Here are some important law-and-religion stories from around the web:
- An insurance worker from Michigan was awarded a twelve-million dollar judgment against her former employer after she was terminated for refusing to adhere to a private mandatory-vaccination requirement on religious grounds. It seems likely that the insurance company will appeal the judgment, considering the jury’s proportionately-large award of ten-million dollars in punitive damages.
- In Ex parte Halprin, a Texas appellate court granted a new trial to a Jewish inmate who was sentenced to death following the murder of a police officer responding to the robbery of a Dick’s Sporting Goods. The Court found that the trial judge’s decision was based in large part on antisemetism, citing various out-of-court statements brought by witnesses that showed a clear animus against the defendant’s Jewish heritage.
- In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Wash. v. Ferguson, a Washington federal district court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Washington from applying its antidiscrimination laws to homeless shelters run by a Christian organization. The organization sought to limit its hiring to coreligionists, while the government of Washington claims religious exemptions to antidiscrimination statutes only apply in the context of ministerial hirings.
- In Wexler v. City of San Diego, a California federal district court rejected the claim of an Orthodox Jewish man that the City of San Diego discriminated against his exercise of religion by allowing his eviction on the Sabbath. The Court found that because the evictors were not state actors, and because state laws in place facilitating the eviction process were neutral and generally applicable, the Plaintiff’s Religious Exercise Claim must fail.
- In Furqua v. Raak, the Ninth Circuit reinstated the free exericse and equal protection claims of a self-described Christian Israelite who was refused Kosher meals for Passover after the prison chaplain claimed that any such religious requirement for a Christian was erroneous. The Court held that because the Plaintiff was denied an accomodation based on the subjective theological assessment of the chaplain, as opposed to a neutral and valid procedural rule, a reasonable trier of fact might find that he was refused an accomodation on account of religious discrimination.

