New Hope Family Servs. v. Poole
| Decision Date | 06 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:18-CV-01419 (MAD/TWD) |
| Parties | NEW HOPE FAMILY SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. SHEILA J. POOLE, in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner for the Office of Children and Family Services for the State of New York, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM GEORGIA OFFICE DAVID A. CORTMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM ARIZONA OFFICE JONATHAN A. SCRUGGS, JACOB P. WARNER, JEREMIAH GALUS, MARK LIPPELMANN, ROGER GREENWOOD BROOKS, Attorneys for Plaintiff
OFFICE OF ROBERT E. GENANT ROBERT E. GENANT, Attorneys for Plaintiff
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ADRIENNE J. KERWIN, AAG Attorneys for Defendant
Plaintiff New Hope Family Services, Inc. ("New Hope") commenced this civil rights action on December 6, 2018, challenging the constitutionality of the New York Office of Children and Family Services' ("OCFS")[1] interpretation and application of 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 421.3(d). See Dkt. No. 1. On December 12, 2018, New Hope filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent OCFS from revoking New Hope's perpetual authorization to place children for adoption during the pendency of this litigation. See Dkt. No. 15. On January 14, 2019, OCFS cross-moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 34. The Court granted OCFS's cross motion to dismiss in its entirety and denied New Hope's motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. See Dkt. No. 38. New Hope timely appealed. See Dkt. No. 40. On July 21, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order reversing this Court's dismissal of New Hope's Free Exercise and Free Speech claims and remanded this case for consideration of the motion for a preliminary injunction. See Dkt. Nos. 44, 45. On October 5, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. See Dkt. No. 57.
Currently before the Court are New Hope's motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 75, and OCFS' cross motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 74.
"Adoption services in New York can only be provided by 'authorized agencies,' i.e., entities incorporated or organized under New York law with corporate or legal authority 'to care for, to place out or to board out children.'" New Hope Fam. Servs., Inc. v. Poole, 966 F.3d 145, 150 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 371(10)(a), 374(2)). New Hope is one such authorized agency, having been granted perpetual corporate authority in 1967. However, New Hope must still "submit and consent to the approval, visitation, inspection and supervision of [OCFS] as to any and all acts in relation to the welfare of children performed or to be performed under this title." N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 371(10)(a). As an authorized agency, New Hope may board children in foster homes or in prospective adoptive homes based on its assessment of the children's "best interests." Dkt. No. 74-20 at ¶ 76.
Until 2010, New York statute prohibited adoption by any couple other than a heterosexual, married couple. See N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 110 (2009). However, in September 2010, New York State amended its Domestic Relations Law to codify the right to adopt by unmarried adult couples and married couples regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. See 2010 S.B. 1523, Ch. 509; N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 110. Domestic Relations Law § 110 did not contain any mandate requiring adoption agencies to approve adoption by any persons. See Dkt. No. 75-1 at 16. New York law authorizes the Commissioner of OCFS to enforce laws and rules pertaining to adoption. See N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 34(3)(e).
In January 2011, OCFS sent authorized adoption agencies in New York a letter stating that the amendment brought the Domestic Relations Law into compliance with existing case law and was "intended to support fairness and equal treatment of families that are ready, willing and able to provide a child with a loving home" and did "not change or alter the standards currently in place for the approval of an individual as an adoptive parent." Dkt. No. 75-13 at 4. This letter attached a copy of then-Governor David Paterson's signing statement accompanying his approval of the bill, which read that, "since the statute is permissive, it would allow for such adoptions without compelling any agency to alter its present policies." Id. at 5. However, in July 2011, OCFS sent authorized adoption agencies in New York a second letter which stated that "discrimination based on sexual orientation in the adoption study assessment process" was prohibited and that "OCFS cannot contemplate any case where the issue of sexual orientation would be a legitimate basis, whether in whole or in part, to deny the application of a person to be an adoptive parent." Dkt. No. 75-14 at 5.
In November 2013, OCFS promulgated 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 421.3(d), which prohibited "discrimination and harassment against applicants for adoption services on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, religion, or disability." Section 421.3(d) also required that authorized agencies "shall take reasonable steps to prevent such discrimination or harassment by staff and volunteers, promptly investigate incidents of discrimination and harassment, and take reasonable and appropriate corrective or disciplinary action when such incidents occur."
When unmarried or same-sex applicants contact New Hope seeking adoption services, it is New Hope's practice to (1) inform them that it cannot provide them with adoption services because of its religious beliefs, and (2) offer to provide those applicants with referrals to other agencies. Dkt. No. 75-1 at 11. In 2018, OCFS conducted a comprehensive review of New Hope as part of its effort to review authorized agencies with perpetual authority. See Dkt. No. 74-20 at ¶ 81. In October 2018, an OCFS employee contacted New Hope to advise it that its referral policy was in violation of OCFS policy and Section 421.3(d), and to discuss how New Hope could come into compliance. See id. at ¶ 87. New Hope declined to change its referral policy. OCFS then sent New Hope a letter stating that New Hope's "policy pertaining to not placing 'children with those who are living together without the benefit of marriage' or 'same sex couples' violates Title 18 NYCRR § 421.3, and is discriminatory and impermissible." Dkt. No. 1-7 at 3. The letter instructed New Hope that "within 15 days of receipt of this letter," New Hope must state in writing whether it will or will not "revise the policy so as to comply with the above-cited regulation." Id. The letter informed New Hope that should it "fail to bring the policy into compliance with the regulation, OCFS will be unable to approve continuation of [New Hope's] current adoption program and [New Hope] will be required to submit a close-out plan for the adoption program." Id. New Hope thereafter commenced this action.
A court may grant a motion for summary judgment only if it determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue warrant judgment for the movant as a matter of law. See Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). When analyzing a summary judgment motion, the court "'cannot try issues of fact; it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried.'" Id. at 36-37 (). Substantive law determines which facts are material; that is, which facts might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 258 (1986). In assessing the record to determine whether any such issues of material fact exist, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Chambers, 43 F.3d at 36 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255) (other citations omitted). Irrelevant or unnecessary facts do not preclude summary judgment, even when they are in dispute. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 258.
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be decided. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). With respect to any issue on which the moving party does not bear the burden of proof, it may meet its burden on summary judgment by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. See id. at 325. Once the movant meets this initial burden, the nonmoving party must demonstrate that there is a genuine unresolved issue for trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). A genuine issue of material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a district court should consider only evidence that would be admissible at trial. See Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Grp. of Am., Inc., 164 F.3d 736, 746 (2d Cir. 1998). "[W]here a party relies on affidavits ... to establish facts, the statements 'must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant ... is competent to testify on the matters stated.'" DiStiso v. Cook, 691 F.3d 226, 230 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4)).
1. Compelled Speech
"'At the heart of the First Amendment' is the principle 'that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression,...
To continue reading
Request your trial