father when at age 16 she was taken to PP for an abortion. The complaint states that although she informed PP staff of the abuse, they did not report to local law enforcement, and for more than a year she continued to suffer abuse that PP could have prevented by simply complying with the law.

Life Legal Defense Foundation was established in 1989, and is a nonprofit public interest law firm composed of attorneys and other concerned citizens, committed to the sanctity of human life. LLDF provided support for Jane Roe’s case and continues to provide assistance in Ms. Fairbanks case.

Source: Christian Newswire, April 27, 2011.

Lawsuit Against National Day of Prayer Dismissed

On April 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s (FFRF) lawsuit attacking the federal government’s observance of National Day of Prayer, ruling that the atheists do not have legal standing to bring the suit. Liberty Institute and Family Research Council (FRC) filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Dr. James Dobson, Citizenlink (formerly Focus on the Family Action), the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), Let Freedom Ring, and Liberty Counsel, along with 28 state family policy councils arguing that FFRF lacks standing and that government observances of prayer are not only constitutional but modeled by our forefathers.

In response to Court’s ruling, Kelly Shackelford, President of Liberty Institute, said,

“We applaud the Seventh Circuit’s dismissal of this desperate attempt to erase our country’s rich history of calling for prayer. Sadly, some are determined to censor religious expression in the public arena. As long as Liberty Institute exists and the Constitution is in place, we will do everything in our power to ensure that never happens.”
The Court’s ruling, which strongly rejects FFRF’s opposition to government’s observance of National Day of Prayer, says that being excluded or “hurt feelings differ from legal injury.”

Last year, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the federal government’s observation of prayer was unconstitutional, despite numerous rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court that protect long-standing traditions of religious invocations. When Congress passed a statute in 1952 calling for the President to issue a proclamation designating the National Day of Prayer, it memorialized the virtually unbroken tradition of Presidents from Washington to Obama who designated a day of prayer.

“The 7th Circuit’s decision in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama once again affirms what the vast majority of Americans know intuitively: that we should not and indeed cannot separate our nation’s history from the influence of religion on its founders,” said Brad Miller, director of family policy councils for Citizenlink. “Even Americans with a decidedly agnostic view of religion cannot refute the important role religious tradition has played throughout the history of this great nation. The President’s proclamation is simply a continuation of a long and deep tradition of urging and acknowledging prayer as a fundamental part of a healthy society. We applaud this decision and the great work of our allies at the Liberty Institute for their work on behalf of religious freedom.”

This year, National Day of Prayer is set for May 5.

Source: Liberty Institute, April 14, 2011.

Ohio Townships look to Unconstitutionally Tax Homeowners

On September 9, the 1851 Center asked the Supreme Court of Ohio to review, and stop, Hamilton Township’s implementation of a tax on new homes.

Ohio’s townships cannot levy taxes. This has made them a popular destination for Ohioans who wish to flee the high costs of city living. However, Hamilton Township (in southwest Ohio) has imposed a charge that, if allowed to stand, would change this. The township has simply labeled its $6,000 tax on new homeowners and developers an “impact fee.”

“This case is about whether Ohio townships may tax citizens, simply by labeling those taxes ‘fees,’ even though Ohio law denies townships this privilege,” 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson wrote in the brief. “Accordingly, this case raises several issues of great importance: (1) where the line is drawn, in Ohio, between what constitutes a ‘tax’ and what constitutes a ‘fee;’ and (2) whether Ohio townships have some form of inherent police powers beyond those specified in the Ohio Revised Code, or instead, are creatures of limited and defined powers.”

1851 Center, September 29, 2010

Ohio Counties Can’t Avoid Public Meetings Law; Hold Secret Meetings on Million-Dollar Contracts

In an effort against public corruption in Cincinnati, the 1851 Center filed an amicus brief in the First District Court of Appeals to stop secret meetings amongst Hamilton County Commissioners.

To prevent sweetheart deals and ensure open and objective debate, Ohio’s county commissioners must discuss important public business in public meetings. Cincinnati residents were alarmed to discover Hamilton County Commissioners met behind closed doors to discuss a multi-million dollar contract associated with Cincinnati’s government-planned riverfront development.

The commissioners, which include David Pepper, who is running for Ohio Auditor, claimed they were entitled to meet in secret because Mr. Pepper and Commissioner Todd Portune are attorneys, and were giving legal advice to the remaining commissioner at the meeting.

“A fundamental right underlying our government in Ohio is that Ohioans have a right to know and understand the actions taken by elected officials. This principle is reflected in the Ohio Constitution and Revised Code,” according to the 1851 Center’s brief.

The case awaits oral arguments and the court’s decision.

Source: 1851 Center, September 29, 2010

Dirty little secret in Greene County

By John Mitchel

RE: “Invasion of privacy isn’t fault of Ohio’s taxpayers,” Dayton Daily News, November 26, 2009:

In his “Other Voices” column, Mike DeWine rightly points out that, “The Attorney General may not represent an employee who acts recklessly, maliciously or in bad faith outside the scope of his employment.” To be sure, Ohio taxpayers should not have to pay to defend government officials who act outside the law. That’s precisely what happened in a lawsuit filed against Greene County Commissioners. To add insult to injury, taxpayers also paid for a cover-up perpetrated by the Greene County Common Pleas Court (Reference Case No. 2009-CV-0305).

In my public records lawsuit I asked the Greene County Common Pleas Court to force the Greene County Commissioners to produce public records related to the 2003 BRAC Initiative Agreement with the Dayton Development Coalition. Tragically, the Court dismissed my lawsuit on a procedural technicality, then less than 24 hours later, the Greene County Prosecutor’s office released 26 boxes of requested records, but only after at least two public investigative agencies got involved. Greene County elected officials suddenly realized they broke the law three times; once when they withheld public records from a private citizen, again when the County Prosecutor defended their illegal action, and finally when the Greene County Common Pleas Court covered up their malfeasance.

But perhaps they finally got it right in October when they hired a private Columbus law firm (Downes, Fishel, Hass, Kim, LLP) to defend them against further actions. Trouble is; the taxpayers will pay for that too, which could add up to $50,000.