407 F.Supp.3d 595
W.D. La.2019Background
- Larry Cunningham, a long‑time SPD captain, grew a beard during sick leave for religious reasons and sought a religious exemption from SPD’s no‑beard policy; medical exemptions existed but the policy contained no written religious exemption.
- After submitting a written request, Cunningham was sent for a fitness‑for‑duty exam, placed on departmental leave by Internal Affairs, had his weapon and commission card taken, and ultimately retired claiming constructive discharge.
- Cunningham sued the City and individual officers (Crump, Goodin, Kent, Beckius) under § 1983 (free exercise), the Louisiana Constitution, and Louisiana anti‑discrimination statutes.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss official‑capacity claims and certain individual defendants; Cunningham moved for partial summary judgment on liability.
- The Court dismissed official‑capacity claims as duplicative of municipal claims and granted summary judgment as to Beckius (plaintiff conceded). The Court denied summary judgment for Goodin and Kent (factual issues on personal involvement) and denied plaintiff’s motions on free exercise, state claims, and constructive discharge pending trial facts (notably sincerity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official‑capacity claims against individual officers | Official‑capacity suits should proceed | Duplicative of suit against City; should be dismissed | Dismissed with prejudice as duplicative of municipal claim |
| Individual liability of Goodin and Kent under § 1983 | Goodin and Kent personally involved in denial/retaliation; liable | Crump was final decision‑maker; only he caused the alleged violation | Denied summary judgment as to Goodin and Kent — factual disputes on personal involvement remain |
| Liability of Beckius in individual capacity | (no opposition) | Defendants sought dismissal | Granted — claims against Beckius dismissed with prejudice |
| Free Exercise challenge to no‑beard policy (level of scrutiny) | Policy not neutral: medical exemptions existed but not religious ones; triggers heightened/strict scrutiny | Sincerity and genuine burden disputed; factual issues preclude summary judgment | Court held policy subject to heightened scrutiny but denied plaintiff’s summary judgment because sincerity is disputed and must be resolved at trial |
| Louisiana statutory and state constitutional claims | LEDL and state Free Exercise claim entitle plaintiff to judgment on liability | Sincerity and factual disputes mirror federal issues; not entitled to summary judgment | Denied — state constitutional analysis coextensive with federal; LEDL claims require proof of bona fide religious belief (sincerity) |
| Constructive discharge | Plaintiff claims forced to retire to avoid investigation/termination | Defendants dispute facts and sincerity; premature for summary judgment | Denied — constructive discharge depends on sincerity and other factual issues for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (evidence and inferences on summary judgment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (individualized § 1983 liability and pleading)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (laws targeting religious conduct require strict scrutiny)
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (neutral, generally applicable laws and exemptions)
- Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359 (3d Cir.) (no‑beard policy with medical exemptions subjected to heightened scrutiny)
- Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577 (5th Cir.) (personal involvement/causal connection for § 1983 liability)