Fulton v. City of Phila.
| Decision Date | 13 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-2075 |
| Citation | 320 F.Supp.3d 661 |
| Parties | Sharonell FULTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
320 F.Supp.3d 661
Sharonell FULTON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-2075
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
Signed July 13, 2018
Lori H. Windham, Mark L. Rienzi, Nicholas R. Reaves, Stephanie H. Barclay, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, Nicholas M. Centrella, John A. Guernsey, Conrad O'Brien, PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Eleanor N. Ewing, Benjamin H. Field, Jane Lovitch Istvan, Michael Wu-Kung Pfautz, Schaundra Oliver, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Diana P. Cortes, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Tucker, District Judge
The gratitude we owe to all those working to better the lives of Philadelphia's most vulnerable children is too great to convey in words. While our gratitude is ultimately ineffable, the Court still begins by recognizing the Parties in this case for their many years of sacrifice and labor. The Court thanks Sharonell Fulton, Cecelia Paul, Toni Lynn Simms-Busch, Catholic Social Services ("CSS"), the City of Philadelphia, the Department of Human Services ("DHS"), and the Commission on Human Relations for their individual sacrifices and contributions in service of Philadelphia's children and its families. As witnesses called to testify in this case have made clear, fostering children is challenging
work, but challenging work that can form part of a full and good life.
Until recent events, the Parties have had a fruitful relationship; a relationship that has benefited Philadelphia's children in immeasurable ways. For this reason, the Court would prefer that the Parties seek out some compromise to their current dispute without court intervention. Creative problem solving through concerted and thoughtful discourse without court intervention is often the best method to avoid what may appear to the parties, or to other persons in the public, to be harsh legal results. Still, when parties place a matter before the Court, the Court must act pursuant to its obligations under the law. Accordingly, the Court turns to the legal matter presented in this case.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion For A Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction ("Injunction Motion") (ECF No. 13),1 The City Of Philadelphia's Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 21), Proposed Intervenors' Memorandum of Law, Or, In The Alternative, Amicus Brief, In Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For A Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction ("Amicus Brief") (ECF No. 34);2 Defendants' Proposed Findings Of Facts And Conclusions Of Law (ECF No. 45), and Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings Of Fact And Conclusions of Law (ECF No. 46). Upon careful consideration of the foregoing and all the evidence presented by the Parties in their written submissions and the evidentiary hearing held on June 18, 2018, June 19, 2018, and June 21, 2018, for the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs' Injunction Motion (ECF No. 13) is DENIED .
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2018, Plaintiffs asserted sixteen causes of action against Defendants related to, among other things, Defendants' suspension of referrals of new children to Plaintiffs' care and Defendants' alleged violations of Plaintiffs' religious and free speech rights. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1; but see Mem. of Law Supp. Pl.s' Injunction Mot. 8 (asserting that CSS "filed a complaint in this Court on May 16, 2018"). Nineteen days later,3 on June 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Injunction Motion seeking a court order to compel Defendants to resume referrals of children to Plaintiffs' care in advance of the June 30 expiration of Plaintiffs' current services contract with Defendants under which Plaintiffs provide various professional services in exchange for public funds. In view of the urgency of the matter, the Court set an expedited briefing schedule and ordered an evidentiary hearing. Jun. 6, 2018 Order, ECF No. 11. Less than two
weeks later, on June 18, 2018, the Court held an evidentiary hearing. The hearing concluded on June 21, 2018.4
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND5
A. CSS's Services Contract With DHS And Philadelphia
It is an intractable tragedy that children in our community are sometimes unable to remain in their own homes. Pennsylvania has, in response to this tragic reality, charged individual county agencies with the duty of establishing a system to address the well-being of these children consistent with the best interests of each child. Jun. 19, 2018 Hr'g Tr. 152:18–24 (Figueroa). In Philadelphia County, the county agency charged with this duty is DHS. In performing its duty, DHS contracts with a number of private foster care agencies. Jun. 18, 2018 Hr'g Tr. 87:2–4 (Ali). Presently, DHS has contracts with thirty private foster care agencies. Jun. 19, 2018 Hr'g Tr. 155:14–16 (Figueroa). Each of these private foster care agencies is expected to provide foster care services consistent with a services contract with DHS. See, e.g. , Jun. 19, 2018 Hr'g Tr. 162:2–12 (Figueroa) (indicating that CSS's services, as a foster agency, are provided under contract with DHS and Philadelphia); Jun. 21, 2018 Hr'g Tr. 12:15–16 (Figueroa)
(indicating that Bethany Christian Services, another foster agency, has a contract similar to the services contract between DHS and CSS).
In November 2015, DHS and CSS entered into Contract Number 16-20030 ("Services Contract") for certain professional services. Decl. of James Amato Ex. A, ECF p. 13 of 52, ECF No. 13-3 (showing that the original contract was executed in November 2015 and recounting the various amendments since initial execution); see also Decl. of James Amato Ex. A, ECF p. 39 of 52, ECF No. 13-3 (identifying the Services Contract as a "Professional Services Contract ... for Department of Human Services Contracts"). As provided in the Statement of Purpose section of the Services Contract, the Services Contract was:
made and entered into between Catholic Social Services (the Provider) and the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS), and sets forth the services for general, kinship, and teen parent/baby resource home care.
Decl. of James Amato Ex. A, ECF p. 27 of 52, ECF No. 13-3. Under the Scope of Services section of the Services Contract, CSS was to ensure that, among other things, resource caregivers (foster parents) would be "screened, trained, and certified by the Provider [CSS]."6 Decl. of James Amato Ex. A, ECF p. 28–29 of 52, ECF No. 13-3. The Services Contract reiterates that "[t]he specific issue to be addressed by [CSS] is to recruit, screen, train, and provide certified resource care homes." Decl. of James Amato Ex. A, ECF p. 28 of 52, ECF No. 13-3.
CSS was to provide the services set forth under the Scope of Services section of the Services Contract in accordance with certain criteria, including criteria under Section 3.21 of the Services Contracts' General Provisions and Article XV: Additional Representations and Covenants of Provider Relating to Certain Applicable Laws.
Section 3.21 limits the reasons that CSS may refuse to provide the services required under the Services Contract. Section 3.21 provides that CSS:
shall not reject a child or family for Services based upon the location or condition of the family's residence, their environmental or social condition, or for any other reason if the profiles of such child or family are consistent with Provider's Scope of Services or DHS's applicable standards as listed in the [Services Contract], unless an exception is granted by the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee, in his/her sole discretion.
Decl. of James Amato Ex. B, ECF p. 14 of 39, ECF No. 13-4.
Article XV of the Services Contract further limits the reasons that CSS may refuse to provide the services required under the Services Contract by incorporating into the Services Contract various laws, ordinances, regulations, and executive orders. In particular, Article XV incorporates provisions of the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance relating to non-discrimination and serving all-comers who
might seek services from CSS. Article XV stipulates that:
.... Provider further represents, warrants and covenants that ... Provider is in compliance with the laws, ordinances, regulations and executive orders described below....
15.1 Non-Discrimination; Fair Practices. This Contract is entered into under the terms of the Charter, the Fair Practices Ordinance (Chapter 9-1100 of the Code) .... Provider shall not discriminate or permit discrimination against any individual because of race, color, religion or national origin. Nor shall Provider discriminate or permit discrimination against individuals in ... public accommodation 7 practices whether by direct or indirect practice of exclusion, distinction, restriction, segregation, limitation, refusal,
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulton v. City of Phila.
..., 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), and that the free exercise claim was therefore unlikely to succeed. 320 F.Supp.3d 661, 680–690 (E.D. Pa. 2018). The court also determined that the free speech claims were unlikely to succeed because CSS performed certifications as part......
-
New Hope Family Servs., Inc. v. Poole
...conclusion: The ordinances had as their object the suppression of religion." Id. at 542, 113 S.Ct. 2217.In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia , 320 F. Supp. 3d 661 (E.D. Pa. 2018), the plaintiff, Catholic Social Services ("CSS"), and the defendant, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services ......
-
New Hope Family Servs., Inc. v. Poole
...funding condition prohibiting legal services corporations from using funds to "challenge existing welfare law"); Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 320 F. Supp. 3d 661 (challenging non-discrimination provision of contract with City to provide foster care services).25 In Velazquez , the Supreme......
-
Dumont v. Lyon
...however, that there is good reason to question the base rationality of those assumptions. See, e.g., Fulton v. City of Philadelphia , 320 F. Supp. 3d 661, 674 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (finding that closure of Catholic Social Services "had little or no effect on the operation of Philadelphia's foster......
-
Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: How Religious Exemption Laws for Discriminatory Private Agencies Violate the Constitution and Harm LGBTQ+ Families
...“public accommodations” subject to Philadelphia’s Fair 78. Fulton , 922 F.3d at 146–47. 79. Id . at 148. 80. Fulton v. City of Phila., 320 F. Supp. 3d 661, 672 (E.D. Pa. 2018), aff’d , 922 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2019), cert. granted , 140 S. Ct. 1104 (2020). 81. Fulton , 922 F.3d at 148. CSS als......