A woman, who is a Jehovah’s Witness, has won a new chance to sue the state of California for allegedly discriminating against her by refusing to hire her for a job at the state Controller’s Office, after she refused to sign the state loyalty oath, which she said would force her to violate her faith.
On April 3, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Jose, sided with plaintiff Brianna Bolden-Hardge, finding that a Sacramento federal district judge was wrong to toss her lawsuit accusing the office of State Controller Malia Cohen of violating her religious freedom rights.
The decision was authored by Ninth Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland. The unanimous opinion was joined by Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber and Mary M. Schroeder.
The case centers on the refusal by the California Controller’s office to hire Bolden-Hardge for a position in that office.
According to court documents, Bolden-Hardge had worked at the California Franchise Tax Board. But she sought and was initially offered a new position at the Controller’s Office.
However, as part of the hiring process, the Controller’s Office required Bolden-Hardge to sign California state government’s so-called Loyalty Oath.
Bolden-Hardge said she then informed the Controller’s Office that she could not do so. She said her beliefs as an adherent within the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion forbade her from signing any pledge that would express a loyalty to anyone other than God, or that would require her to potentially take up arms in defense of a particular nation, state or secular government.
According to court documents, she asked to sign an amended version of the oath, which she created herself. That amended oath affirmed her willingness to support and uphold the U.S. and California state constitutions, but would indicate her allegiance was first to God, as expressed through her religious beliefs.
She also indicated she would refuse to take up arms.
The Controller’s Office refused to accept her amended version of the oath, and allegedly withdrew the job offer. She returned to a “lower-paying job” at the Franchise Tax Board, which accepted her amended version of the Loyalty Oath.
She then filed suit, accusing the Controller of violating the U.S Constitution, California constitution and federal and state laws by discriminating against her on the basis of religion, and violating her religious freedom rights.
The claims included a count accusing the Controller of disparate impact, asserting the office’s policies amount to automatic discrimination against all Jehovah’s Witnesses, who, like her, may believe their faith does not allow them to sign the California Loyalty Oath as a condition of employment.
In response, the Controller’s Office argued the oath is essential to ensure California’s state agencies fairly and fully execute the laws and policies of the state. The state argued that forcing them to allow religious believers like Bolden-Hardge to avoid signing the oath would amount to an undue hardship and require the state agency to violate state law.
District Judge John A. Mendez sided with the state, and dismissed the lawsuit.
On appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit judges said Mendez was too hasty.
They said it is still possible for the state to overcome the lawsuit in court. But the judge erred by not allowing Holden-Bardge to press her claims.
While the state may present “persuasive arguments supporting the oath’s importance,” those arguments also demonstrate the conflict between the Controller’s Office’s policies and the religious beliefs of adherents, like Holden-Bardge.
“If an employee cannot claim ‘first loyalty to God,’ she must, by implication, owe first loyalty to something else – here, the federal and state constitutions,” the judges wrote.
Further, the judges also said they would allow Holden-Bardge to proceed with her disparate impact claims.
They noted other state agencies were willing to accept Holden-Bardge’s amended oath. And they said, the state cannot simply claim that a state law requiring the oath trumps Holden-Bardge’s religious beliefs.
To do so, they said, would give states a free hand to then use state law to override the supremacy of federal law and the U.S. Constitution, as they wished.
“… The oath implicitly requires that its takers place their allegiance to the federal and state constitutions over that to God, which is exactly what Bolden-Hardge alleges her faith forbids her from doing,” the judges wrote. “Accepting as true Bolden-Hardge’s well-pleaded allegation that other Jehovah’s Witnesses share this belief, we must presume that the oath requirement will impact ‘all or substantially all’ Jehovah’s Witnesses seeking government employment by making them feel they must choose between government employment and their religious beliefs—a burden not all prospective employees face.”
“