Smith v. Fair Emp't & Hous. Com - 12 Cal. 4th 1143, 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 700, 913 P.2d 909 (1996)

Rule:

The right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes or prescribes conduct that his religion prescribes or proscribes. The statutory prohibition against discrimination because of marital status Cal. Gov't Code § 12955, is a law both generally applicable and neutral towards religion. The law is generally applicable in that it prohibits all discrimination without reference to motivation. The law is neutral in that its object is to prohibit discrimination irrespective of reason--not because it is undertaken for religious reasons. Consequently, § 12955 does not violate the free exercise clause.

Facts:

Respondent Eveleyn Smith, a Christian, refused to rent an apartment to an unmarried couple on the basis of her religious belief that having a sexual relationship outside of marriage was sinful. The couple filed complaints with the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC), in which they alleged that the respondent had unlawfully discriminated against them on the basis of their marital status. The FEHC found that the respondent had violated Gov. Code, § 12955, subds. (a) and (d), Civ. Code, § 51, and Gov. Code, § 12948. The FEHC awarded the couple damages, including damages for emotional distress, ordered the respondent to cease and desist from discriminating on the basis of marital status, and ordered the respondent to post notices setting forth the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the state could not prevent the respondent from discriminating against unmarried couples, in view of the free exercise clauses of the federal and state Constitutions (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 4) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.). The couple appealed.

Issue:

Could the respondent discriminate against unmarried couples, in view of the free exercise clauses of the federal and state Constitutions and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that the proscription against discrimination based on marital status, contained in Gov. Code, § 12955, subds. (a) and (d), applied to unmarried, cohabiting couples. The Court also held that the freedom of religion clause of U.S. Const., 1st Amend., did not exempt the respondent from complying with the act, since the FEHA was a neutral law of general applicability. The Court also held that the California Constitution's freedom of religion clause (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4) did not exempt the respondent. The plurality opinion stated that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not operate to exempt the respondent from the FEHA, since the proscription against discrimination against persons based on marital status did not place a substantial burden on the respondent’s exercise of her religion. However, the Court vacated the award of damages for emotional distress, since the FEHC had no power to award damages for emotional distress.