SHARIAsource

The plaintiff, a Muslim occupational health physician, sued his former employer, the Department of Veteran Affairs and its Secretary, Jim Nicholson, under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation for filing a discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He filed the claim after he heard his supervisor refer to Muslims as a threat and after his supervisor’s wife made comments about how she and her husband do not like Muslims and the way they live—presumably referring to his observance of prayers, fasting, and other aspects of Islamic ritual law. The plaintiff discovered that his position was being eliminated sometime after these comments were made, but continued to consult with his former employer about infectious diseases. Three months following his position’s elimination, the plaintiff saw a job advertisement for the same position at his former place of employment and filed a claim with the EEOC for discrimination. Immediately after his supervisor found out about his claim, the plaintiff contends that he was no longer allowed on the property and that other employees were barred from contacting him for consultations. The Court concluded that the timing was questionable enough that a jury could find that the events described were examples of retaliation. The Court reversed and remanded the decision of the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to go forward. The parties ultimately settled the case, and the case was closed in December of 2008.

Plaintiff Kareem Hassan Milhouse, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USP-Lewisburg”), filed aBivens-styled complaint against several Federal Bureau of Prisons and USP-Lewisburg officials. The Plaintiff asserted that he had been denied access to the courts on three occasions and denied the practice of his religious requirements in violations of his right to free exercise, on the bases that: (1) there was no Islamic chaplain for Muslim inmates nor services for Special Management Unit inmates to attend services physically, nor were services provided through the radio as were other institutional programs, and (2) there was no Islamic celebration after the Ramadan fast, nor special meal of the types given for holidays of other faiths, and no Muslim chaplain with whom to discuss articles of faith. [He believed both of these types of services to be requirements stipulated by Islamic ritual law.] The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. The District Court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court found that the alleged conduct did not fall within the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), which applies to free exercise of religion claims under the First Amendment raised by prisoners, because the Plaintiff did not establish that a “substantial burden” had been placed on his ability to exercise his religion. The Court further determined that the Plaintiff had alternative means of worship available to him and that the Defendants’ conduct of providing the meal to non-Muslim inmates did not inhibit or curtail his ability to express adherence to his Islamic faith and beliefs. Because the Plaintiff failed to meet the substantial burden test with respect to both of these freedom of religion claims, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

The parties were married on 13 May 2006 and had one child. After marrying, the parties lived with the plaintiff's parents for several weeks, before returning to Bali, where the defendant was stationed for work, and where the plaintiff was completing her medical degree at Universitas Mahassaraswati in Denpasar. While in Bali, however, the parties did not live together: the defendant lived in a rental property in Jembrana, while the plaintiff lived in a boarding house (rumah kost) in Denpasar. On one occasion, when the plaintiff was late to collect the defendant from a bus terminal, the defendant struck her in the head. While she was wearing a helmet at the time, the plaintiff still decided not to reprimand the defendant. The parties maintained these living arrangements until the plaintiff completed her studies in 2007, when the plaintiff then moved into the defendant's rental property in Jembrana.

While living together, the defendant's fondness for cockfighting became a source of tension between the parties. When angry, the defendant would often throw whatever objects happened to be in front of him, and, on one occasion, threw an empty gallon container at the plaintiff while she was pregnant. The plaintiff claimed she then cried and went to her room, while the defendant allegedly shouted 'go home to your parents' ('pulang saja ke orang tuamu'). The plaintiff later moved to the defendant's parents' home in Jember, East Java, while the defendant remained in Jembrana. The parties occasionally argued on the telephone, as a result of the plaintiff frequently hearing that the defendant was fraternising with another woman.

Around the fasting period in 2008, when the plaintiff was seven-eight months pregnant, the plaintiff heard from the neighbour and landlord of the defendant's rental property that a woman had visited the defendant from 8pm-3am. Upon receiving this information, the plaintiff became convinced that the defendant was having an extra-marital affair. When the parties spoke again on the telephone, the defendant occasionally uttered profanities that left the plaintiff feeling upset and in tears.

As the plaintiff was entering her ninth month of the pregnancy, the defendant visited her at his parents' home. One evening the plaintiff inquired with the defendant as to whether or not he had had an extra-marital affair. In response, the defendant threw an ashtray, causing the plaintiff to run into her room and lock the door out of fear. The defendant chased her, and, attempting to enter the room, proceeded to cause damage to the door handle. Concerned that the neighbours might overhear the commotion, the plainitff opened the door to her room, only for the defendant to start causing damage to a cupboard door with his fists. When the plaintiff retired to bed, the defendant then jumped up on the plaintiff's bed, almost landing on the plaintiff's pregnant stomach. After the defendant's mother intervened, the defendant sat down calmly and confessed to having had an extra-marital affair. The defendant acknowledged he was prepared for the plaintiff to divorce him, but maintained that the child was his and would go with him.

The next day the defendant apologised to the plaintiff for his wrongdoing, and the plaintiff spoke with the woman with whom the defendant had had the extra-marital affair. The woman confirmed the information provided to the plaintiff by the landlord. The next day the plaintiff experienced some pregnancy-related bleeding and was brought to Bina Sehat Hospital. The hospital noted that, as the plaintiff had experienced some psychological stress, the pregnancy would be expedited.

In 2009, after the child was born, it lived in Jember with the defendant, per the defendant's wishes. While the plaintiff was working in Kendari for two years as a civil servant, the defendant equivocated as to when he would bring the child to visit the plaintiff in Kendari. As a result, the plaintiff often visited her child in Jember. During her visits to Jember, the plaintiff became aware from things the child would say that the defendant was not showing the child any affection, and that the child was being deprived of its mother's love, something, the plaintiff told the court, pivotal to any child's development. When the plaintiff was about to return to Kendari, the child would cry while hugging the plaintiff and calling 'Mama... Mama... Mama...'.

The plaintiff had also provided the defendant with significant financial support to assist him in establishing a catfish business. During one of her visits to Jember, several months after a catfish harvest, the defendant's mother informed the plaintiff that the defendant had visited a shaman (dukun) to ensure that the plaintiff was not happy in Kendari. When the plaintiff inquired with the defendant about this, in front of the defendant's mother, the defendant punched the plaintiff in the face several times, felling the plaintiff in the corner of her room.

After deliberately limiting her communication with the defendant, the plaintiff re-established contact in November 2012.The defendant, however, only used the opportunity to order the plaintiff to arrange the parties' divorce. The parties did not communicate at all in 2013, after the defendant requested that the plaintiff not disturb him. From the beginning of 2010, the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial support, and the parties had not been physically intimate since August 2012. Pursuant to arts 39, 42 and 44 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as art 19 of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 56 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, the plaintiff sought a judicial divorce and custody of the parties' child.

Despite acknowledging that court-sanctioned mediation had been unsuccessful in reconciling the parties' differences, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application. The court acknowledged that the defendant had disputed and repudiated the plaintiff's submissions, but more significantly, it stressed that it was dismissing the application on the grounds that the two witnesses produced by the plaintiff had never seen the parties quarrel, did not know the nature of the parties' domestic situation, and the information they had provided to the court was, therefore, immaterial. On the same grounds, it dismissed the plaintiff's application for custody of the parties' child.