You are here: / Religion
, ,

A COURT CANNOT MANDATE A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS EXERCISE FOR A CHILD (ORDERING THAT A CHILD ATTEND A SPECIFIC CHURCH FOR EXAMPLE); RATHER, THE COURT SHOULD DESIGNATE A PARENT TO HAVE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY OVER A CHILD’S RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND EXCERCISE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the order that a child “shall attend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints …” was unconstitutional in that it mandated specific religious exercise:

… [T]he court’s order that the parties’ middle child “shall attend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints every Sunday” except for six Sundays per year when the mother has access with the child, is unconstitutional insofar as it mandates specific religious exercise … . … [W]e remit the matter to Family Court to designate which parent will have decision-making authority for that child’s religious education and practice. Matter of Clark v Strassburg, 2025 NY Slip Op 04390, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: It is unconstitutional for a court, in the context of a Family Court proceeding, to order that a child attend a particular church. The court should designate a parent to have decision-making authority over a child’s religious education and practice.

 

, ,

THE REGULATIONS WHICH ALLOW THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL OFFERS EDUCATION SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THAT OFFERED BY LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS WERE PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the regulations which allow the Commissioner of Education to enforce the requirement that nonpublic schools provide an education “substantially equivalent” to that provided by local public schools were properly promulgated:

​Petitioners argue that 8 NYCRR 130.6 (c) (2) (i) and 8 NYCRR 130.8 (d) (7) (i) are invalid because they compel parents to “unenroll” their children from schools deemed not substantially equivalent, authorizing and necessarily leading to school closures, and that this exceeds the authority of the Commissioner. * * *

The regulatory provisions at issue here state that, in the event of a negative substantial equivalency determination, “the nonpublic school shall no longer be deemed a school which provides compulsory education fulfilling the requirements of Article 65 of the Education Law” … . A determination that a nonpublic school has failed to meet the substantial equivalence requirement leads naturally to this acknowledgement—that the nonpublic school fails to comply with the Education Law’s substantial equivalency mandate and thus is not a school that fulfills the statutory requirement for compulsory education. Far from exceeding the Commissioner’s statutory authority, the regulations simply establish a mechanism by which the statutory mandate is enforced. In this regard, instead of being contrary to the statute’s purpose, the challenged regulations are a natural consequence flowing from the statutory language itself.

Contrary to petitioners’ claims, nothing in these provisions requires that parents “unenroll” their children from a nonpublic school deemed not to provide substantially equivalent instruction. Nor do the regulations authorize school closures. The provisions merely state that the nonpublic school does not provide substantially equivalent instruction—a determination well within the authority provided to the Commissioner by the statute. The parent or custodian must determine how then to ensure their compliance with the Education Law. Matter of Parents for Educ. & Religious Liberty in Schs. v Young, 2025 NY Slip Op 03689, CtApp 6-18-25

 

, , , , ,

THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-firefighter did not demonstrate the NYC Fire Department (FDNY) improperly denied petitioner’s request for a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate:

Pursuant to the NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law], it is “an unlawful discriminatory practice” for an employer “to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation” for, among other possibilities, “religious needs” (Administrative Code § 8-107[28][a][1]). Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the appellants’ process for resolving requests for a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate did not meet the requirements of the NYCHRL regarding cooperative dialogue … . The appellants provided information on the process for reviewing accommodation requests related to the vaccine mandate and informed employees on how to appeal request denials. The record demonstrates that the petitioner availed himself of this process. The record also shows that there were multiple communications between the petitioner, the FDNY, and the [City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel] regarding the petitioner’s accommodation request. The petitioner failed to establish that, under the unique circumstances present at the time of the vaccine mandate, the NYCHRL required a more robust or individualized dialogue.

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the determination to deny him a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 03728, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the petitioner-firefighter had won in Supreme Court and was reinstated with back pay. But the Second Department reversed finding petitioner was not entitled to a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate.

