ILNews

DOC violated religious rights in denying kosher meals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has found the Indiana Department of Correction was wrong to stop serving kosher meals to those whose religious practices required them to eat the specially prepared meals.

U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson found this week the DOC violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by denying kosher meals to inmates who request them for religious reasons. Maston Willis filed a suit, which became a class action, against the commissioner of the DOC; Dr. Stephen Hall, the director of religious services for the DOC; and Chaplain Merle Hodges at the Miami Correction Facility.

Willis is an orthodox Jew and he and others who kept kosher were able to receive the more costly pre-packed kosher meals at lunch and dinner. Those requiring special diets were given diet cards. Breakfast wasn’t made with kosher ingredients or prepared by kosher standards, so Willis did not eat it. In an effort to reduce costs, the DOC instituted a policy that required those with diet cards to eat at least 75 percent of their special diet meals.

Since Willis did not eat breakfast, his kosher diet privileges were revoked for falling below the 75 percent threshold. Then, the DOC discontinued pre-packaged kosher meals and began offering vegan meals for those requesting the special diet, as the vegan meals didn’t cost any extra to prepare by the company contracted by the DOC.

Grievances filed by Willis were denied, and he filed this suit, Maston Willis, et al., v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction, et al., No. 1:09-CV-815. Judge Magnus-Stinson ruled in favor of Willis and the class in granting summary judgment on their complaint that denying them kosher meals violated the RLUIPA. Keeping kosher constitutes religious exercise under the act and the DOC substantially burdened the plaintiffs’ religious exercise when it denied them kosher food.

The DOC argued it had a compelling government interest to keep costs down and that’s why it cut the kosher meals, but increasing costs alone are not a compelling government interest, wrote the judge. This would also contravene 7th Circuit Court of Appeals precedent as ruled in Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 796 (7th Circ. 2008). She also found serving vegan meals is not the least restrictive means of achieving the compelling government interest; the DOC didn’t show that reasonable alternatives don’t exist and never considered whether there were less expensive kosher venders or the costs of creating a kosher kitchen at a DOC facility.

Judge Magnus-Stinson also found in Willis’ favor on his individual claim for declaratory relief under RLUIPA. Willis’ First Amendment rights were violated because the DOC’s enforcement of the policy against him failed each prong of the Turner test in determining the extent of inmates’ First Amendment rights. Also, since a First Amendment violation was found, a RLUIPA violation also exists, the judge noted.

She granted summary judgment in favor of Hall in Willis’ nominal damages claim, finding Hall not liable for damages. Judge Magnus-Stinson granted summary judgment for Willis in his suit for nominal damages against Hodges because he didn’t dispute Willis’ assertion that he knowingly violated Wills’ First Amendment rights when he confiscated Willis’ meal card.

Judge Magnus-Stinson ordered a hearing on the scope of injunctive relief on Nov. 30 because neither party has presented cogent argument as to whether an injunction should be issued nor illustrated what the injunction would entail.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT