Press release by First Liberty
Diverse Religious Groups Among Briefs Urging the Supreme Court to Hear Fired Fire Chief’s Appeal
Briefs ask justices to correct a wrongful application of an old precedent, reverse lower court ruling that upheld firing of chief for attending conference at a church.
Enjoy what you're reading? Subscribe for more!
Washington, DC—Several religious organizations, including The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, The American Hindu Coalition, Muslim Public Affairs Council, and Samaritan’s Purse, joined other organizations by filing “friend-of-the court” briefs urging the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse a lower court decision that upheld the City of Stockton’s firing of long-time fire chief Ron Hittle, after attending a leadership conference held in a church.
“We are grateful for the support from these reputable organizations who reject the religious hostility that led to the firing of an honorable civil servant,” said First Liberty Senior Counsel Stephanie Taub. “We are hopeful the Supreme Court will protect the religious rights of all Americans who fulfill the duties of their roles while remaining consistent with their religious beliefs.”
“No one in America should be fired for living out their faith,” said Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty. “We are grateful for the outpouring of support for our client and are hopeful the Supreme Court will protect the right of every American to live out their faith in the workplace without fear of getting fired.”
Additional amici include: The Coalition for Jewish Values, Robertson Center for Constitutional Law, Darren Shearer, Global Leadership Network, Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team of the Religious Freedom Institute, Foundation For Moral Law, Samaritan’s Purse, California Employment Lawyers Association, and the Independence Law Center.
Fire Chief Ron Hittle is represented by First Liberty Institute, Baker Botts LLP, and the Church State Council.
Ronald Hittle v City of Stockton, California presents the Justices with the opportunity to re-evaluate the McDonnell Douglas summary judgment framework that places the burden on the plaintiff to disprove as pretextual a defendant’s proffered explanation for the adverse action.
Links to all the briefs are available here.
Cover Image: law-8 by Cal Injury Lawyer via Flickr