Rubin v. City of Lancaster
| Decision Date | 13 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CV 10–4046 DSF (JCx). |
| Citation | 802 F.Supp.2d 1107 |
| Parties | Shelley RUBIN and Maureen I. Feller, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LANCASTER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Roger Jon Diamond, Roger J. Diamond Law Offices, Santa Monica, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Allison Elizabeth Burns, David R. McEwen, Joseph Martin Adams, Reed T.C. Glyer, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth APC, Newport Beach, CA, Eve A. Brackmann, Dorsey and Whitney, Irvine, CA, for Defendant.
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AFTER COURT TRIAL
Having considered the evidence presented by the parties and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.1
1. The parties have stipulated that Plaintiffs Shelley Rubin and Maureen I. Feller have standing to pursue this action. Rubin is Jewish; Feller is Christian.
2. Defendant City of Lancaster is a municipal corporation duly organized, existing, and operating under the laws of the State of California.
3. Lancaster's City Council holds regular meetings on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. For many years prior to August 10, 2009, the City Council opened its meetings with invocations that contained explicitly sectarian religious references, including specific references to Jesus Christ. A substantial majority of the prayers were Christian in nature.
4. On August 10, 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union sent to the mayor and City Council members a letter that referred to complaints it received with respect to the practice of opening meetings with invocations referring to Jesus Christ or containing other explicitly sectarian religious references.
5. At its regular meeting on August 25, 2009, the City Council approved and adopted its “Policy Regarding Invocations at Meetings of the City Council of the City of Lancaster” (“Invocation Policy”). The Invocation Policy was admitted as Exhibit 3.
6. Lancaster's City Manager promulgated Administrative Policies and Procedures (“Procedures”) to implement the Invocation Policy. The Procedures were admitted as Exhibit 4.
7. Pursuant to the Invocation Policy and the Procedures, Lancaster's City Clerk compiles and maintains a database of the religious congregations with an established presence in the City.
8. The City Clerk compiles this list by referencing Lancaster's Yellow Pages listings for “churches,” “congregations,” and other religious assemblies; conducting research on the internet using search terms such as “synagogue,” “church,” “temple,” “chapel,” and “mosque”; consulting the local chamber of commerce; and consulting the Antelope Valley Press. The list is updated annually.
9. All religious congregations with an established presence in the City are eligible to be included on the list.
10. The City Clerk has never removed anyone from the list, or refused to include anyone on the list.
11. The City Clerk does not inquire into the faith, denomination, or other religious belief of a congregation included on the list, or that asks to be included on the list.
12. The City Clerk mails to the congregations on the list a letter inviting them to give an invocation before a City Council meeting. Pursuant to the Invocation Policy, the letter states:
13. A congregation may deliver an invocation only three times a year, and may not do so at two consecutive City Council meetings.
14. Every person who has volunteered to deliver an invocation before a City Council meeting has been scheduled to do so.
15. No compensation is offered in exchange for giving an invocation.
16. Neither the City Manager nor any member of the City Council has instructed the City Clerk concerning the scheduling of speakers or attempted to influence how she schedules speakers.
17. On November 10, 2009, the City Council decided to submit to City voters a non-binding measure (“Measure I”) which asked: “In response to a recent complaint, with respect to the invocations that contained a reference to Jesus Christ shall the City Council continue its invocation policy in randomly selecting local clergy of different faiths to deliver the invocation without restricting the content based on their beliefs, including references to Jesus Christ?”
18. Lancaster's City Attorney was obligated to submit an impartial analysis of the measure to allow the electorate to make an informed decision. The City Attorney's legal analysis stated that the Invocation Policy was consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983) and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Pelphrey v. Cobb County, 547 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir.2008). It did not mention the California Court of Appeal's decision in Rubin v. City of Burbank, 101 Cal.App.4th 1194, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 867 (2002).
19. Lancaster's mayor and vice mayor submitted a ballot argument in favor of Measure I, which stated: “It is every INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT to pray in accordance with their [sic] own convictions and beliefs; and to pray to the deity of their [sic] own choosing including in the name of JESUS CHRIST.”
20. No one submitted a ballot argument in opposition to Measure I.
21. At the April 13, 2010 general municipal election, Measure I passed with 9,765 votes in favor and 3,116 votes in opposition.
22. The passage of Measure I had no impact on the Procedures followed by the City Clerk.
23. The City Clerk has deviated from the Invocation Policy/Procedures twice. The first deviation occurred with regard to the April 27, 2010 City Council meeting, which was the first meeting after the passage of Measure I. Pastor Chappel, the originally scheduled invocation speaker, cancelled his appearance and requested that the City Clerk invite Bishop Henry Hearns, who was also a member of his congregation. The City Clerk granted the request, and Hearns agreed to give the April 27 invocation.
24. Hearns is also Lancaster's former mayor. At the time of the April 27 invocation and at the time of trial, he was the honorary mayor.
25. The second deviation occurred with regard to the May 11, 2010 City Council meeting, which was approximately one week after the filing of the instant lawsuit. Approximately three to four weeks before the meeting, the originally scheduled speaker (a Christian) had cancelled. The City Manager suggested that the City Clerk invite non-Christians to give the invocation for any vacancies. About two or three weeks before the meeting, the City Clerk sent emails to someone of the Jewish faith and the Muslim faith, but got no response. The City Clerk then sought help from one of the planning commissioners whom she knew to be of the Sikh faith. She then invited Nirinjan Singh of the California Sikh Council, and Singh accepted.
26. Since the City Council adopted the Invocation Policy: (1) twenty invocations were given by people from Christian denominations, and each included a reference to Jesus or Jesus Christ; (2) four invocations were by a person who identifies as a metaphysicist; (3) one invocation was given by a member of the California Sikh Council; and (4) one invocation was given by a person from an Islamic congregation. On four occasions no invocation was given because the scheduled speaker cancelled or was absent. No meetings were held on November 23, 2010 or December 28, 2010. When counted only from the date of the challenged invocation, April 27, 2010, nine additional invocations included references to Jesus or Jesus Christ and five invocations have not included such references. (Joint Stipulation of the Parties, Docket # 36.)
27. Mayor Parris personally paid for and attended a private meeting of the Ministerial Association in 2010. At that meeting, Mayor Parris said: “We are growing a Christian community, and we should not shy away from that.” He may have made a similar statement during the State of the City address, as was reported in a local newspaper. He has made speeches to organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club that did not contain such statements.
28. It is Mayor Parris's personal belief, elected position, and intent, to grow a Christian community in Lancaster. He testified that he meant a “community where we love our neighbors, that we take care of our neighbors, that we protect our neighbors.” He further testified that this is his policy; it is not an official City policy.
29. Other than encouraging “a lot of religious leaders including Sikhs, Rabbis, and Muslims to sign up for it,” Mayor Parris had nothing to do with the creation of the list. There is no evidence that he has participated or influenced or attempted to influence the scheduling of any individual to deliver an invocation at any particular meeting. Other than calling the person who is scheduled to give the invocation, he is not involved in the process. He has never inquired into, reviewed, or been involved in the content of any invocation given at a City Council meeting.
30. Plaintiffs attended the City Council meeting on April 27, 2010 at which Hearns stated the following:
Our Father we come to you tonight with a great honor that you have given us to be in America, in the land of the free and brave. You've brought us from all cultures, walks and levels of education even into this room tonight and we thank you for it. I particularly thank you for the men and women that have selected to stand forward in the midst of all that can come at them and say yes, I will be one of those who will help govern my city to be the...
To continue reading
Request your trial