Kenngo1969 Posted February 10, 2022 Posted February 10, 2022 I did my best search. (Which, I'll grant you, isn't saying much, either because of the limitations of the board software or my limitations as a searcher.) I did not find anything on this topic other than the previously-closed thread. Did I scoop even the vaunted @smac97? https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/2/10/22925626/byu-exempt-from-title-ix-lgbtq-related-complaint-mormon-university-office-of-civil-rights-dismisses 4
smac97 Posted February 10, 2022 Posted February 10, 2022 30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I did my best search. (Which, I'll grant you, isn't saying much, either because of the limitations of the board software or my limitations as a searcher.) I did not find anything on this topic other than the previously-closed thread. Did I scoop even the vaunted @smac97? https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/2/10/22925626/byu-exempt-from-title-ix-lgbtq-related-complaint-mormon-university-office-of-civil-rights-dismisses I'll let it slide, just this once... I am not surprised at this outcome. Title IX has a fairly clear exemption for colleges owned/controlled by religious organizations to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the tents of that organization. Thanks, -Smac 2
bluebell Posted February 10, 2022 Posted February 10, 2022 “OCR also would like to make the university aware that individuals who file complaints with OCR may have the right to file a private suit in federal court whether or not OCR finds a violation.” I’m guessing a federal suit is going to follow.
let’s roll Posted February 10, 2022 Posted February 10, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, bluebell said: “OCR also would like to make the university aware that individuals who file complaints with OCR may have the right to file a private suit in federal court whether or not OCR finds a violation.” I’m guessing a federal suit is going to follow. A jury trial in Utah federal court, I wouldn’t take that case on contingency. Edited February 10, 2022 by let’s roll 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 10, 2022 Author Posted February 10, 2022 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I'll let it slide, just this once... I appreciate that.
provoman Posted February 10, 2022 Posted February 10, 2022 I was pleasantly surprised. I thought the Supreme Court about interracial dating at a religious school would apply.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 10, 2022 Posted February 10, 2022 8 hours ago, smac97 said: ........................ I am not surprised at this outcome. Title IX has a fairly clear exemption for colleges owned/controlled by religious organizations to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the tents of that organization..................... As long as those tent flaps are open toward King Benjamin as he makes his speech from Kimball Tower. 1
JustAnAustralian Posted February 11, 2022 Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) I'm somewhat surprised they actually bothered with this in the first place considering that the DoE is currently defending a lawsuit over the validity of title ix religious exemptions. Edited February 11, 2022 by JustAnAustralian Typo 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Posted February 11, 2022 11 hours ago, smac97 said: I'll let it slide, just this once... I am not surprised at this outcome. Title IX has a fairly clear exemption for colleges owned/controlled by religious organizations to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the tents of that organization. Thanks, -Smac 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: As long as those tent flaps are open toward King Benjamin as he makes his speech from Kimball Tower. Blasted text-to-speech Gremlins strike again, eh, Smac? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 11, 2022 Posted February 11, 2022 16 hours ago, smac97 said: ......................... I am not surprised at this outcome. ................ Neither am I, and I have said all along that such suits will go nowhere -- in the midst of a lot of fearmongering
JustAnAustralian Posted February 11, 2022 Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) 13 hours ago, let’s roll said: A jury trial in Utah federal court, I wouldn’t take that case on contingency. I'm not sure I'd want to try it anywhere. A school doesn't even need to officially tell OCR they are claiming title ix religious exemptions to be able to use them. The letter just gets them official acknowledgment. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-I/part-106 Quote § 106.12 Educational institutions controlled by religious organizations. (a) Application. This part does not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization to the extent application of this part would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization. (b) Assurance of exemption. An educational institution that seeks assurance of the exemption set forth in paragraph (a)of this section may do so by submitting in writing to the Assistant Secretary a statement by the highest ranking official of the institution, identifying the provisions of this part that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization. An institution is not required to seek assurance from the Assistant Secretary in order to assert such an exemption. In the event the Department notifies an institution that it is under investigation for noncompliance with this part and the institution wishes to assert an exemption set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, the institution may at that time raise its exemption by submitting in writing to the Assistant Secretary a statement by the highest ranking official of the institution, identifying the provisions of this part which conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization, whether or not the institution had previously sought assurance of an exemption from the Assistant Secretary. (c) Eligibility. Any of the following in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section shall be sufficient to establish that an educational institution is controlled by a religious organization, as contemplated under paragraph (a) of this section, and is therefore eligible to assert a religious exemption to the extent application of this part would not be consistent with its religious tenets: (1) That the educational institution is a school or department of divinity. (2) That the educational institution requires its faculty, students, or employees to be members of, or otherwise engage in religious practices of, or espouse a personal belief in, the religion of the organization by which it claims to be controlled. (3) That the educational institution, in its charter or catalog, or other official publication, contains an explicit statement that it is controlled by a religious organization or an organ thereof, or is committed to the doctrines or practices of a particular religion, and the members of its governing body are appointed by the controlling religious organization or an organ thereof, and it receives a significant amount of financial support from the controlling religious