Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
An Indiana state police officer who was fired after refusing an assignment at a casino for religious reasons is asking the Supreme Court to recognize his termination as a civil rights violation. At the Court’s private conference on April 16, the justices will consider Endres v. Indiana State Police, No. 03-1183, which tests whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires the police agency to accommodate his religious beliefs. The Indiana State Police in South Bend assigned Benjamin Endres Jr. as a full-time gaming commission agent at the Blue Chips Casino in Michigan City, Ind. His job description listed gambling-related responsibilities, such as verifying gambling profits, investigating complaints about the gaming system, and performing license investigations for the casinos and their employees. Endres claimed these duties would force him to violate his Baptist beliefs, which bar him from participating in or facilitating gambling. Endres asked his employer to reassign him. His request was denied, and when Endres failed to report to work he was fired. After Endres filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the police agency sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that Indiana officials were protected from the Title VII claim by the state’s sovereign immunity. But in December 2001, U.S. District Judge Robert Miller Jr. ruled against the state, saying that Endres could go ahead with his Title VII claim. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit saw the case differently. In an opinion last year by Judge Frank Easterbrook, the 7th Circuit reversed Miller’s decision, ruling that Endres had not made a valid Title VII claim. Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer joined in the opinion, which did not touch on the state immunity question. Easterbrook said the law could not be interpreted to allow police or firefighters to pick and choose which laws to enforce or which fires to extinguish. Noting religious preferences such as Roman Catholics’ opposition to abortions and Jewish and Muslim bans on eating pork, Easterbrook asked rhetorically whether the law requires the state police “to assign Unitarians to guard the abortion clinic, Catholics to prevent thefts from liquor stores, and Baptists to investigate claims that supermarkets misweigh bacon and shellfish?” Easterbrook continued: “Juggling assignments to make each compatible with the varying religious beliefs of a heterogeneous police force would be daunting to managers and difficult for other officers who would be called on to fill in for the objectors.” Last November, the 7th Circuit declined to review the ruling en banc, but three judges dissented, arguing that Easterbrook’s ruling is at odds with other circuits and with Title VII, which does not make an exception for law enforcement agencies when it requires employers to make “reasonable accommodation” for employees’ religious practices. The dissent, written by Judge Kenneth Ripple, noted that Endres was objecting only to a full-time assignment, and that he did not object to enforcing laws at casinos as a police officer with general duties. Judges Ilana Rovner and Anne Williams joined Ripple’s dissent from the denial of en banc review. In his petition now before the Supreme Court, Endres argues that he should be allowed to pursue his lawsuit. He is represented by a team of lawyers from Jenner & Block in Chicago, as well as the Rutherford Institute, a religious liberties organization in Charlottesville, Va. Law enforcement employers in the 7th Circuit “are now exempt from the religious accommodation provisions of Title VII, even if an accommodation for the employee’s religious beliefs would impose no hardship on the employer,” writes Jenner & Block’s Jeremy Taylor, counsel of record before the Supreme Court. The petition continues, “This judicially-created exemption from the requirements of Title VII is wholly unsupported by the text of history of Title VII and threatens the religious freedom of public servants in the 7th Circuit.” In opposition, Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter says the case is “not worthy of Supreme Court review.” “The 7th Circuit properly held that petitioner’s demand was unreasonable,” Carter writes. The appeals court decision, he argues, “is based on sound policy that ultimately protects more religious freedom than the alternative.” If officers were allowed to pick and choose their assignments for religious reasons, the brief explains, then “those who engage in conduct that mainstream religions condemn may find themselves unprotected.” OTHER CASES UP FOR REVIEW April 16: •� Barrientos v. Texas, No. 03-756. Whether a Texas legislative decision to require a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote for redistricting changes triggers Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, requiring preclearance. •� UAW-Labor Employment and Training Corp. v. Chao, No. 03-858. Whether an executive order concerning public contracts is pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act. •� North Dakota v. Ubbelohde, No. 03-935. Authority of the Army Corps of Engineers under the Flood Control Act to reallocate Missouri River water. •� Bankruptcy Receivables Management v. Lopez, No. 03-950. Bankruptcy debtor’s retention of creditor’s collateral. •� Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., No. 03-1133, and cross-petition, 03-1129. Whether prosecution history estoppel bars patentee from relying on the doctrine of equivalents. •� Novello v. DiBlasio, No. 03-1137. Whether the New York state commissioner of health has absolute immunity to suspend physician’s medical license pending hearing. •� Wyeth Holdings Corp. v. University of Colorado Foundation Inc., No. 03-1163. Whether the Patent Act pre-empts claims under state law in an unjust enrichment dispute between inventors. April 23: •� Ballard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 03-184. Suppression of special trial judge’s findings in Tax Court. •� Louis v. Ashcroft, No. 03-909. Reviewability of deportation orders. •� Leake v. North Carolina Right to Life Inc., No. 03-910. Constitutionality of state definition of “election advocacy” under campaign finance laws. •� Dibble v. Fenimore, No. 03-1184. Section 1983 challenges to military personnel decisions. •� Allstate v. DeHoyos, No. 03-1214. Whether racial discrimination claims against insurance companies under federal Fair Housing Act pre-empt state insurance laws. This column seeks to identify cases on the Supreme Court’s conference agenda that are leading candidates for review or that raise significant national issues. Thomas Goldstein of D.C.’s Goldstein & Howe selects cases from petitions filed based on several factors, including whether lower courts have split on the issues presented. He does not otherwise participate in the preparation of this column.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.