 

, ,

THE RELIGIOUS NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, THE OWNER OF THE RESIDENCE PROVIDED FOR THE TORAH READER AND HIS FAMILY, WAS ENTITLED TO A REAL-PROPERTY-TAX EXEMPTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, determined the not-for-profit religious corporation was entitled to an exemption from real property tax for a residence used by Marcus, the Torah reader, and his family:​

This appeal provides this Court with an opportunity to clarify the standards courts should consider when deciding whether a covered not-for-profit corporation is entitled to a full tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a for property allegedly utilized primarily in furtherance of exempt purposes. The circumstances presented here involve an Orthodox Jewish religious corporation seeking an exemption for a residential property used, inter alia, to house its Torah reader and his family. … [W]e conclude … that the petitioner demonstrated that the subject property was used primarily in furtherance of its religious purposes during the 2015 tax year. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the petition to review the real property tax assessment for that year. * * *

… [T]he petitioner’s submissions established that it offered Marcus housing within walking distance of the synagogue in order to continue to retain his expert services as a Torah reader, as his religious beliefs prohibited him from driving to the synagogue on the Sabbath and on Jewish holy days, and he had a growing family which made walking from his prior apartment impractical … . The petitioner’s rabbi also stated that, upon learning that Marcus could not continue in his role as Torah reader without residing closer to the synagogue, “[t]he congregation was unable to identify any qualified Torah [r]eader within walking distance [thereof].” Considering … that “[t]he requirement of reading from the Torah” during services “is absolute and cannot be waived,” as explained by the rabbi, the petitioner’s religious “goal[s]” were “advance[d]” by providing Marcus with housing closer to the synagogue … . Matter of Harrison Orthodox Minyan, Inc. v Town/Village of Harrison, 2025 NY Slip Op 01634, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here a not-for-profit religious corporation was entitled to an exemption from real property tax for a residence provided to the Torah reader and his family because the residence was used “primarily in furtherance of its religious purposes” during the relevant tax year.​

 

, , , , ,

THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” IS GROUNDED IN THE FIRST AMEMDMENT AND MAY RESTRICT A STATE AGENCY’S REVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS MADE BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; THE EXCEPTION IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, NOT A JURISDICTIONAL BAR, TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reversing the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) and the Appellate Division, determined the so-called “ministerial exception” was not a jurisdictional bar to the Nigerian priest’s, Ibhawa’s, hostile work environment claim under the NYS Human Rights Law. The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict state interference with employment decisions made by religious institutions.. The Court of Appeals clarified that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense in an employment discrimination action against a religious institution, not a jurisdictional bar to bringing the case:

Ibhawa filed an employment complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in November 2020, claiming that the Diocese had engaged in discriminatory employment practices in violation of the New York Human Rights Law (see Executive Law art 15). Ibhawa alleged that he had experienced racial discrimination at the Diocese, including from an employee who directed a racial slur at him and a parishioner who made xenophobic remarks to him. He further alleged that the Diocesan officials to whom he reported the incidents declined to investigate them, questioned his decision to terminate the employee who had used a racial slur, and made “highly insulting and offensive” remarks about “foreign priests.” At a subsequent meeting, two Diocesan officials offered to buy Ibhawa a plane ticket to Nigeria and told him that the “Bishop could remove [his] faculties.” Shortly afterwards, the Diocese informed Ibhawa that his employment had been terminated and his priestly faculties removed, which meant that that he could not apply for a position as a priest in the Diocese. The Diocese eventually hired a white priest to replace him. Based on these assertions, Ibhawa alleged claims of hostile work environment and unlawful termination on the basis of race and national origin. He sought, among other remedies, compensatory and punitive damages. * * *

DHR’s order dismissing Ibhawa’s hostile work environment claim was affected by an error of law. After noting the parties’ agreement that Ibhawa was “a priest serving as the pastor (Parish Administrator) of a church,” DHR found that his complaint “comes under the ministerial exception (relative to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution).” On that basis, DHR concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Ibhawa’s claims. This determination was contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s express holding that the “exception operates as an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim, not a jurisdictional bar” … . Matter of Ibhawa v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2024 NY Slip Op 05872, CtApp 11-26-24

Practice Point: The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict a state agency’s review of employment decisions made by religious institutions. The exception is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar, to a hostile work environment action brought by a priest against his employer.

 

, , , ,

“UNITED METHODIST CHURCH” IS NOT A JURAL ENTITY WHICH CAN BE SUED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT LAWSUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the “United Methodist Church” is not a jural entity which can be sued. In this Child Victims Act proceeding, the complaint alleged plaintiff was abused by an employee of the defendants United Methodist Church General Conference … , United Methodist Church Northeastern Jurisdiction New York-Connecticut District, New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, United Methodist Church Long Island East District, Long Island East District of the New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, … United Methodist Church of Woodbury New York. [and the] United Methodist Church … . The complaint alleged … United Methodist Church “is a not-for profit religious association and/or organization conducting business in the State of New York and organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at c/o GFCA, 1 Music Circle North Nashville, Tennessee 37203.”

