Living Spring Church v Midlothian Complaint

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS LIVING SPRING INTERNATIONAL CHURCH, an Illinois church and not-for-profit corporation, individually and in its capacity as representative of certain individual members, and PASTOR ABAYOMI JOEL, Plaintiffs, v.

VILLAGE OF MIDLOTHIAN, an Illinois municipal corporation, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, the Living Spring International Church, an Illinois church and not-forprofit corporation (“Church”), by and through its attorneys, complains against the Defendant, Village of Midlothian, Illinois, a municipal corporation, (“Village”) as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This case is about how the Village of Midlothian has prohibited a small church of about ten people from meeting for bible study and worship at 4645 147th Street in Midlothian, Illinois (the “Property”)—a location where the Village’s Zoning Code freely

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:2

permits non-religious assemblies such as clubs and lodges, places of indoor amusement and recreation, cultural facilities and theaters.

2. The case is also about how the Village unreasonably limits religious assemblies, like the Church, by failing to provide any zoning district within its jurisdiction wherein a new church may locate as a permitted use, and how the Village has imposed its land use regulations in a manner that has substantially burdened the Church’s religious exercise in violation of federal and state law.

3. On its face, the “VILLAGE OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE” or zoning code (the “Code”), relevant portions of which are attached as Exhibit A, treats religious assemblies, like churches, on unequal terms with nonreligious assembly uses, i.e. clubs, lodges, cultural facilities, and theaters—which are permitted as of right in B-3 Community Commercial Districts—in violation of the “Equal Terms” provision of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(1); River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367, 373 (7th Cir. 2010) (“…should a municipality create what purports to be a pure commercial district and then allow other uses, a church would have an easy victory if the municipality kept it out.”); see also Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v.

City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253, 272 (3d Cir. 2007) (Summary judgment on church’s equal terms claim where city treated churches on less than equal terms with theaters).

4. On its face, the Code also unreasonably limits new churches from locating within its jurisdiction in violation of the “Exclusions and limits” provision of the Religious

2

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:3

Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C 2000cc(b)(3)(B). The Code does not treat “churches” as a permitted use in any one of its ten use districts.

5. As applied, the Village has imposed its land use regulations in a manner which has substantially burdened the Church’s religious exercise in violation of the “Substantial burdens” provision of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C 2000cc(a)(1).

6. Rather than permit the Church to use the Property, which is owned by Pastor Joel, and approve the Church’s request for zoning approval, the Village Board, against the unanimous recommendation of the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve the Church, voted on February 24, 2016 to completely deny the Church the zoning permit the Village said it needed to meet at the Property for religious purposes—thereby seriously and thus substantially burdening the Church’s religious exercise. See Schlemm v. Wall, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6592, 4 (7th Cir. Apr. 21, 2015) (describing the “much easier [substantial] burden” standard to be applied in light of Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014)).

7. The Village Board’s denial was not only against the recommendation of the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals to approve the Church’s special use permit application but also came after the Village’s building department, public works and fire and police departments signed off on the Church’s special use request.

8. According to Village Board Trustees Gillis, Moskal, and another trustee who responded publically to inquiries from the Daily Southtown paper following the denial,

3

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:4

the Village Board “couldn’t get around the fact that the building isn’t, well, very church-like.” In the words of Trustee Gillis, “It seemed unusual to hold services in an office building” and in the word of Trustee Karen Kreis the building is “not a church; it’s an office building.”

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff, the Church, (its building pictured above) has a congregation of about 10-15 members and is led by Pastor Abayomi Joel. Pastor Joel has the authority to speak and act on behalf of the Church and its members. Exhibit D, Declaration of Pastor Aboyomi Joel, at ¶ 2.

4

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:5

10. Defendant, Village of Midlothian, Illinois, is a municipal corporation located in Cook County, Illinois. According to the 2010 census, the Village population is roughly 11% African-American.

11. Defendant, through its Village Board, is responsible for the enactment and enforcement of the ordinances and actions challenged herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This action arises under inter alia the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc 1, et seq.

13. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action by virtue of U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (authorizing declaratory relief); and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (authorizing injunctive relief).

14. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(e) and 1402(a) and 5 U.S.C. § 703.

BACKGROUND OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY 15. The Property is located at 4645 147th Street in one of the Village’s “B-3 Community Commercial Districts.” Exh. D at ¶ 8.