organization or an organ thereof. (4) That the educational institution has a doctrinal statement or a statement of religious practices, along with a statement that members of the institution community must engage in the religious practices of, or espouse a personal belief in, the religion, its practices, or the doctrinal statement or statement of religious practices. (5) That the educational institution has a published institutional mission that is approved by the governing body of an educational institution and that includes, refers to, or is predicated upon religious tenets, beliefs, or teachings. (6) Other evidence sufficient to establish that an educational institution is controlled by a religious organization, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(3). (d) Severability. If any provision of this section or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of this section or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby. BYU definitely seem to meet the bolded, and I'd guess the honour code could satisfy c2 and/or c4 too. Edited February 11, 2022 by JustAnAustralian 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 11, 2022 Posted February 11, 2022 19 hours ago, smac97 said: I'll let it slide, just this once... I am not surprised at this outcome. Title IX has a fairly clear exemption for colleges owned/controlled by religious organizations to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the tents of that organization. Thanks, -Smac It might not be all that surprising, but in today’s political climate I think it’s a great day anytime a government bureaucracy upholds religious liberty. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 11, 2022 Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) Interesting that news organizations, including the Deseret News, are seeking disclosure of the author of the complaint that brought on the investigation: “The identity of the complainant is not publicly known. The Department of Education so far has not released a copy of the complaint, which the Deseret News and other news organizations have requested under the Freedom of Information Act.” I believe it’s well within the parameters of the public’s right to know. Edited February 11, 2022 by Scott Lloyd
JustAnAustralian Posted February 11, 2022 Posted February 11, 2022 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I believe it’s well within the parameters of the public’s right to know. I wonder if it's a future additional complainant in the Hunter vs DoE case trying to guarantee that they have standing by having a title ix investigation lodged and rejected on religious exemption grounds.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Posted February 11, 2022 23 hours ago, bluebell said: “OCR also would like to make the university aware that individuals who file complaints with OCR may have the right to file a private suit in federal court whether or not OCR finds a violation.” I’m guessing a federal suit is going to follow. More than likely, yes. Still, if a federal agency such as the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hasn't paved the way by finding (I think, but am not sure, by the "preponderance of the evidence" standard: Think "50%, plus just the tiniest bit more") that someone's rights have been violated, it will be at least marginally more difficult for someone to make his or her case in a lawsuit.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Posted February 11, 2022 23 hours ago, bluebell said: “OCR also would like to make the university aware that individuals who file complaints with OCR may have the right to file a private suit in federal court whether or not OCR finds a violation.” I’m guessing a federal suit is going to follow. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] Interesting qualification/equivocation. I wonder what the thinking is behind it. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 16, 2022 Posted February 16, 2022 On 2/11/2022 at 7:54 AM, Kenngo1969 said: Interesting qualification/equivocation. I wonder what the thinking is behind it. Probably a desire to forestall having its ruling used on one side or the other in a civil suit. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted February 16, 2022 Author Posted February 16, 2022 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Probably a desire to forestall having its ruling used on one side or the other in a civil suit. I don't know if the Department of Education works the same way as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission works, but as I understand it, rather than suing on behalf of aggrieved employees with meritorious claims itself (the federal government bureaucracy being more than large enough, and more than active enough, as it is), instead, the EEOC issues what's called a "Right-to-Sue" letter, which essentially says, "Yes, we think you were discriminated against and that you can prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, but we're not going to carry your water for you: You're welcome to hire your own attorney and to pursue your own case. Good luck." But, again, I don't know if I'm entirely correct about how the EEOC works or if the DOE works similarly. I welcome correction on either count, or on both counts.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2022 Posted February 19, 2022 On 2/16/2022 at 12:10 PM, Kenngo1969 said: I don't know if the Department of Education works the same way as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission works, but as I understand it, rather than suing on behalf of aggrieved employees with meritorious claims itself (the federal government bureaucracy being more than large enough, and more than active enough, as it is), instead, the EEOC issues what's called a "Right-to-Sue" letter, which essentially says, "Yes, we think you were discriminated against and that you can prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, but we're not going to carry your water for you: You're welcome to hire your own attorney and to pursue your own case. Good luck." But, again, I don't know if I'm entirely correct about how the EEOC works or if the DOE works similarly. I welcome correction on either count, or on both counts. In this case it strikes me as a matter of plausible deniability, as though to say, “Our rejection of the Title IX claim against BYU shall not be regarded as evidence for the defense in a civil suit.”
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2022 Posted February 19, 2022 On 2/10/2022 at 7:21 PM, Kenngo1969 said: Blasted text-to-speech Gremlins strike again, eh, Smac? At least he didn’t say “tenants” in place of tenets, which is a far more common malapropism I observe in everyday conversation.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 19, 2022 Author Posted February 19, 2022 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: At least he didn’t say “tenants” in place of tenets, which is a far more common malapropism I observe in everyday conversation. Meh. Legal types [most of them ("us"? should I include myself in that category? ) anyway] know the difference between tenets and tenants, particularly those who practice landlord-tenant law.
Recommended Posts