From Pines Church v. Hermon School Dep’t, decided last week by Chief Judge Lance Walker (D. Me.):
Plaintiffs The Pines Church and its lead pastor, Matt Gioia, looking for a new space to accommodate their growing congregation, requested a twelve-month lease to hold Sunday services at Hermon High School. The Defendant Hermon School Department’s School Committee, after meeting and discussing the challenges associated with such a relationship, did not make a motion to vote on the requested twelve-month lease. Furthermore, the Committee members refused to second a motion to vote on a six-month lease. Ultimately, the Committee voted to offer Plaintiffs a month-to-month lease.
Plaintiffs filed this civil action, alleging that the School Committee’s refusal to extend a long-term lease was motivated by animus against their sincerely held religious views …. The School Department offers a competing characterization of events, maintaining that the School Committee’s decision was influenced by concerns about entering into a long-term lease agreement.
Before the Court are the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs rely on the relatively blatant bias and the inferences that arise from the interrogatories posed by one Committee member who demanded to know from Pastor Gioia the Church’s “position” on a spate of religious, political, and cultural flashpoints before evaluating whether to extend a lease on behalf of a publicly funded school.
Plaintiffs also rely on a somewhat more tepid bias, sanitized through fear-of-association comments by others, along the lines that association with the Church may not fit with the Committee’s “goals” and may therefore create a “negative image” by not comporting with the School Department’s “mission” and evidently its own beliefs. This evidence certainly is probative of Plaintiffs’ position that the School Committee’s refusal to offer Plaintiffs a lease was motivated by unconstitutional considerations, such as animus toward the Church’s orthodox religious beliefs.
For its part, the School Department counters that the School Committee’s decision, save for the one Committee member’s bill of particulars put to the Pastor, simply resulted from humdrum, benign space and cost concerns, although that narrative is far from conclusive based on the summary judgment record. These competing characterizations of the Committee’s motivations form the most conspicuous reason I deny summary judgment to the parties in favor of a jury trial.
More on the facts of the case:
At the November 7, 2022, School Committee meeting, Gioia gave a presentation to the Committee. To signify the Church’s intent to invest in the Hermon community, Gioia offered to pay $1,000 per month, which was $400 more than the School Department’s proposed monthly rent.
The following day, School Committee Member Chris McLaughlin emailed The Pines Church and explained that he had “a few follow-up questions for” Gioia “that occurred to [him] after the presentation.” Gioia responded, asking that McLaughlin funnel his questions through Superintendent Grant. McLaughlin emailed Superintendent Grant and wrote that he wanted to get a better sense of how the Church “approaches issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion” and “[the Church’s] messaging around some key issues relevant to marginalized communities.” McLaughlin was “curious” about whether “the Pines Church” is “receptive of same-sex marriages?” He asked if “they consider marriage only to be between 1 man and 1 woman?” “In addition to” his “question on marriage,” McLaughlin was “wondering if” Pastor Gioia “can share more information on where the Pines Church stands on” the following issues:
“Access to safe and affordable abortion”; “Access to gender affirming medical care”; “Conversion therapy for LGBTQIA+ individuals (youths and adults)”; and “Inclusive sexual education and access to birth control for youth.”
On November 10, Superintendent Grant forwarded these questions to Pastor Gioia, who did not respond. There is no evidence suggesting that other Committee members were involved in McLaughlin’s inquiry or knew about it.
On December 12, 2022, the School Committee met to consider the Church’s lease request. The parties offer competing narratives of what was said during this meeting.
Plaintiffs claim that one of the Committee members questioned how the lease would “fit” with the “Committee’s ‘goals'” and that Hermon High School Principal Brian Walsh and other Committee members commented that the School Department’s association with the Church might create a negative image. According to Plaintiffs, Principal Walsh insinuated that the School Department could not associate themselves with the Church because its religious and political beliefs do not align with the School Department’s mission and apparently its conflicting beliefs. Lastly, Plaintiffs assert that the Superintendent and the Committee members did not identify any scheduling conflicts with Plaintiffs’ requested lease. The School Department refutes this description.
The parties agree that the Committee members [also] discussed school-sponsored activities taking priority, space in the parking lot, and staffing issues, including the need to have the high school space cleaned on Sundays….