16. There is a small two story building on the Property. Exh. D at ¶ 9.

5

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:6

17. The Property has enough parking to accommodate 16 cars which according to the Village’s code is sufficient for a Church with 96 seats, let alone for the Church herein, which only has about a 10 or so member congregation. Exh. D at ¶ 10.

18. At least two other churches (St. Stephen Lutheran Church and St. Christopher Catholic Church) are also located along 147th street--just about ½ a mile down the street from the Property. Exh. D at ¶ 11.

19. About a year ago, the Church went to the Village to inquire about conducting worship services in the lower level of the building in a 16-by-39 foot room. Exh. D at ¶ 12.

20. A Village official informed Pastor Joel that the Church could not meet at the Property without first obtaining a “special use” permit from the Village Board. Exh. D at ¶ 13.

21. A Village official also informed Pastor Joel that the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals would require the Church to install a handicap ramp and handicap-accessible washroom in the building. The Village of Midlothian approved building permits for the various work the Church did at the Village’s direction to make the building suitable for its congregation, including the installation of a handicap ramp which cost the Church about $14,000 and bathroom repairs which cost the Church about $6,000. The Church also had to pay a special use permit application fee and deposit of $1,400.00. Exh. D at¶ ¶ 14-16.

6

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:7

22. Based on the permitted work done and paid for by the Church, the Church’s right to worship at the Property should be vested.

THE CHURCH’S RELIGIOUS EXERCISES AT THE PROPERTY 23. The Church has sought to conduct the following ministries and religious exercises at the Property, all of which are compelled by and integral to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the Church and its members: a. weekly assembly of the congregation to worship (Hebrews 10:25); b. weekly preaching, including speech relating to personal morality, God, social, cultural and political issues (2 Timothy 4:2); c. pastoral counseling for the disturbed, lonely and bereaved; d. prayer meetings (Acts 1:13-14); e. singing and musical performances (Psalms 81:1-2); f. baptisms and communion (Matthew 28:19; Luke 22:19); g. Bible studies; h. service projects for members of the congregation, the poor, youth, and the general community (James 1:27); and i. evangelism - sharing the Christian message and encouraging others to believe in Jesus the Messiah, particularly those who visit the church meetings.

Exh. D at ¶ 17.

7

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:8

SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS 24. After being told that the Church had to apply for and obtain a special use permit before it could meet at the Property, the Church prepared and submitted its special use permit application on or about March 3, 2015. Exh. D at ¶ 18.

25. The Church’s application was first heard at a village site plan review committee meeting in March 2015—where at the Village’s building department, public works and fire and police departments had no issue with the Church’s special use request. Exh. D at ¶ 19.

26. The Church developed and submitted a site plan which was approved by the Village’s site plan review committee. Exh. D at ¶ 20.

27. After the first zoning committee meeting, the zoning permit was not approved because the Church was told that it needed to make the building handicap accessible.

Exh. D at ¶ 21.

28. After making the building handicap accessible, the Church renewed its request for a special use permit. Exh. D at ¶ 22.

29. At a December 14, 2015 meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously recommended the Village Board grant the Church’s permit request and allow the Church to hold services in the building. Exh. D at ¶ 23.

30. At a December 23, 2015 meeting of the Village Board, when a motion was called for on the special use request, no motion (up or down) was made. Exh. B. The same

8

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:9

thing occurred at the January 27, 2016 meeting when Mayor Sharon Rybak called for a vote, all the trustees remained silent. Exh. C and Exh. D at ¶ 24.

31. On or about January 28, 2016, Trustee Gillis directed the Midlothian police go to the Property and instruct the Church that it could not hold worship services without a “business license” from the Village of Midlothian. Exh. D at ¶ 27.

32. Finally, at the February 24, 2016 Village board meeting, a motion was finally made and approved to unconditionally deny the Church’s permit request. Exh. D at ¶ 25.

33. The Village's Building Department had already inspected and approved the Church’s ramp and enlarged washroom in November 2015. Exh. D at ¶ 26.

THE VILLAGE’S ZONING CODE AND THE CHURCH’S USE 34. Under the Village’s Code provisions, Exhibit A, churches are not expressly listed as a “permitted use” in any of it the Village’s ten use districts. Exh. A at pages 1-5.

35. Churches or “Places of Public Worship” are expressly listed as a “special uses” in the Village’s residential and business districts and are prohibited uses in all of the other use districts. Id. 36. In short, there is no use district within Midlothian’s jurisdiction wherein a new church may locate as of right without going through a special and time consuming (and highly discretionary) special use permitting process.

