Copple v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.

Copple v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.

Opinion

Plaintiff and appellant Marshel Copple filed a case for unfair labor practices under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Govt. Code, § 12940 et seq.; all further references are to this code unless otherwise stated) alleging religious discrimination and harassment, failure to accommodate religious practices, retaliation based on his religion, and constructive discharge for his religious practices. Plaintiff asserts defendant and respondent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's requirement that he work overtime violated a tenet of his belief system, Sun Worshipping Atheism, that he sleep at least eight hours per day. Plaintiff claims Sun Worshipping Atheism, which he created and of which he is the only [*2]  member, is a religion.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant, arguing the trial court erred in finding Sun Worshipping Atheism was not a religion entitled to protection under FEHA, that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and that defendant did not take any adverse action against him.

We hold Sun Worshipping Atheism is not a protected religion under FEHA and therefore none of the causes of action are viable. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff filed a "Request for Notice of Judgment," which is in fact a request to augment the record. Although most of the documents are not relevant to our decision and it is unclear whether any of the documents were filed in the trial court, in the interests of justice we grant the request.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¹

Plaintiff was hired as a correctional officer in July 2009, for a 12-month probationary period. In November 2009 he began working at the Ironwood State Prison in Blythe.

In December 2009 or January 2010 plaintiff defined Sun Worshipping Atheism and posted its tenets on the Web and on Facebook. In his opposition to defendant's separate statement, despite using the word invented in his deposition, plaintiff states he did not invent it but just "committed it to a website at that time." In his briefs, plaintiff argues he "first created his religion in [late] 2008," relying on deposition testimony appended to his request to augment the record. It had a different name, the Unfired Religion. Plaintiff did not believe he could follow his Sun Worshipping Atheism beliefs working for defendant and he posted them so he could formally present them to defendant.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.