1
December 18, 2015 Sent via certified U.S. mail return receipt requested Becky Ames Gethrel Williams-Wright Mayor City Council Member, At-large W.L. Pate, Jr. Mike Getz City Council Member, At-large City Council Member, Ward 2 Claude Guidroz Audwin Samuel City Council Member, Ward 1 City Council Member, Ward 3 Robin Mouton City Council Member, Ward 4 Re: Civil Rights Violations Mayor, City Manager, Chief of Police, and City Council: This letter is official notice under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA), Tex. Civ. Prac & Rem. Code § 110.001
et seq
., of the City of Beaumont
’
s violation of the rights guaranteed by TRFRA. My clients are four Beaumont Police Officers: Sgt. Burt Moore, Officer Tony Harding, Sgt. Barry Scarborough, and
Det. Anthony Goudeau (hereafter “Clients”).
The
City’s
demand that my Clients, cease having voluntary Bible studies at the Beaumont Police Station, violates TRFRA by substantially burdening my Clients
’
free exercise of religion.
The City’s action
does not serve a compelling governmental interest, and it is not the least restrictive means of advancing a governmental interest. My Clients and other City of Beaumont employees have held voluntary Bible studies at the police station for several years without incident. Sgt. Moore and Officer Harding are co-founders of the most recent bible study
aptly named the “F
aith and Fellowship Bible Study
”
(hereafter “
Bible
Study”).
The Bible Study meets once to twice a month during the lunch hour at the Beaumont Police Station in the Staff Conference Room, Training Room, or other available rooms at the station. Attendance of the Bible Study is completely voluntary, and is attended by multiple Beaumont police officers and employees of several support offices (i.e., dispatch, records, fleet maintenance, building code, etc.). The Bible Study has been ongoing for almost two years without incident. A Bible Study was scheduled to take place at noon on June 23, 2015. However, shortly after Sgt. Moore sent out a reminder em
ail that morning for the day’s Bible S
tudy, Beaumont Police Chief James Singletary, called Sgt. Moore and told him that Kyle Hayes, the City Manager, told Chief Singletary that my Clients and other attendees could no longer use the police department building to conduct the Bible Study. Sgt. Moore then sent out an email informing the others that the Bible Study was cancelled. On September 22, 2015,
with the City’s first
prohibition of the Bible Study still in effect, Sgt. Burt Moore sent a Formal Complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
2
complaining of the
City’s
discriminatory actions. Prior to sending the EEOC Complaint, Sgt. Moore provided a copy of the Complaint to Chief Singletary who then informed City Manager Kyle Hayes of S
gt. Moore’s intentions to file the
Complaint with the EEOC. A few days later, Chief Singletary phoned Sgt. Moore and informed him that the City was completely backing down on the prohibition of the Bible Study from being conducted at the police station. Within a week Sgt. Moore received a call from an investigator with the EEOC regarding the Formal Complaint he mailed to the Houston EEOC office on September 22, 2015. Sgt. Moore informed the investigator that the City of Beaumont was negotiating with them, and that at that time the Bible Study was again allowed to meet at the police station. The EEOC investigator told Sgt. Moore that the EEOC would not be doing an investigation. In November 2015, Sgt. Moore received a standard denial letter from the EEOC dated October 19, 2015, which in releva
nt part stated, “the EEOC is unable
to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might
be construed as having been raised by this charge.” A copy of the above reference letter was also sent
to the City of Beaumont. On or about November 17, 2015, Chief Singletary contacted Sgt. Moore, informing him he had met with City Manager Kyle Hayes, City Attorney Tyrone Cooper, and Director of Human Resources Lillie Babino about the continuation of the Bible Study. Chief Singletary told Sgt. Moore the position of Hayes, Cooper, and Babino, was
that because the EEOC had decided not to investigate Sgt. Moore’s
complaint, religious activities would no longer be allowed in any City of Beaumont buildings and that the City was planning to draft a policy prohibiting religious activities on City property. Kyle Hayes, the Beaumont City Manager then sent an email to City Councilman W.L. Pate memorializing the outcome of the meeting between the City Attorney and the Human Resource
Director. According to Mr. Hayes’s email to Councilman Pate dated November 17, 2015, “the EEOC
has said that there is not a problem denying these meetings and that we in fact open ourselves up to problems when we approve bible studies and then deny, for example, Girl Scout or Boy Scout
meetings, etc.”
