As readers of the weblog could know, Hamline College declined to resume Erica López Prater’s teacher contract as a result of she displayed Islamic Artwork containing photos of Mohammed in her World Artwork class, and a few college students objected. López Prater sued, and on Friday Decide Katherine M. Menendez (D. Minn.) allowed her non secular discrimination declare to go ahead (López Prater v. Trustees of the Hamline Univ. of Minn.):
Ms. López Prater alleges two theories of spiritual discrimination: 1) discrimination as a result of she just isn’t Muslim, and a couple of) discrimination as a result of she failed to adapt to sure non secular beliefs of others (i.e., that it’s improper to view photos of the Prophet Muhammad)…. Though the Courtroom appreciates that Ms. López Prater alleges uncommon and considerably oblique theories for non secular discrimination, it doesn’t imagine that novelty on this context equates to failure to state a declare. Given the lens relevant at this stage, the place a plaintiffs’ allegations are taken as true, dismissal just isn’t applicable.
Ms. López Prater could have problem proving her case at later phases, particularly as a result of demonstrating that Hamline would have handled her otherwise if she was Muslim appears very exhausting to ascertain. However the sole query earlier than the Courtroom at this stage is whether or not her allegations plausibly state a declare for reduction, and Hamline bears the burden of dismissal….
Ms. López Prater maintains that Hamline wouldn’t have labeled the act of exhibiting the photographs “Islamophobic” if she have been Muslim. She additionally factors to the temporal proximity between the uproar over her exhibiting the photographs and Hamline’s determination to not renew her contract as suggesting a discriminatory motive. Precisely two weeks after Ms. López Prater met with Dean Kostihova and was informed that there was a big outcry throughout the Muslim Pupil Affiliation and Muslim workers have been threatening to resign, she was notified by the division head that the spring semester class she had been scheduled to show was being cancelled and that her contract wouldn’t be renewed. Ms. López Prater responded to that e-mail, suggesting that the change have to be associated to her exhibiting photos of the Prophet Muhammad in school. The division head didn’t deny this suggestion. The continued description of her conduct as “Islamophobic” by members of Hamline’s administration means that it was an issue that Ms. López Prater didn’t conform to the idea that one mustn’t view photos of the Prophet Muhammad for any cause.
The knowledge in Ms. López Prater’s criticism is enough to plausibly allege that Hamline took the opposed actions as a result of she was not Muslim or didn’t conform to the non secular beliefs held by some that viewing photos of the Prophet Muhammad is forbidden. And whereas Hamline contends that Ms. López Prater’s non-conformance idea should fail—as a result of she didn’t allege that Hamline itself held these beliefs—caselaw acknowledges that an employer can discriminate towards an worker if it acts on the choice of third events reminiscent of clients or purchasers. Due to this fact, Ms. López Prater alleging that Hamline discriminated towards her by appearing on the preferences of sure Muslim college students and workers members is enough at this stage….
Word that merely requiring that an worker conform to secularly outlined guidelines is mostly not handled as non secular discrimination, even when the principles are motivated by the employer’s (or its clients’) non secular beliefs. As an example, say an employer has a coverage of firing all staff, male or feminine, who commit adultery. That would not be non secular discrimination, even when the employer’s rationale is non secular opposition to adultery: Non secular employers are simply as entitled to have religiously motivated no-adultery guidelines as secular employers are entitled to have no-adultery guidelines motivated by their secular ethical values. Likewise for an employer (non secular or secular) who forbids all staff, of any faith, from consuming meat within the worker lunchroom.
However, requiring that an worker have interaction in particularly non secular practices (e.g., attend non secular providers) is certainly typically handled as non secular discrimination. I take it that López Prater’s “non-conformance” argument (versus her “Hamline wouldn’t have labeled the act of exhibiting the photographs ‘Islamophobic’ if she have been Muslim” argument) is that requiring that an worker keep away from what some non secular folks see as blasphemy needs to be handled equally to a requirement that an worker affirmatively have interaction in non secular worship or comparable habits. The courtroom did not particularly take care of this query, and I take it that it stays open, maybe on a movement for abstract judgment or on an eventual attraction.
The courtroom rejected López Prater’s different claims, although, together with her claims of retaliation primarily based on her having objected to the college’s allegedly discriminatory actions, and claims associated to allegedly defamatory statements by College officers. Here is an excerpt of the defamation dialogue, which appears fairly in keeping with the precedents on the topic:
Ms. López Prater alleges that statements from three people have been defamatory. The primary assertion is from Dr. Everett’s November 7, 2022, e-mail through which he mentioned that Ms. López Prater engaged in conduct that was thoughtless, disrespectful, and Islamophobic. The second is the assertion from the Dean of College students printed within the pupil newspaper that Ms. López Prater’s conduct was “an act of intolerance.” Third, she depends upon the statements Mr. Hussein made on the “Neighborhood Dialog” that Ms. López Prater confirmed the photographs of the Prophet Muhammad for no different cause than to impress, offend, and damage Muslim college students; that her conduct was “Islamophobic;” and that she confirmed the work as a result of she doesn’t worth Muslims the identical as different minorities. She attributes these statements to Hamline as a result of Dr. Everett forwarded a video from the “Neighborhood Dialog” occasion together with his e-mail to workers. Though the Courtroom sympathizes with how tough it has been for Ms. López Prater to have been the topic of those statements, that doesn’t make them redressable as defamatory.
Usually, courts have discovered phrases like “Islamophobic” and “racist,” with out extra, to be nonactionable expressions of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole…. Phrases like “disrespectful” and “inappropriate” have equally been discovered to be nonactionable expressions of opinion…. Certainly, the truth that folks (together with Muslims) maintain totally different views about whether or not or not Ms. López Prater’s conduct was Islamophobic or inappropriate additional demonstrates the concept the statements at subject are opinions that can’t be characterised, not to mention confirmed, as true or false….