And some excerpts from the court’s analysis:
The School Department places great weight on the undisputed fact that the School Committee offered Plaintiffs a month-to-month lease. From there, the School Department reasons that a jury could not find that the Committee’s refusal to offer a lease was based on improper considerations since the Committee was willing to enter into a month-to-month lease agreement with Plaintiffs.
In the context of the School Department’s Motion, the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs’ cause. A reasonable jury could find that the Committee’s unwillingness to enter into a twelve-month lease agreement with Plaintiffs, evinced by none of the Committee members being willing to even second the motion to offer a six-month lease, was based on impermissible considerations, such as a fear of association, which Principal Walsh and other Committee members allegedly expressed. In short, whether the Committee members acted with improper motives when considering Plaintiffs’ lease request remains in dispute, so the School Department’s Motion is denied.…
{Evidently, the parties have conducted discovery and filed their competing Motions without considering exactly what must be proved under § 1983 to support a finding of unconstitutional municipal action. With the discovery process having closed in December 2023, the examination into the Committee members’ subjective motives is over outside of calling them as witnesses at trial. Having not addressed the requirements of § 1983 …, both parties’ analyses regarding Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims are incomplete and fatal to their attempts to resolve this case short of trial….
In any event, Plaintiffs have come forward with enough evidence such that the accompanying reasonable inferences yield a genuine factual dispute as to whether the School Committee’s decision was based on an impermissible motive. Plaintiffs’ case does not solely rely on McLaughlin’s questions, which, as the School Department conceded at oral argument, give rise to an issue of fact of whether McLaughlin had an improper motive. Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that “one committee member said that leasing to the Church did not fit the Committee’s goals,” and that Principal “Walsh even insinuated that” the School Department “could not associate themselves with the Church because their religious and political beliefs do not align with” the School Department’s “mission.” Lastly, Plaintiffs claim that “[o]ther committee members and Principal Brian Walsh made discriminatory comments about the Church by suggesting” that the school’s “association with the Church and its religious beliefs would create a negative public image.” Plaintiffs do not identify which School Committee members made these statements or how many School Committee members in total made similar statements, but at least three School Committee members are implicated. This is just shy of a majority, but it suggests that “at least a significant bloc of” the Committee members may have acted with improper motives. Furthermore, based on Plaintiffs’ assertion that Walsh—the Principal of Hermon High School—made discriminatory comments by suggesting that associating the high school “with the Church and its religious beliefs would create a negative public image,” it is possible that other Committee members might have been influenced by Walsh’s comments. Moreover, a jury could consider whether Plaintiffs are similarly situated to the organizations that use—but do not rent—school facilities in evaluating the veracity of the School Department’s asserted reasons for declining to enter into a long-term lease with Plaintiffs.}
{The School Department’s proffered transcript of the meeting (which was offered in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, but not in support of the School Department’s Motion) might corroborate Gioia’s recount of the meeting. According to the transcript, McLaughlin asked how the lease “ties in with the [Committee’s] goals” and how the lease would “bolster” the community. Committee member Eva Benjamin asked whether the Church would “use the high school’s address” to advertise and promote the Church, and after Superintendent Grant answered yes, she asked if “that would create any confusion or conflict in the community.” When asked about possible scheduling conflicts with school-related activities, Principal Walsh said: “If you put our high school’s name with a church or another organization with different beliefs than the school has, I see that as a problem we’re having.”
McLaughlin asked Principal Walsh about whether students expressed any opinions about the lease, and Walsh responded that “a number of students” asked him “‘Why would we have the church if we don’t own that church? Are they going to use Herm[o]n High School’s name? What if we disagree with their mission?'” Committee Member Haily Keezer did not “see how them using the address so people can find it has anything to do with affiliation with the school,” and she said, “So it sounds like what you’re saying is, you don’t want them to say, ‘Herm[o]n High School.’ You don’t want them to associate with that.” Principal Walsh said that he did not “want it looking like Herm[on] High School is sponsoring a church. That’s where—again—this is where the blur comes in. So again, that’s something you guys ensure.”} …
Nothing in the Constitution prevents the School Department from deciding that they will not enter into any long-term lease agreements. But once the School Department has opened itself up to possible lease agreements, it cannot turn a religious group away simply because of its religious character. Thus, the question here is, as I have explained above, whether the Committee acted with improper motives when declining to extend Plaintiffs a long-term lease agreement, thereby penalizing religious activity.
The post Lawsuit Over Alleged Discriminatory Refusal to Let Church Lease School Property on Weekends Can Go Forward appeared first on Reason.com.
