ILNews

Disability, religious-freedom claims clash at Indiana Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An argument over dinner has taken on First Amendment religious-freedom and disability-protection dimensions before the Indiana Supreme Court.

Justices Monday heard arguments in Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society v. Bridgewater, 990 N.E.2d 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), vacated. Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society, an organization of parents who home school, sponsored a dinner-dance for students at which the Bridgewater family requested a steak dinner be served to their daughter. Because of food allergies, she couldn’t consume the chicken dinner that had been arranged, and FACES leaders requested the Bridgewaters bring their daughter’s meal.

After FACES failed to accommodate the request, the Bridgewaters filed a discrimination claim with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission. A few days, later the Bridgewaters were excluded from the group. The ICRC ruled FACES unlawfully discriminated by expelling the family in retaliation for a disability claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed a $2,500 fine, but struck an ICRC order that FACES post the decision on its website and elsewhere.

Arguing for FACES, Patrick T. Gillen said the agency lacked jurisdiction and erred because the group’s mission wasn’t “related to education” as the statute requires.

“We believe the civil rights law has been applied in a way that’s inconsistent with the First Amendment,” Gillen said. The ICRC, he said, had engaged in “second-guessing membership decisions” of a private religious group that has a right to self-determination as it relates to membership, and that the ICRC made “an unprecedented intrusion” into private decision-making.

The Bridgewaters’ attorney, Nelson Nettles, said the case has little to do with religion.

“They like to keep shifting the focus to religious matters,” he said. “We’re talking about discrimination against people with disabilities. … It was because of the disability complaint that they kicked (the Bridgewaters) out.”

Nettles said the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled repeatedly that “discrimination against people with disabilities has a heavier weight in these kinds of cases.” He cited the SCOTUS case of professional golfer Casey Martin, in which justices ruled the Professional Golf Association could not enforce a rule forbidding the use of golf carts to bar Martin from the tour. Martin claimed a disability requiring the use of a cart.

Justice Robert Rucker asked Gillen if he could think of a case in which the ICRC would have jurisdiction over FACES. He said he couldn’t, but there might be.

Justice Mark Massa pressed Nettles on whether he would concede that the Court of Appeals was correct in rejecting what Massa called “the public shaming” the ICRC ordered – that FACES post its decision. But Nettles said statute allowed ICRC to make such an order. “It’s one of the few remedies that actually benefits my client,” he said.

During rebuttal, Gillen attacked the assertion that FACES retaliated against the Bridgewaters, arguing that the ICRC’s administrative law judge found, for instance, that the family “did in fact meddle with arrangements” for the dinner-dance and were “undermining the group.”

But Rucker suggested to Gillen this was an invitation to reweigh the evidence.

Gillen said the decision to exclude the Bridgewaters wasn’t a case of discrimination or retaliation, but rather a matter of “home-schooling mothers who said, enough is enough.”

Justices raised several hypotheticals that threw both attorneys, including whether a private, evangelical Christian group could exclude members of other faiths, whether the level of a group’s organization or the type of someone’s disability would be factors in applying the civil rights statutes, and whether the ICRC could intervene if someone was denied admission to the group rather than being excluded later.    

Chief Justice Brent Dickson focused the final question for Gillen on the statutory language that subjected groups to ICRC jurisdiction if their mission is “related to” education. “That language chosen by the Legislature is awfully broad,” he said.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT