Lown v. Salvation Army, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04 Civ. 1562(SHS).,04 Civ. 1562(SHS). |
| Citation | 393 F.Supp.2d 223 |
| Parties | Anne LOWN, Alice Bergeron, Steven Bielarski, Kathleen Cogan-Kozusko, Diane Copes, Mary Jane Dessables, Eric Fine, Margaret Geissman, Shantee Gordon, Jessica Gorham, Kyoko Inouye, Alfreda Lee-Katz, Petr Nikichin, Estela Nunez, Marina Obermaier, James Presley, Daniel Quane, Anja Taekker, Plaintiffs, v. The SALVATION ARMY, INC., the City of New York, John B. Mattingly, Commissioner, New York City Administration for Children's Services, Neil Hernandez, Commissioner, New York City Division of Juvenile Justice, Thomas A. Maul, Commissioner, New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Antonia C. Novello, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, Robert Sherman, Commissioner, Nassau County Department of Social Services, Janet DeMarzo, Commissioner, Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Current and former employees of the Salvation Army bring this action for relief from the Salvation Army's efforts to enforce compliance with its religious mission among its staff. Plaintiffs claim to have been subjected to unlawful religious discrimination and have brought suit against the Salvation Army, as well as against the City of New York and the commissioners of several state and local government entities that contract with the Salvation Army for the provision of social services. Plaintiffs allege violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and various provisions of state and local law. All defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
As plaintiffs have failed to allege that the discrimination they suffered can properly be attributed to the government defendants, the motion of the government defendants is granted, except insofar as it pertains to plaintiffs' taxpayer-standing-based Establishment Clause claim. Because the Salvation Army is not a state actor, and because it enjoys statutory exemptions from liability for religious discrimination, its motion to dismiss is granted with respect to all claims against it, except plaintiffs' retaliation claims pursuant to state and city law.
The factual allegations, as set forth in the Amended Complaint, are recounted below.
The plaintiffs, eighteen present and former employees of the Salvation Army,1 include taxpayers of each of the jurisdictions represented by the government defendants. (Am.Compl. ¶¶ 2, 15). Sixteen of the plaintiffs have worked at Social Services for Children ("SSC"), a Salvation Army program that provides social services on behalf of the City of New York, the State of New York and the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk. (Id. ¶ 1).
The defendants are the Salvation Army, the City of New York and the commissioners of several state and local government entities that contract with the Salvation Army for the provision of social services. The Salvation Army is a not-for-profit corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the State of New York. (Id. ¶ 41). John B. Mattingly is the Commissioner of the New York City Administration for Children's Services; Neil Hernandez is the Commissioner of the New York City Division of Juvenile Justice; Thomas A. Maul is the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities; Antonia C. Novello is the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; Robert Sherman is the Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services; Janet DeMarzo is the Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services (collectively, the "individual defendants"). (Id. ¶ 43-48). Each of the individual defendants is sued in his or her official capacity for injunctive relief. (Id.). Together with the City of New York, the individual defendants are referred to as the "government defendants."2
The Greater New York Division of the Eastern Territory of the Salvation Army runs programs in New York City and several surrounding counties, including Nassau and Suffolk. (Am.Comp.¶ 53). The Greater New York Division administers social services through two organizations, SSC and Social Services for Families and Adults ("SSFA"). (Id. ¶ 54). Under contract with the government defendants (id. ¶ 61), SSC runs various programs, a number of which involve government-mandated custodial care. (Id. ¶ 68). Nearly 90% of the clients SSC serves are referred by, or in the custody of, government agencies and are assigned to SSC involuntarily. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 66-67). Among the services that SSC provides to more than 2,300 clients daily are: "foster care and adoption services, group homes, boarding homes, a non-secure detention facility for juvenile delinquents, services for children with developmental disabilities, HIV services, and group day care." (Id. ¶¶ 3, 65). SSC is subject to significant regulatory oversight in the provision of these services. For example, SSC is an "authorized agency" pursuant to New York Social Services Law § 371(10) for providing child welfare services, a registered family day care provider in New York City and a licensed group day care provider in Nassau County. (Id. ¶¶ 57-59).