1
In the same communication, Hayes also said that “We do not want to be in position of
picking and choosing what groups conducting non-busine
ss activities we are ok with.” While it is well
settled that a government may not use hypothetical situations to support the denial of a Constitutional right, the truth of the matter is that the City does in fact allow and in some cases sponsor non-business activities at the police station. The City completely mischaracterizes the standard language of EEOC denial letters to claim the EEOC response letter stated that a prohibition of the Bible study was not a problem. Furthermore,
Mr. Hayes’
reference to “Girl Scout and Boy Scout
meetings” is actually contradict
ed by reality. Scouting activity is occurring regularly at the Beaumont Police Station. Beaumont Police Explorers
Post 730, which “is a scouting project for boys and girls, age 14 thru 20”
meets at the Beaumont Police Station and uses the police training facilities.
2
Other religious programs and organizations also make use of police department facilities. The
Clergy and Pastors Partnership (“CAPPS”)
program is sponsored by the City of Beaumont and has its
logo displayed on the police department’s website
. CAPPS is a chaplain program made up of local religious leaders, including pastors and a rabbi. These community religious leaders meet at the police
1
See
Exhibit A, email exchange between City Attorney Kyle Hayes and Councilman W.L. Pate.
2
www.beaumonttexas.gov/beaumont-police-explorer-post-730-brings-home-several-trophies-15-annual-lake- jackson
3
station and go on ride-alongs with officers on patrol. This is of course a good program that supports our Officers, and is certainly not an establishment of religion. The CAPPS program is not the only City sponsored activity related to religion. Beaumont City Council meetings, which meet every Tuesday, open with an invocation. If opening in prayer at a city council meeting is an acceptable use of government property (which it is), why does the City Manager, City Attorney, and Human Resources Director believe that the Bible Study, which meets regularly and supports our Officers in addition to multiple other employees, is not an acceptable use of government property? The Bible Study is only advertised to City Employees, its attendance is voluntary, and its occurrence is during nonworking hours
—
their lunch break. Because the Bible Study is held during nonworking hours, it does not interfere with the operation of the government workplace, nor does it
“impair discipline by superiors or harmony among co
-workers
.”
See
Rankin v. McPherson
, 483 U.S. 378, 388 (1987). Furthermore, just as the invocation is private speech, so too is the prayer and reading of scripture by government employees in the lunchroom. My Clients, like other City employees who attend the Bible Study, are public employees. But just because they are public employees does not mean they shed their religious liberties upon entering a government building. This is because public employees retain their First Amendment rights at their workplace.
See Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist.
, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). The relationship among police officers, as well as that of other governmental employees who work with or in concert with police officers (i.e., dispatch, community relations, or fleet maintenance), requires loyalty, trust, and confidence among fellow officers and support staff. The need for a harmonious relationship among public employees is a legitimate governmental interest for which the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized in balancing a public employee
’
s private speech rights and a
government employer’s regulation of First Amendment conduct.
See Rankin v. McPherson
, 483 U.S. 378, 388 (1987);
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ
., 391 U.S. 563, 570-573 (1968). However, the City has never cited the need for a harmonious relationship as a grounds for the complete ban against conducting of the Bible Study at the Beaumont Police Department and City buildings. Such reasoning here would be clearly erroneous due to the effect this Bible Study has in furthering personal loyalty, trust, and harmony among police officers. In contrast, the Beaumont City Council advertises its meetings to all the world and the City publishes its Agenda for the meetings in advance; an Agenda which always begins with an Invocation. Participation in the invocation at City Council meetings is voluntary, just as participation in Fellowship of Faith is voluntary. There is, however, a sharp contrasting difference between the Invocation at council meetings and the Fellowship of Faith Bible Study. Those in attendance at the Bible Study come for the purpose of attending it. In contrast, except for the person giving the invocation at council meetings, it would be a stretch of the imagination to conclude that attendees at City Council meetings came only to participate in prayer. Has the City Manager or City Attorney not seen the multiple police departments that have the mot
to “In God We Trust” prominently displayed on their patrol cars? For example
, the motto is on Cleveland ISD and Childress Police Department patrol cars. If this form of religious speech which, unlike the Bible Study, is displayed for all the world to see is not considered a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the voluntary coming together of public employees to discuss the Bible during their lunch hour at a police department is certainly not an issue.
See
Tex. Att’y
|