Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Boise Rescue Mission Ministries
Docket: Case CV-08-205-S-EJL
Court: District Court, D. Idaho; May 12, 2010; Federal District Court
Intermountain Fair Housing Council, Janene Cowles, and Richard Chinn (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Boise Rescue Mission (Defendants) for alleged housing discrimination based on religion and sex, violating the Fair Housing Act. The U.S. District Court for Idaho had previously granted the Rescue Mission's summary judgment motion, dismissing the case. The current proceedings involve the Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Court partially grants this motion, making amendments to its earlier decision to address Plaintiffs' arguments, but ultimately reaffirms the dismissal of the case.
The Rescue Mission, a nonprofit funded by charitable donations, operates two facilities in Boise: the River of Life Rescue Mission and the City Light Home for Women and Children. It also previously operated a now-closed facility on Front Street. The organization’s Emergency Services Program provides food, shelter, and other essentials, including educational and job training programs. The homeless shelter component offers overnight accommodations for individuals without safe alternatives, incorporating religious services without charging fees for shelter. Guest accommodations are dormitory-style, and the shelter has specific check-in times, with limitations on late arrivals. No guest is guaranteed a private room, and first-time guests are treated equally to returning guests regarding shelter access.
Guests must check in and remain in designated areas until 6:00 pm, when services such as chapel, work search programs, and counseling begin. Evening meals are served at 7:00 pm, followed by assigned chores, typically cleaning tasks. After chores, guests shower and can engage in quiet activities until lights-out at 10:00 pm.
Waking occurs at 6:15 am, with guests required to make their beds and store pajamas under their pillows if returning for the night. Breakfast follows, after which morning chores are completed, and personal belongings must be stored in a restricted area; no items may be left in sleeping areas during the day. Guests must vacate by 8:00 am and may return for lunch between noon and 1:00 pm, with no loitering allowed outside of designated times.
Guests may stay for up to seventeen consecutive nights, with no limit during winter months due to cold weather risks. Phone calls are generally not permitted, except through the Work Search Program, and the facility does not accept personal mail. Guests cannot personalize their sleeping areas and must use provided pajamas.
Once checked in, guests cannot leave until morning and must return nightly to maintain their stay; failure to check in results in a 30-day prohibition from overnight stays. Guests are not allowed visitors, and staff may relocate bed assignments without notice. Operations may be adjusted based on various factors such as guest needs and facility capacity.
Richard Chinn experienced periodic homelessness between 2005 and 2006, utilizing the River of Life Facility's shelter on several occasions. His stays included five nights in May 2005, one night in October 2005, nine nights in April 2006, and six nights in May 2006. Throughout these periods, Chinn had no alternative accommodations and planned to stay long-term. He was informed by shelter staff that attendance at Christian religious activities, such as chapel services, was mandatory for residents to access meals and shelter. Chinn noted that those who did not attend services faced delays or were denied entry, and if food ran out, they received inferior substitutes. This environment was described as coercive and offensive to Chinn's beliefs, prompting him to participate in religious activities out of fear of losing access to housing and services. He observed that 15-20 out of 50-70 guests also refused participation but received poorer treatment as a result. Due to these conditions, Chinn ultimately chose to leave the shelter.
Additionally, the Rescue Mission offers a New Life Discipleship/Recovery Program, a year-long Christian-based recovery initiative for individuals with substance dependency. This program requires participants to share the faith of the organization and mandates involvement in religious activities and housekeeping tasks. While the program is free, residents working part-time must pay a $100 monthly room and board fee, which is returned upon exiting the facility. The excerpt also mentions Plaintiff Cowles, who, while incarcerated in October 2005, sought admission to the Discipleship Program, expressing a desire for spiritual growth and recovery from drug use.
Cowles was mandated by the presiding judge to participate in City Light's faith-based residential substance abuse treatment program, the Discipleship Program, as a condition of her probation. Upon acceptance into the Program on March 7, 2006, while still incarcerated, she was informed of its stringent religious curriculum and rules. Despite not being affiliated with any religion, Cowles was required to engage in various religious activities, including church services, daily religious services, prayers, and specific rituals. She actively participated in most activities except for praying out loud.
