United States Court Of Appeals:[br]Trial Court Should Have Enjoined Men-Only Policy And Religious Activities At City-Owned Homeless Shelter

The United States Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue of whether a trial court should have issued an injunction prohibiting a Christian organization from implementing a men-only policy and conducting religious activities in a homeless shelter which it operates in a facility leased from a city. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court should have issued an injunction because the challenge to the shelter’s policies raised serious questions as to whether the city is discriminating against women and families and whether the city’s aid to the organization has the effect of advancing religion. (Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise, (2006 WL 3231393, 9th Cir.(Idaho), Nov. 9, 2006).)

Facts

Community House, Inc. (“CHI”), managed a homeless shelter, Community House, in a facility owned by the City of Boise (“City”). CHI provided housing for men, women, and families. The City assumed management of the shelter in 2004 and then leased it to a Christian non-profit organization, Boise Rescue Mission Ministries (“Ministries”). A City ordinance and the lease between the City and the Ministries provide that the Ministries shall operate Community House as a men-only shelter. Before the Ministries took over operation of the shelter, the City informed the women and families that they must move. The Ministries includes a religious component as part of the services it provides to Community House’s residents.

CHI and several individual plaintiffs (collectively, “CHI”) filed a lawsuit against the City alleging that its actions in connection with Community House violated the Fair Housing Act. CHI sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the removal of the women and families from Community House and to reinstate former residents. The district court enjoined the City from relocating any of Community House’s former residents to housing that is near the residence of a registered sex offender, but denied the request to reinstate former residents. The district court denied a broad injunction to prevent the Ministries from conducting religious activities, but it enjoined the City from participating in a lease with the Ministries if the Ministries continued to require attendance at its religious services as a condition of receiving services.

Decision

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction with regard to both the men-only policy and the religious activities. The Court found that the men-only policy is facially discriminatory because it treats both women and families differently from men. Under the Fair Housing Act, an individual makes a prima facie case for intentional discrimination “merely by showing that a protected group has been subjected to explicitly differential – i.e. discriminatory – treatment.” In order to justify such differential treatment, the City must show either that its policy benefits the protected class, or “it responds to legitimate safety concerns raised by the individuals affected.”

The City asserted that the men-only policy protects the safety of women and families. However, the Court concluded that the City failed to offer any evidence, other than mere opinion, that supported its safety-concern claim. Also, although the City claimed that the men-only policy will allow the Ministries to proceed with its plan to convert another one of its shelters to house women and families, there is no guarantee that the Ministries will do so as it is under no legally binding obligation to provide the women and families with services. Because the men-only policy is facially discriminatory and CHI raised serious questions regarding the City’s proffered justifications for its policy, the Court concluded that the balance of the hardships tips in CHI’s favor. The district court abused its discretion in denying the request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the application of the men-only policy.

As for the Ministries’ religious activities at Community House, the Court concluded that the district court should have granted a broader preliminary injunction. The Court found there was no dispute that the City leased Community House to the Ministries “for the valid secular purpose of providing shelter to the homeless, not to promote religion.” However, the Court decided that the City’s lease had the effect of advancing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. The City only charges $1 per year for the lease and gives the Ministries the option to purchase the Community House facilities for $500,000 less than its value. It appeared to the Court that the aid from the City is being diverted for Christian chapel services. The Court noted that “to avoid an Establishment Clause violation, a publicly financed government building may not be diverted to religious use.” CHI raised serious questions about whether the religious activities conducted at the publicly-financed Community House by the Ministries “constitute governmental indoctrination of religion.” The Court concluded that the district court should have enjoined the Ministries from conducting chapel services and other religious activities at Community House, even if participation was voluntary.

Legal Alert Disclaimer

Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.