9

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:10

37. Additionally, while the Village does not permit religious assembly uses as a permitted use in any of its ten use districts, it permits non-religious assembly uses, i.e. clubs, lodges, indoor recreation and amusement centers, theaters, and cultural facilities as of right in the B-3 district in which the Property lies. Id.; see also definitions of said uses at Exh. A pages 6-10.

38. The Church’s use is one that is neither inconsistent with the public's health, safety, morals or general welfare, nor out of harmony with Midlothian’s general zoning plan for the districts wherein churches are listed as special uses.

39. A church use is presumed compatible with the surrounding property uses in a B3 use district.

40. The Church completed thousands of dollars of work or improvements to the Property after the Village informed the Church that it needed to complete some or all of that work in order to use the Property for religious assembly. Exh. D at ¶ 28.

41. The Americans with Disabilities Act specifically exempts churches and other religious institutions.

42. The Village of Midlothian did not approve the Church’s special use permit application with conditions but denied it completely. Exh. D at ¶ 29.

43. The Village Board had the authority to approve the Church’s use with conditions.

10

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:11

DAMAGE AND IRREPRABLE HARM TO THE CHURCH 44. If immediate declaratory relief is not granted and the Village’s denial of the Church’s use application is upheld, the Church will be required to completely forego conducting religious exercises and practices at the Property—which the Church has improved for such religious assembly. Exh. D at ¶ 30.

45. On average, the Church only brings in about $800 a month which it uses to cover its expenses of about $700 a month and continue its ministry. Exh. D at ¶4 and ¶ 31.

46. If the Church is not allowed to continue assembling at the Property, the Church will experience the following additional burdens to its religious ministries: a. The Church will be without a home; b. The Church will likely lose current members and tithes and offerings; c. The Church will have to suspend or forego certain ministries it conducts for the community; d. The Church will have to incur substantial expense to secure another location at which to meet or be forced to dissolve; e. Pastor Joel and the congregation will certainly suffer significant additional aggravation, inconvenience, and emotional pain and suffering; Exh. D at ¶ 32.

ALLEGATIONS OF LAW

47. On its face, the Village’s Code violates provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, (“RLUIPA”) and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

11

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:12

48. As applied, the Village has enforced the challenged Code against the Church in a way that violates its rights under RLUIPA, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious.

COUNT I VIOLATION OF RLUIPA OF RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(1) EQUAL TERMS PROVISION 49. The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

50. Section 2(b)(1) of RLUIPA prohibits the Village from treating a religious assembly use less favorably than a non-religious assembly use: (1) Equal Terms No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution. (italics added).

51. By treating church on less than equal terms with a non-religious assembly use, like clubs, lodges, and theaters, the Code violates RLUIPA’s equal terms provision.

52. Churches are no different from clubs, lodges, cultural facilities, and theaters from the standpoint of any accepted or relevant zoning criteria. River of Life, 611 F.3d at 373.

53. The City’s Code, Exh. A, even lists all of those assembly uses together with “Place of Worship” under the same category of “Cultural, Religious, Recreational, and Entertainment Uses.”

12

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:13

54. Upon information and belief, there are other churches or religious assemblies legally zoned to operate within B-3 use districts within Midlothian.

55. Upon information and belief, there are other churches or religious assembly uses operating within B-3 use districts within Midlothian that never applied for or obtained a special use permit.

WHEREFORE, the Church respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth in the prayer for relief.

COUNT II VIOLATION OF RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. 2000CC(b)(3) UNREASONABLE LIMITATIONS PROVISION 56. The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

57. Section 2000cc (b)(3) of RLUIPA provides (emphasis supplied): (3) Exclusions and limits.

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

58. Reasonableness is determined in light of all the facts, the economics of the religious organization, and the actual availability of land where the religious organization is permitted to locate. See Bethel World Outreach Ministries v.

Montgomery County Council, 706 F.3d 548, 560 (4th Cir. 2013) (“RLUIPA's

13

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:14

unreasonable limitation provision prevents government from adopting policies that make it difficult for religious institutions to locate anywhere within the jurisdiction").

59. In light of all the facts, the economics of the Church, and the fact that the City’s Code provides no use districts or land within Midlothian wherein the Church could locate as a permitted use, the City’s Code, facially and as applied, unreasonably limits religious assemblies, like the Church, within its jurisdiction.