Cowles expressed her distress over being compelled to adopt Christianity and faced pressure from staff, who warned her of dire consequences if she did not accept Jesus Christ. She was only allowed to engage with Christian literature and music. When she requested a transfer to a non-religious program, she faced punitive measures, including monitored communications with her attorney and restrictions on activities.
In June 2006, Program staff requested her removal due to her non-conformity with the Christian-based curriculum. After discussions in August 2006, Cowles reiterated her non-Christian status and sought assistance in transferring to another facility. The staff informed her that without embracing Christianity, her only option was to return to jail. Consequently, she was removed from the Program, and staff communicated to the judge that Cowles struggled with the Program's religious requirements and recommended a non-faith-based alternative to aid her recovery.
Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Rescue Mission, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) through religious and sex discrimination, as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 3604(a), 3604(b), and 3617. The Rescue Mission sought summary judgment on all claims, which the Court granted in a Memorandum Order dated September 10, 2009. Subsequently, Plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Court granted this motion only to the extent of modifying its decision in response to Plaintiffs' arguments but otherwise reaffirmed its order granting summary judgment for the Defendants.
Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden lies with the moving party to demonstrate the absence of such issues, while the nonmoving party must present specific evidence to establish a genuine issue for trial. Conclusory affidavits lacking personal knowledge are insufficient, and courts cannot grant summary judgment based on credibility assessments of evidence.
The Court determined that the homeless shelter component of the River of Life Facility does not qualify as a "dwelling" under the FHA, which prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of dwellings. The FHA defines a "dwelling" as any building or structure occupied or intended for occupancy as a residence, and the definition excludes certain types of shelters, which are not considered dwellings under the Act.
The term "residence" is crucial for defining "dwelling" under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), although the FHA does not specifically define "residence." The ordinary meaning of "residence" refers to a place where one intends to return, distinguishing it from temporary or transient locations. Courts evaluate whether a facility qualifies as a "dwelling" by considering two main factors: (1) whether the facility is intended for occupants who plan to stay for a significant duration, and (2) whether those occupants perceive it as a place to return to. Case law, including Hughes Memorial Home, supports the notion that facilities like children's homes qualify as dwellings due to their non-transient nature.
The Ninth Circuit has not definitively ruled on whether all temporary shelters fall under the FHA's definition of "dwelling." In past cases such as Turning Point, the FHA was applied to homeless shelters without dispute over their applicability. The Community House case involved a facility that combined a homeless shelter with transitional housing, leading the court to determine that at least part of the facility constituted a dwelling, subject to the FHA. The facility in Community House was managed by the City of Boise and included transitional housing that generated rental income. However, subsequent operations by the Rescue Mission have not provided evidence of transitional housing or rental income at the River of Life Facility.
The Community House decision is not applicable to the current case. In Woods v. Foster, the Northern District of Illinois recognized a homeless shelter as a "dwelling" under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), noting that residents had no other place to return to, which established the shelter as their residence. The court emphasized that while the expected length of stay was a consideration, it wasn't the sole determinant of whether the shelter constituted a "dwelling." The court rejected the notion that a 120-day stay classified the shelter as a transient accommodation, asserting that the women living there inhabited it as their primary residence, irrespective of their search for permanent housing.
Conversely, in Johnson v. Dixon, the D.C. District Court expressed skepticism about an overnight emergency shelter's classification under the FHA, arguing that the Act primarily protects "buyers" and "renters," which the shelter residents were not, as their accommodations were provided at no cost. The court assumed, for the sake of argument, that the FHA's anti-discrimination provisions applied to homeless shelters while denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Additionally, courts have clarified that the term "dwelling" does not extend to city jails, hotels, or transient lodging, while it does encompass summer bungalows, migrant farm worker cabins, nursing homes, drug-and-alcohol treatment facilities, group homes for recovering addicts and children, and converted office buildings used as hospice facilities.
