still waiting for concrete examples

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

Thanks, Art.  Interesting case.  In CLUB v City of Chicago, the  City 
altered its land use scheme to eliminate the discriminatory treatment and  the 
City eventually won under RLUIPA.  Why did the Fire Department's  elimination 
of the beard policy not lead to a similar result under RFRA?  
 
Marci
 
 
 
In a message dated 6/21/2009 10:36:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
ArtSpitzer at aol.com writes:

I don't know whether you  consider forcing a person to choose between 
shaving his religiously-mandated  beard and losing his job to be a "very real 
threat to religious freedom," but  my clients did, and we just won such a case 
in the DC Circuit under RFRA that  we would have lost without it.

The appeal, Potter v. District of  Columbia, 558 F.3d 542 (DC Cir 2009), 
turned solely on civil procedure, but  the district court's decision, 2007 WL 
2892685 (DDC 2007), was on the merits  -- that the District of Columbia had 
not carried its RFRA burden of showing  that a "no facial hair" rule for 
firefighters and EMTs was required for safety  (safety being a concededly 
compelling interest).

The Fire Deoartment  avoided losing on constitutional grounds, a la FOP v. 
City of Newark, by  eliminating, in the middle of the case, its 
long-existing exemption for men  who had a medical need to avoid shaving.

Art Spitzer
ACLU   





**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823273x1201398689/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
eExcfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090622/7f536dd2/attachment.htm>