Religious Institutions Update: March 2023

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Law Firm: Holland & Knight
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment, Employment Litigation/ Tribunals, Class Actions
• Author: Mr Nathan Adams IV
• Published date: 12 April 2023

Key Cases

Class Action

Donors State Claims for Misuse of Their Funds, But Not as a Class Action

In Carrier v. Ravi Zacharias Int'l Ministries, Inc. No. 1:21-CV-3161-TWT, 2022 WL 1540206 (N.D. Ga. May 13, 2022) and Carrier v. Ravi Zacharias Int'l Ministries, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-3161-TWT, 2023 WL 2355891 (N.D. Ga. March 3, 2023), former donors filed a putative class action against the defendant for violation of the Georgia Charitable Solicitations Act (GCSA), unjust enrichment and violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (GFBPA), alleging that the defendants "bilked hundreds of millions of dollars from well-making contributors who believed RZIM and Zacharias to be faith-filled Christian leaders," when "[i]n fact, Zacharias was a prolific sexual predator who used his ministry and Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, Inc. (RZIM) funds to perpetrate sexual and spiritual abuse against women." In its first opinion, the court determined that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit and that neutral principles of law could be used to resolve the misuse-of-funds allegations and other claims without passing impermissible judgment on questions of religious faith or doctrine. The court determined that the estate of Ravi Zacharias was not liable for certain claims, but determined that RZIM was not exempt from the GFBPA and that the plaintiffs' claims could proceed on the theory that the defendants wrongfully failed to disclose their misuse of donor funds.

In the second opinion, the court has agreed with the defendants that the plaintiffs are not entitled to certify a class because the First Amendment protects against compelled disclosure of RZIM's donors who would comprise the class at least where the plaintiffs failed to make any showing that the government has a substantial interest in the class action proceeding. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiffs are unable to satisfy the predominance requirement of certification. A class-wide damages award of all contributions would be inequitable and implausible because the plaintiffs proposed no method to differentiate the class members whose donations were misappropriated to cover up the sexual misconduct of Zacharias from those whose donations were not. Furthermore, the court decided that there was no ongoing deceptive behavior by RZIM that would warrant injunctive relief because Zacharias died, RZIM commissioned an independent investigation of his misconduct and admitted wrongdoing, and the results of the investigation are published. The court ruled against the defendants as to the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) where the government was not a party to the lawsuit.

Immigration

Court Will Consider Disparate Treatment Claims in USCIS Processing of Religious Worker Visas

In Society of the Divine Word v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servs., Case No. 21 CV 3650, 2022 WL 17820973 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2022), the petitioners sued U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) alleging that its regulations, policies and practices "discriminate against U.S.-based religious employers and their selected international religious workers, while interfering with their [constitutional and statutory] rights to appoint and employ ministers." Ministers and other religious workers can seek classification in employment-based immigrant preference categories for "special immigrants" known as the "special immigrant religious worker" category or "EB-4." EB-4 classification requires a series of steps by both employers and non-citizen employees that the plaintiffs argue have become impossible to complete before the processing time delay for the relevant forms expires. Although Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish and collect a premium fee for expedited processing, USCIS did not...