Guests at the shelter do not incur fees and are assigned beds in dormitory-style accommodations, with a maximum stay of seventeen consecutive nights, extended during winter due to cold weather risks. Guests must vacate by 8:00 a.m. each day and can return only after 4:00 p.m., with restrictions on personalization of sleeping areas and limited visitation rights. The Court concludes that the shelter is not designed for long-term habitation but rather for temporary stays, categorizing it as a "place of temporary sojourn" rather than a "dwelling" under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). This is contrasted with the Woods case, where guests could stay longer without similar restrictions. Additionally, the Rescue Mission asserts that it does not require religious participation for shelter guests and claims that any religious requirements for its Discipleship Program fall within the FHA's religious exemption, which allows religious organizations to limit occupancy of their facilities based on religious affiliation, provided it does not discriminate based on race, color, or national origin.
Membership in the Rescue Mission's religion is not restricted by race, color, or national origin, which is relevant under 42 U.S.C. § 3607(a) concerning religious exemptions. To qualify for this exemption, the Rescue Mission must establish three criteria: (1) it is a religious organization or is affiliated with one, (2) it operates its homeless shelter and Discipleship Program for a purpose other than commercial gain, and (3) it limits shelter occupancy and program participation to members of the same religion or gives preference to them. The Rescue Mission is identified as a religious organization focused on worship, teaching, and spiritual improvement, providing various religious services and activities daily. The court affirms that the Rescue Mission meets the qualifications of a religious organization operating the homeless shelter and Discipleship Program.
The court defines "commercial purpose" as an activity conducted with the intent to generate profit, aligning with definitions in Black's Law Dictionary. It clarifies that a purpose does not qualify as "commercial" merely because it generates revenue; it must be aimed at profit generation. The court concludes that the Rescue Mission's operations are not for commercial purposes since they do not aim to generate revenue or profit. The plaintiffs contended that the Rescue Mission's incorporation and its operational goals indicated a commercial purpose, but the court found these arguments insufficient.
Incorporating the Rescue Mission as a non-profit does not imply that its shelter and Discipleship Program serve a commercial purpose, as there is no evidence indicating profit generation. The Rescue Mission does not restrict shelter occupancy or Discipleship Program residency to individuals of the same religion, nor does it give preference to them, which is necessary to qualify for a religious exemption under 42 U.S.C. 3607(a). Both individuals, Chinn and Cowles, explicitly deny being of the same religion as the Rescue Mission, and there is no evidence that participation in religious services or programs altered their religious affiliation. The requirement for residents to participate in religious activities does not equate to limiting occupancy or giving preference based on religion.
The court concludes that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) religious exemption does not apply to the Rescue Mission. Furthermore, the Rescue Mission asserts protection under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits substantial government burdens on religious exercise unless a compelling government interest is proven, and the means are the least restrictive. Plaintiffs contend that RFRA is inapplicable as this is a private dispute, and the Ninth Circuit has ruled that RFRA does not apply to private parties, as demonstrated in Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., where a private employer could not be held liable under RFRA.
The Court did not determine if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) can be invoked as a defense in private actions against federal statutes. In the case Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, the Ninth Circuit refrained from addressing the RFRA's applicability in a copyright infringement claim, concluding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the requested relief would significantly burden the exercise of religion. Conversely, the Second Circuit in Hankins v. Lyght ruled that RFRA could be used as a defense in private actions regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), asserting that the enforcement context—whether by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or private parties—should not affect the applicability of RFRA. This view was contested by subsequent cases, such as Rweyemamu v. Cote, which questioned the Hankins ruling's soundness by suggesting RFRA only applies when the government is involved. The Court ultimately chose not to resolve the RFRA's applicability in the current case, noting that the activities of the Rescue Mission are protected under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. Additionally, if the Plaintiffs receive HUD grants for private enforcement, they could be considered "government actors," potentially making RFRA applicable. However, as this argument was introduced late in the proceedings, the Court declined to assess it further.
The Rescue Mission claims that its activities fall under the protection of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court concurs, determining that applying the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to restrict the Mission's operations related to its homeless shelter and Discipleship Program would infringe upon this constitutional right. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits laws that significantly pressure individuals to alter their religious practices. The Court cites relevant case law, establishing that the right to exercise religion includes preaching and proselytizing.