SSC derives more than 95% of its approximately $50 million budget from its contracts with government entities. (Id. ¶ 60). Consequently, the salaries of SSC's 900 employees are paid virtually in full with funds that SSC receives through its government contracts. (Id. ¶ 64). Those contracts prohibit SSC from engaging in unlawful employment discrimination. (Id. ¶ 62).
Plaintiffs allege several forms of cooperation between the government defendants and the Salvation Army. First, SSC staff and government employees allegedly work together to administer various services that SSC provides. (Am.Compl. ¶¶ 65-89). For example, with respect to foster care services in the City of New York, staff from the Administration for Children's Services and SSC work in concert to "recruit potential adoptive parents, give orientations and training sessions, evaluate the suitability of pre-adoptive homes and coordinate the adoption process from initial planning to the adoption finalization in court proceedings." (Id. ¶ 72). Second, as mandated by the government agencies with which it has contracts, SSC operates a variety of accounting systems for keeping track of payments to, and accounts maintained on behalf of, certain clients.3 (Id. ¶¶ 92-95). The State pays for much of the computer equipment necessary to manage these accounts. (Id. ¶ 93). Third, SSC must use several government-mandated systems for standardization of child welfare data.4 (Id. ¶¶ 98-110). SSC's in-house data is routinely merged with data from the state's central registry. (Id. ¶ 106). The data coordination procedures allegedly involve close cooperation among SSC and the relevant government agencies. (Id.). Fourth, the government defendants impose specific training requirements on SSC staff and clients. For example, SSC foster parents must receive 30 hours of "Model Approaches to Partnership in Parenting" training, and SSC social workers must receive five days of new social worker training. (Id. ¶¶ 112-13). In addition, SSC child care workers, foster parents and social workers are required to undergo annual training on various topics including "child neglect and abuse, AIDS prevention and understanding, working with people with AIDS, first aid, CPR and Therapeutic Crisis intervention." (Id. ¶ 114).
Plaintiffs allege that SCC provides...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Hope Family Servs., Inc. v. Poole, 5:18-CV-1419 (MAD/TWD)
...action is subject to rational basis review. See Abascal v. Jarkos , 357 Fed. Appx. 388, 391 (2d Cir. 2009) ; Lown v. Salvation Army, Inc. , 393 F. Supp. 2d 223, 237 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Rational basis also applies to classifications that do not involve fundamental rights. See Heller v. Doe by D......
-
Cooper v. U.S. States Postal Service, 3:03CV01694(DJS).
...a private organization may be so entwined with government that its conduct may be deemed per se state action." Lown v. Salvation Army, Inc., 393 F.Supp.2d 223, 244 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (citing Brentwood Acad., 531 U.S. 288, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807; Lebron v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 513......
-
W.D. v. Rockland Cnty.
...] individuals to ‘selective treatment ... based on impermissible considerations such as ... religion.’ " Lown v. Salvation Army, Inc. , 393 F. Supp. 2d 223, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Knight v. Conn. Dep't of Public Health , 275 F.3d 156, 166 (2d Cir. 2001) ). A plaintiff "challenging a f......
-
Am. Atheists, Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
...Library Ass'n, 362 F.3d 147, 154 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Brentwood Acad., 531 U.S. at 303, 121 S.Ct. 924);Lown v. Salvation Army, Inc., 393 F.Supp.2d 223, 244 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (“In certain circumstances, a private organization may be so entwined with government that its conduct may be deemed p......
-
DEAL, NO DEAL: BOSTOCK, OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE, AND THE FATE OF RELIGIOUS HIRING RIGHTS AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
..."the exception to cover all employees rather than only those engaged in 'religious activities'"); Lown v. Salvation Army, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 2d 223, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ("This revised language applied Section 102's exemption to any activities of religious organizations, regardless of whethe......