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 pictures of Mohammed in her World Artwork class, and a few college students objected. López Prater sued, and on Friday Choose 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 non secular discrimination: 1) discrimination as a result of she just isn’t Muslim, and a pair of) discrimination as a result of she failed to evolve to sure non secular beliefs of others (i.e., that it’s improper to view pictures 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 issue proving her case at later levels, particularly as a result of demonstrating that Hamline would have handled her in a different way if she was Muslim appears very arduous to determine. 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 displaying the photographs “Islamophobic” if she have been Muslim. She additionally factors to the temporal proximity between the uproar over her displaying the photographs and Hamline’s resolution 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 employees 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 should be associated to her displaying pictures 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 pictures of the Prophet Muhammad for any motive.
The data in Ms. López Prater’s grievance is enough to plausibly allege that Hamline took the antagonistic actions as a result of she was not Muslim or didn’t conform to the non secular beliefs held by some that viewing pictures of the Prophet Muhammad is forbidden. And whereas Hamline contends that Ms. López Prater’s non-conformance concept 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 akin to clients or shoppers. Subsequently, Ms. López Prater alleging that Hamline discriminated towards her by performing on the preferences of sure Muslim college students and employees members is enough at this stage….
Notice that merely requiring that an worker conform to secularly outlined guidelines is usually not handled as non secular discrimination, even when the foundations are motivated by the employer’s (or its clients’) non secular beliefs. As an illustration, 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: Spiritual 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.
Alternatively, requiring that an worker interact 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 displaying the photographs ‘Islamophobic’ if she have been Muslim” argument) is that requiring that an worker keep away from what some non secular individuals see as blasphemy must be handled equally to a requirement that an worker affirmatively interact in non secular worship or related conduct. The courtroom did not particularly cope with this query, and I take it that it stays open, maybe on a movement for abstract judgment or on an eventual enchantment.
The courtroom rejected López Prater’s different claims, although, together with her claims of retaliation based mostly on her having objected to the college’s allegedly discriminatory actions, and claims associated to allegedly defamatory statements by College officers. This 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 by which he stated that Ms. López Prater engaged in conduct that was thoughtless, disrespectful, and Islamophobic. The second is the assertion from the Dean of College students revealed within the scholar newspaper that Ms. López Prater’s conduct was “an act of intolerance.” Third, she depends upon the statements Mr. Hussein made on the “Group Dialog” that Ms. López Prater confirmed the photographs of the Prophet Muhammad for no different motive than to impress, offend, and harm 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 “Group Dialog” occasion along with his e-mail to employees. Though the Courtroom sympathizes with how troublesome it has been for Ms. López Prater to have been the topic of those statements, that doesn’t make them redressable as defamatory.
Typically, 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 individuals (together with Muslims) maintain completely different views about whether or not or not Ms. López Prater’s conduct was Islamophobic or inappropriate additional demonstrates the concept the statements at difficulty are opinions that can not be characterised, not to mention confirmed, as true or false….