To assess whether a statute violates the Free Exercise Clause, three factors must be evaluated: the extent of the statute's impact on religious practices, the presence of a compelling government interest justifying the imposed burden, and the potential hindrance of governmental objectives by granting an exemption.
The Court finds that applying the FHA would severely impede the Rescue Mission's religious beliefs, as the organization is dedicated to worship, teaching, and spiritual improvement through Christian principles. It engages in numerous religious activities, including worship services and Bible studies, and the Discipleship Program fundamentally relies on religious instruction for residents seeking to overcome personal challenges. Restrictions imposed by the FHA would negatively affect the Mission's ability to conduct religious activities, such as teaching and requiring participation in religious practices among its guests and program participants.
Prohibiting the Rescue Mission from engaging in certain religious activities would effectively force the organization to eliminate religion from its programs and restrict its ability to share its beliefs with willing participants. The government’s interest in preventing religious discrimination in housing is recognized as compelling; however, such interests cannot justify interference in matters crucial to religious exercise, as established by precedent. Courts lack jurisdiction to resolve disputes that require interpretation of church doctrine or ecclesiastical governance, such as a church's choice of clergy. The Court identifies specific activities of the Rescue Mission—teaching, preaching, proselytizing on its property, preferential treatment for guests attending religious services, and limiting participation in its addiction recovery program to individuals of the same faith—as central to its religious practice, thereby warranting protection from government intrusion.
Although the Fair Housing Act (FHA) aims to ensure fair housing across the U.S., it includes a religious exemption that acknowledges circumstances where religious discrimination may be permissible. The Rescue Mission's operations do not qualify for this exemption because it does not restrict shelter occupancy or program participation to individuals of a specific religion. Nevertheless, the Court concludes that recognizing an exemption in this case would not undermine the FHA's purpose. Ultimately, the Court determines that the government's interest in promoting fair housing does not outweigh the Rescue Mission's rights to conduct its religious activities, including requiring participation in religious services and limiting program access based on faith.
The court ruled that the government's interest in combating employment discrimination does not outweigh a religious institution's right to choose its ministers, as employment discrimination claims infringe upon the church's free exercise of religion, which is protected by the Free Exercise Clause. In a related case, a sexual harassment claim against a religious organization was allowed to proceed because the organization did not provide a religious justification for the alleged harassment.
The Rescue Mission was granted summary judgment regarding the Plaintiffs' claim of "interference" under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), as the shelter in question is not classified as a "dwelling" and therefore is not subject to FHA regulations. Additionally, the Mission’s activities are protected under the First Amendment. Consequently, these activities do not constitute interference with rights protected by the FHA.
Regarding the Plaintiffs' sex discrimination claim, the court found the evidence presented—specifically an affidavit from Cowles—lacked the required personal knowledge of specific male residents who were treated differently in terms of work and visitation privileges. The affidavit was deemed insufficient to oppose summary judgment as it was conclusory and did not meet the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e).
Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment on all claims, affirming that the homeless shelter is not a dwelling under the FHA and that even if it were, the Rescue Mission's practices related to religious services are protected by the First Amendment.
The Court has determined that the Rescue Mission's practices concerning its Discipleship Program—specifically, limiting residency to individuals of the same faith, requiring non-Christian residents to convert to Christianity for graduation, and mandating participation in religious services—are protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Consequently, these practices do not infringe upon the rights protected by the Fair Housing Act (FHA) as claimed by Chen or Cowles. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to counter summary judgment regarding their sex discrimination claim.
The Court partially granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), adjusting its previous decision to address specific arguments raised but ultimately denied the majority of the motion. The Court reaffirmed its prior order granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case entirely.
Several notes clarify that there is a dispute regarding the voluntariness of participation in religious services, that Chinn was a guest at different shelters during the relevant period, and that the Rescue Mission denies that participation in religious services was a condition for staying at the shelter. For the sake of summary judgment, the Court accepted Chinn's assertion as true. Additionally, while the Court concluded that the shelter does not qualify as a "dwelling" under the FHA, it affirmed that the Rescue Mission's religious activities related to shelter operations are protected by the First Amendment. Lastly, it noted the absence of a definition for "commercial activity" in the current edition of Black's Law Dictionary.