60. It is also an inherently unreasonable limitation on churches to treat them on unequal terms with other nonreligious assembly uses as set forth under Count I. WHEREFORE, the Church respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth in the prayer for relief.

COUNT III VIOLATION OF RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1) SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN PROVISION 61. The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

62. Section 2000cc (a)(1) of RLUIPA provides (italics added): (1) General rule.

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and; (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

14

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:15

63. The Seventh Circuit in Schlemm v. Wall, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6592, 4 (7th Cir. Apr. 21, 2015) recently described the “much easier [substantial] burden” standard to be applied in light of Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014)).

64. Under a “substantial burden” analysis, the Court must consider that the Church has great needs and very limited resources. See World Outreach Conference Center v.

City of Chicago, 591 F.3d 531, 537-538 (“whether a given burden is substantial depends on its magnitude in relation to the needs and resources of the religious organization in question.”).

65. The Village imposed its land use regulations in a manner which created undue delay, uncertainty, and expense upon the Church. See Sts. Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. v. Village of New Berlin, 396 F.3d 895, 901 (7th Cir. 2005).

66. The City imposed the burdens on the Church in an arbitrary and capricious manner. See World Outreach, 797 F.3d 839, 842 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Roman Catholic Bishop v. City of Springfield, 724 F.3d 78, 96-97 (1st Cir. 2013).

67. Upon information and belief, the restrictions and processes imposed on the Church were designed to reach a predetermined outcome contrary to the Church’s requests. See, id.

68. The cumulative effect of the various burdens which the City imposed on the Church are clearly substantial. See, Roman Catholic Bishop, 724 F.3d at 95 (“We 15

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:16

recognize different types of burdens and that such burdens may cumulate to become substantial.”).

69. In addition, the unreasonable limitations and unequal terms of the City’s Code on churches set forth below, coupled with its decision to deny the Church’s special use permit application, impose a substantial burden on the Church and its members.

70. The Church can prove a substantial burden on its religious exercise without “proving that there is an unconstitutional motivation behind a law…” 146 Cong. Rec. S6688 (daily ed. July 27, 2000) (statement of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch).

71. The City’s denial of the Church’s special use application involved an individualized assessment of the Church’s application and religious land use.

WHEREFORE, the Church respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth in the prayer for relief.

COUNT IV VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT (775 ILCS 35/15) 72. The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

73. Section 15 of the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998, 775 ILCS 35/15 provides that: Free exercise of religion protected. Governments may not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person

16

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:17

(i) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (ii) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

74. As set forth above, the Village has substantially burdened the Church’s free exercise of religion and will be unable to bear the burden of proving that the substantial burden is justified by a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

WHEREFORE, the Church respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth in the prayer for relief.

COUNT V ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS 75. The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

76. The Village’s Code and zoning decision concerning the Church’s ability to use the Property as a church was arbitrary and capricious and unrelated to the public health, safety and morals in violation of the Illinois Constitution.

WHEREFORE, the Church respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth in the prayer for relief.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Living Spring International Church, respectfully requests relief as follows:

17

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:18

A. Declare that as a matter of law and equal treatment, the Church may use the Property for religious assembly and worship notwithstanding the zoning provisions of the Midlothian code; B. Declare that the Village and its Code has violated the following provisions of the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1), (b)(1) and (b)(3); C. Declare that the Village violated the Church’s rights under the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 775 ILCS 35/15; D. Declare that the Village’s denial of the Church’s special use application was arbitrary and capricious; E. Enjoin permanently the Village, its officers, agents, employees, attorneys and all other persons acting in active concert with it, from enforcing its Code, both facially and as applied to the Church, and from preventing or attempting to prevent the Church from using the Property as a church; F. Award damages for violation of the Church’s constitutional and statutory rights and for the injuries and unlawful burdens it has incurred; G. Award the Church its costs and expenses of this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and other applicable law; H. Grant such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of March, 2016.

18

Case: 1:16-cv-03532 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/23/16 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:19

LIVING SPRING INTERNATIONAL CHURCH By: _/s/ Noel W. Sterett__ One of their Attorneys John W. Mauck, Esq. Noel W. Sterett, Esq. Mauck & Baker, LLC One N. LaSalle St., Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: 312-726-1243 Facsimile: 866-619-8661 jmauck@mauckbaker.com nsterett@mauckbaker.com Counsel for Plaintiff

19