… [A]pplying neutral principles of law, we determine … the defendants established that United Methodist Church is not a jural entity with the capacity to be sued. Dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction is warranted where a named defendant is not a legal entity amenable to suit … . New York law recognizes that “[a]n action or special proceeding may be maintained, against the president or treasurer” of an “unincorporated association” “upon any cause of action, for or upon which the plaintiff may maintain such an action or special proceeding, against all the associates, by reason of their interest or ownership, or claim of ownership therein, either jointly or in common, or their liability therefor, either jointly or severally” (General Associations Law § 13; see CPLR 1025 [“Two or more persons conducting a business as a partnership may sue or be sued in the partnership name, and actions may be brought by or against the president or treasurer of an unincorporated association on behalf of the association in accordance with the provisions of the general associations law”]). Although the term “unincorporated association” is not further defined by statute, New York courts have determined that “[i]t is only when a partnership has a President or a Treasurer that it is deemed an association within the meaning of” General Associations Law § 13 … . As such, “[a]n unincorporated association . . . has ‘no legal existence separate and apart from its individual members'” … .

* * * [W]e conclude that the defendants established that United Methodist Church … is a religious denomination with a single purpose—”to make disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world”—and not a jural entity amenable to suit as an unincorporated association. It is undisputed that United Methodist Church does not have a principal place of business, does not have its own offices or employees, and does not and cannot hold title to property, and there is no proof in the record that United Methodist Church has incorporated or held itself out as a jural entity in any other jurisdiction. Moreover, the defendants demonstrated at the hearing that United Methodist Church, as such, does not have any involvement in the staffing or the removal of clergy or staff at the local church level. Chestnut v United Methodist Church, 2024 NY Slip Op 03726, Second Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: Here the “United Methodist Church” was deemed a nonjural entity which cannot be sued in New York–criteria explained in depth.

 

, ,

THE EDUCATION LAW PROVISIONS AND RELATED REGULATIONS (1) REQUIRING NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE EDUCATION EQUIVALENT TO THAT PROVIDED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND (2) ALLOWING PUBLIC FUNDING TO BE CURTAILED AND REQUIRING STUDENTS TO ATTEND A DIFFERENT SCHOOL IF THE EQUIVALENCY TEST IS NOT MET ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, over a dissent, determined the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Education concerning the evaluation of nonpublic schools and the cutting-off of services provided to those schools if they don’t meet the “equivalent-to-public-schools” test are valid and enforceable. The petitioners here are five yeshivas and related organizations:

Petitioners contend that the subject regulation provisions impose a penalty upon nonpublic schools that fail to meet the statute’s educational standard, an argument accepted by the dissent — but “penalty” is not an accurate characterization. First, prior to any negative substantial equivalency determination, nonpublic schools under review are engaged in a lengthy collaborative process, specifically designed to assist them in meeting the basic educational standards set forth within the Education Law (see 8 NYCRR 130.6 [a] [1] [iii]; 130.8 [d] [2]). To be sure, the Commissioner is statutorily authorized to impose civil and criminal penalties against a parent or guardian who fails to fulfill their duty under the compulsory education requirement (see Education Law §§ 3233, 3234), and to withhold certain public moneys from any city or district that “wil[l]fully omits and refuses to enforce” relevant statutory provisions (Education Law § 3234 [1]). The Education Law does not provide for any direct penalty upon nonpublic schools.

… By definition, a nonpublic school that fails to demonstrate substantial equivalency necessarily fails to fulfill the requirements of the compulsory education mandate … . Parents are obligated to comply with this mandate and, as such, the Commissioner’s declaration that a particular institution fails to meet the statutory standards required to meet that duty is no more, or less, than a necessary advisory to parents.

