Religion Is Like A Pair Of Shoes…Find One That Fits For You, But Don’t Make Me Wear Your Shoes. — George Carlin.

In California, a person with developmental disabilities has the same legal rights and responsibilities guaranteed all other individuals by the United States Constitution, including “a right to religious freedom and practice.”  (Welfare and Institutions Code section 4502 [Lanterman Act]). Plaintiffs are the owners six-bed residential community care facility. The defendant is a regional center established pursuant to the Lanterman Act. One of plaintiff’s patients, a disabled adult, expressed a desire to attend Jehovah’s Witness church services. Defendant notified plaintiffs they were to accompany the patient to church services. Sounds okay, right?  Well, it turns out employees of the facility charged with taking the patient to the services refused to do it because attendance would be in contradiction to their own religious beliefs and practices. The facility requested a legal opinion from the California Community Care Licensing Division “as to whether Plaintiff [] would need to force its employees to attend worship services with clients.” The licensing division did not provide a legal opinion, and plaintiffs did not take the patient to services. The State of California, through the action of defendant regional center, cited plaintiffs for violating obligations to the patient. As a result, the facility no longer receives patient referrals from the State and “are now contemplating bankruptcy.” In the present action, plaintiffs allege deprivation of the right to freedom of religion under the First Amendment and unlawful retaliation in response to assertion of their right to freedom of religion under the First Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A federal trial judge granted defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, concluding plaintiffs failed to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, commending the trial judge for his “thoughtful and legally correct approach to this case.” (Williams v. State of California (Ninth Cir.; August 19, 2014) 764 F.3d 1002.)