LASCHE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 3:18-cv-17552

Background

Plaintiffs Michael and Jennifer Lasche were licensed foster parents and alleged they are devout Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin; DCPP placed two sisters (ages 10 and 13) with them in 2017.
DCPP caseworker Higgins told the Lasches the children were moving toward adoption and later that an Illinois couple (later reported to be a same-sex couple) sought to adopt the siblings; DCPP employees questioned the older child and discussed Plaintiffs’ religious views.
In July 2018, following a family-court hearing, the court-authorized removal of the 13-year-old (Foster Child 1) from the Lasches’ home; Plaintiffs learned in October 2018 that their foster-license had been suspended.
Plaintiffs sued in state court asserting NJLAD, NJCRA, § 1983 (First Amendment retaliation and Equal Protection) and § 1985 conspiracy claims; the case was removed to federal court; some official-capacity/state claims were previously dismissed.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint re-asserting § 1983 (Equal Protection and First Amendment retaliation) and § 1985 claims; Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The district court granted Defendants’ motion in full: Equal Protection, First Amendment retaliation, and § 1985 claims dismissed without prejudice; qualified immunity not reached.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Equal Protection: whether Lasches allege disparate treatment based on religion	Lasche: DCPP discriminated because of their religious belief and treated them differently than other foster parents	Defendants: Amended Complaint lacks facts showing similarly situated foster parents were treated differently or that defendants harbored discriminatory intent	Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead specific instances of differential treatment or discriminatory intent
First Amendment retaliation — communicating religion to foster child: whether sharing beliefs with a non‑adopted foster child is protected conduct	Lasche: sharing religious beliefs with foster child is protected expression and they were retaliated against for it	Defendants: foster parents lack an unfettered constitutional right to control or preach religion to non‑adoptive foster children; DCPP’s inquiries were within its statutory duties	Dismissed — court found no clear First Amendment protection for that conduct and no actionable retaliation claim
First Amendment retaliation — holding religious beliefs: whether DCPP’s actions were causally linked to Plaintiffs’ beliefs	Lasche: suspension and removal were retaliation for holding anti‑homosexual beliefs; meeting comments and questioning show animus	Defendants: timing (seven months), neutral/statutory duties, and judicial approval of removal defeat causal inference; no pattern of antagonism alleged	Dismissed without prejudice for failure to allege unusually suggestive temporal proximity or other circumstantial evidence of causation; judicial intervention severed causal chain for removal; no personal‑involvement allegations re license suspension
§ 1985 conspiracy: whether plaintiffs alleged a conspiratorial agreement to deprive rights	Lasche: defendants conspired to deprive First and Fourteenth Amendment rights	Defendants: no factual allegations of an agreement or concerted action	Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead a meeting of the minds or concerted action

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead factual content plausibly showing entitlement to relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; courts disregard naked conclusions)
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (district court must accept well‑pleaded facts and construe complaint favorably on 12(b)(6))
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (Equal Protection requires similarly situated persons be treated alike)
Shuman v. Penn Manor Sch. Dist., 422 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2005) (plaintiff must show differential treatment of similarly situated individuals for Equal Protection claim)
Luren W. ex rel. Jean W. v. DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2007) (causation in First Amendment retaliation: timing or pattern of antagonism)
McKee v. Hart, 436 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2006) (retaliatory conduct must be sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness)
Lamont v. New Jersey, 637 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2011) (superseding cause doctrine can break chain of causation for § 1983 claims)
Egervary v. Young, 366 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2004) (judicial intervention can be a superseding cause barring § 1983 liability)
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988) (§ 1983 liability requires personal involvement by each defendant)
Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (parents’ rights to direct religious upbringing of their children)
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (Free Exercise Clause protects traditional parental control over religious upbringing)