… [T]he loss of status as a substantially equivalent nonpublic school is not equivalent to closure; the institutions … continue to operate and provide some form of instruction. … [T]he Education Law, and the corresponding regulations, do not limit the parents’ opportunity to enroll their children in any extracurricular instruction or activities that they deem appropriate and helpful, and nothing in the regulations prohibits the children from being enrolled in such institutions — the sole limitation is that the statutory mandate must be met … . Matter of Parents for Educ. & Religious Liberty in Schs. v Young, 2024 NY Slip Op 03523, Third Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: If a nonpublic school does not provide a level of education equivalent to that provided by the public schools, public funding of those schools can be curtailed and students can be required to attend a different school.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS “EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (ELCA)” AND “UPSTATE NEW YORK SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (SYNOD)” HAD THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATE A PASTOR ACCUSED OF ABUSE; THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THOSE DEFENDANTS WERE THE PASTOR’S EMPLOYERS; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring, retention and supervision causes of action against Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Upstate New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Synod) should not have been dismissed on the ground that the alleged abuser (a pastor) was not an employee. Although the abuser was hired by a third-party church, St. Nicodemus, the ELCA’s and the Synod’s constitution provided that ELCA and Synod exercised control over discipline and termination of the pastor. Therefore there were questions of fact about ELCA’s and Synod’s status as employers:

… According to the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws, the authority to discipline pastors within the ELCA was granted to the synods and the ELCA. The authority to remove a pastor from the roster of ordained ministers remained with the synods and the ELCA. Once a pastor was removed from the roster of ordained ministers, a congregation that chose to retain that pastor could be removed from the ELCA. The entire disciplinary process was created by and governed by the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws. Under these circumstances, we conclude that plaintiffs’ submissions raised an issue of fact whether the ELCA and the Synod exercised sufficient control over the retention and supervision of plaintiffs’ alleged abuser so as to constitute his employers … . PB-20 Doe v St. Nicodemus Lutheran Church, 2024 NY Slip Op 03246, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here, although the pastor accused of abuse was hired by a specific Lutheran church (St. Nicodemus), the defendants Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Upstate New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Synod) had the power to discipline and terminate the pastor. Therefore there was a question of fact whether defendants were the pastor’s employers such that the negligent hiring, retention and supervision causes of action should not have been dismissed.

 

, ,

THE “RELIGIOUS EMPLOYER” EXEMPTION FROM MANDATED INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTIONS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the US Supreme Court ruling in Fulton v Philadelphia, 593 US 522 (2021) did not render the “religious employer” exemption to the mandated insurance coverage for medically necessary abortions unconstitutional. The opinion is too detailed and comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

Plaintiffs, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and a variety of entities ranging from churches to religiously affiliated organizations to a single individual, provide medical insurance plans to their employees. They have challenged a regulation promulgated by the Department of Financial Services as violative of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The challenged regulation requires New York employer health insurance policies that provide hospital, surgical, or medical expense coverage to include coverage for medically necessary abortion services (see 11 NYCRR 52.16 [o] [1]). Their challenge is to the regulation’s exemption for “religious employers,” which is defined by four factors (see 11 NYCRR 52.2 [y]). Plaintiffs’ claim, in essence, is that the exemption is too narrow, such that the First Amendment rights of certain types of religiously affiliated employers are violated because they do not meet the terms of the exemption. * * *

Under Fulton, both the regulation itself and the criteria delineating a “religious employer” for the purposes of the exemption are generally applicable and do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Neither the existence of the exemption in the regulation nor the defined criteria allow for “individualized exemptions” that are standardless and discretionary, nor do they allow for comparable secular conduct while discriminating against religious conduct. Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo, 2024 NY Slip Op 02764, CtApp 5-21-24

Practice Point: The 2021 US Supreme Court ruling in Fulton v Philadelphia did not render the “religious exemption” regulation promulgated by the NYS Department of Financial Services unconstitutional. The regulation exempts certain religious employers from mandated insurance coverage for medically necessary abortions.

 

, , ,

THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM’S DENIAL OF COURT EMPLOYEES’ APPLICATIONS FOR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE AFFIRMED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department affirmed the NYS Unified Court System’s (UCS’s) denial applications for religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine mandate. The issue was analyzed under both the US and NYS Constitutions. The USC held the petitioners (USC employees) failed to meet the qualifications for employment by not complying with the mandate. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here, but is well worth reading for the constitutional analyses:

Conducting the appropriate level of review, we find that the vaccine mandate was rationally related to the legitimate goals of slowing the spread of COVID-19 and fully reopening courts to “promote efficient access to justice” … . Indeed, “[w]hatever their merits or efficacy, it cannot be said that the State’s policies are an irrational means to achieve the legitimate goal of curbing the spread of COVID-19” … . Matter of Ferrelli v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02012, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: The NYS Unified Court System’s denial of employees’ applications for religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine mandate did not violate the US or NYS Constitutions.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy