1

December 18, 2015

Sent via certified U.S. mail return receipt requested

Becky Ames Gethrel Williams-Wright

Mayor City Council Member, At-large

W.L. Pate, Jr. Mike Getz

City Council Member, At-large City Council Member, Ward 2

Claude Guidroz Audwin Samuel

City Council Member, Ward 1 City Council Member, Ward 3

Robin Mouton

City Council Member, Ward 4

Re: Civil Rights Violations

Mayor, City Manager, Chief of Police, and City Council:

This letter is official notice under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA),

Tex. Civ. Prac & Rem. Code § 110.001 et seq., of the City of Beaumont’s violation of the rights

guaranteed by TRFRA. My clients are four Beaumont Police Officers: Sgt. Burt Moore, Officer Tony

Harding, Sgt. Barry Scarborough, and Det. Anthony Goudeau (hereafter “Clients”). The City’s demand

that my Clients, cease having voluntary Bible studies at the Beaumont Police Station, violates TRFRA

by substantially burdening my Clients’ free exercise of religion. The City’s action does not serve a

compelling governmental interest, and it is not the least restrictive means of advancing a governmental

interest.

My Clients and other City of Beaumont employees have held voluntary Bible studies at the

police station for several years without incident. Sgt. Moore and Officer Harding are co-founders of

the most recent bible study aptly named the “Faith and Fellowship Bible Study” (hereafter “Bible

Study”).

The Bible Study meets once to twice a month during the lunch hour at the Beaumont Police

Station in the Staff Conference Room, Training Room, or other available rooms at the station.

Attendance of the Bible Study is completely voluntary, and is attended by multiple Beaumont police

officers and employees of several support offices (i.e., dispatch, records, fleet maintenance, building

code, etc.). The Bible Study has been ongoing for almost two years without incident.

A Bible Study was scheduled to take place at noon on June 23, 2015. However, shortly after

Sgt. Moore sent out a reminder email that morning for the day’s Bible Study, Beaumont Police Chief

James Singletary, called Sgt. Moore and told him that Kyle Hayes, the City Manager, told Chief

Singletary that my Clients and other attendees could no longer use the police department building to

conduct the Bible Study. Sgt. Moore then sent out an email informing the others that the Bible Study

was cancelled.

On September 22, 2015, with the City’s first prohibition of the Bible Study still in effect, Sgt.

Burt Moore sent a Formal Complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

Breitb

art T

exas

2

complaining of the City’s discriminatory actions. Prior to sending the EEOC Complaint, Sgt. Moore

provided a copy of the Complaint to Chief Singletary who then informed City Manager Kyle Hayes of

Sgt. Moore’s intentions to file the Complaint with the EEOC. A few days later, Chief Singletary phoned

Sgt. Moore and informed him that the City was completely backing down on the prohibition of the

Bible Study from being conducted at the police station.

Within a week Sgt. Moore received a call from an investigator with the EEOC regarding the

Formal Complaint he mailed to the Houston EEOC office on September 22, 2015. Sgt. Moore informed

the investigator that the City of Beaumont was negotiating with them, and that at that time the Bible

Study was again allowed to meet at the police station. The EEOC investigator told Sgt. Moore that the

EEOC would not be doing an investigation. In November 2015, Sgt. Moore received a standard denial

letter from the EEOC dated October 19, 2015, which in relevant part stated, “the EEOC is unable to

conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that

the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might

be construed as having been raised by this charge.” A copy of the above reference letter was also sent

to the City of Beaumont.

On or about November 17, 2015, Chief Singletary contacted Sgt. Moore, informing him he had

met with City Manager Kyle Hayes, City Attorney Tyrone Cooper, and Director of Human Resources

Lillie Babino about the continuation of the Bible Study. Chief Singletary told Sgt. Moore the position

of Hayes, Cooper, and Babino, was that because the EEOC had decided not to investigate Sgt. Moore’s

complaint, religious activities would no longer be allowed in any City of Beaumont buildings and that

the City was planning to draft a policy prohibiting religious activities on City property.

Kyle Hayes, the Beaumont City Manager then sent an email to City Councilman W.L. Pate

memorializing the outcome of the meeting between the City Attorney and the Human Resource

Director. According to Mr. Hayes’s email to Councilman Pate dated November 17, 2015, “the EEOC

has said that there is not a problem denying these meetings and that we in fact open ourselves up to

problems when we approve bible studies and then deny, for example, Girl Scout or Boy Scout

meetings, etc.”1 In the same communication, Hayes also said that “We do not want to be in position of

picking and choosing what groups conducting non-business activities we are ok with.” While it is well

settled that a government may not use hypothetical situations to support the denial of a Constitutional

right, the truth of the matter is that the City does in fact allow and in some cases sponsor non-business

activities at the police station.

The City completely mischaracterizes the standard language of EEOC denial letters to claim

the EEOC response letter stated that a prohibition of the Bible study was not a problem. Furthermore,

Mr. Hayes’ reference to “Girl Scout and Boy Scout meetings” is actually contradicted by reality.

Scouting activity is occurring regularly at the Beaumont Police Station. Beaumont Police Explorers

Post 730, which “is a scouting project for boys and girls, age 14 thru 20” meets at the Beaumont Police

Station and uses the police training facilities. 2

Other religious programs and organizations also make use of police department facilities. The

Clergy and Pastors Partnership (“CAPPS”) program is sponsored by the City of Beaumont and has its

logo displayed on the police department’s website. CAPPS is a chaplain program made up of local

religious leaders, including pastors and a rabbi. These community religious leaders meet at the police

1 See Exhibit A, email exchange between City Attorney Kyle Hayes and Councilman W.L. Pate. 2 www.beaumonttexas.gov/beaumont-police-explorer-post-730-brings-home-several-trophies-15-annual-lake-jackson

Breitb

art T

exas

3

station and go on ride-alongs with officers on patrol. This is of course a good program that supports

our Officers, and is certainly not an establishment of religion.

The CAPPS program is not the only City sponsored activity related to religion. Beaumont City

Council meetings, which meet every Tuesday, open with an invocation. If opening in prayer at a city

council meeting is an acceptable use of government property (which it is), why does the City Manager,

City Attorney, and Human Resources Director believe that the Bible Study, which meets regularly and

supports our Officers in addition to multiple other employees, is not an acceptable use of government

property?

The Bible Study is only advertised to City Employees, its attendance is voluntary, and its

occurrence is during nonworking hours—their lunch break. Because the Bible Study is held during

nonworking hours, it does not interfere with the operation of the government workplace, nor does it

“impair discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers.” See Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S.

378, 388 (1987). Furthermore, just as the invocation is private speech, so too is the prayer and reading

of scripture by government employees in the lunchroom.

My Clients, like other City employees who attend the Bible Study, are public employees. But

just because they are public employees does not mean they shed their religious liberties upon entering

a government building. This is because public employees retain their First Amendment rights at their

workplace. See Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).

The relationship among police officers, as well as that of other governmental employees who

work with or in concert with police officers (i.e., dispatch, community relations, or fleet maintenance),

requires loyalty, trust, and confidence among fellow officers and support staff. The need for a

harmonious relationship among public employees is a legitimate governmental interest for which the

U.S. Supreme Court has recognized in balancing a public employee’s private speech rights and a

government employer’s regulation of First Amendment conduct. See Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S.

378, 388 (1987); Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 570-573 (1968).

However, the City has never cited the need for a harmonious relationship as a grounds for the

complete ban against conducting of the Bible Study at the Beaumont Police Department and City

buildings. Such reasoning here would be clearly erroneous due to the effect this Bible Study has in

furthering personal loyalty, trust, and harmony among police officers.

In contrast, the Beaumont City Council advertises its meetings to all the world and the City

publishes its Agenda for the meetings in advance; an Agenda which always begins with an Invocation.

Participation in the invocation at City Council meetings is voluntary, just as participation in Fellowship

of Faith is voluntary. There is, however, a sharp contrasting difference between the Invocation at

council meetings and the Fellowship of Faith Bible Study. Those in attendance at the Bible Study come

for the purpose of attending it. In contrast, except for the person giving the invocation at council

meetings, it would be a stretch of the imagination to conclude that attendees at City Council meetings

came only to participate in prayer.

Has the City Manager or City Attorney not seen the multiple police departments that have the

motto “In God We Trust” prominently displayed on their patrol cars? For example, the motto is on

Cleveland ISD and Childress Police Department patrol cars. If this form of religious speech which,

unlike the Bible Study, is displayed for all the world to see is not considered a violation of the

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the voluntary coming together of public employees to

discuss the Bible during their lunch hour at a police department is certainly not an issue. See Tex. Att’y

Breitb

art T

exas

4

Gen. Op. No. KP-0042 (2015) (Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton explaining that a police

department’s display of ‘In God We Trust’ on patrol cars is constitutionally permissible).

My Clients, Sgt. Burt Moore, Officer Tony Harding (formerly a pastor for four years at

Fellowship Bible Church Dallas), Sgt. Barry Scarborough, and Det. Anthony Goudeau (a Deacon at

St. Pius X Catholic Church) are substantially motivated by their sincere religious beliefs and

convictions to come together in fellowship, pray, and read the Bible with other Beaumont employees

during their lunch time.

In summary, the City of Beaumont’s actions in prohibiting my Clients, four Beaumont Police

Officers, from holding a voluntary Bible study at the Police Department, or any other government

building, substantially burdens my Clients’ free exercise of religion and therefore violates Tex. Civ.

Prac & Rem. Code § 110.001 et seq.

This is a demand that the City immediately cease its violations of Texas law, immediately cease

any attempts to promulgate a policy prohibiting religious use of City property, and allow Sgt. Burt

Moore, Tony Harding, Sgt. Barry Scarborough, and Det. Anthony Goudeau to exercise their sincerely-

held religious beliefs by allowing the Faith and Fellowship Bible Study to continue using the facilities

at the Beaumont Police Department, as they had been doing before the City’s decision to arbitrarily

ban their sincerely-held religious conduct.

Sincerely,

THE CAIN LAW FIRM

2318 Center Street, Ste 310

Deer Park, Texas 77536

Tel: (832) 647-5117

Fax: (281) 715-4327

E-mail: cainfirm@gmail.com

http://www.cainrowe.com

By: ___________________________________

Briscoe Cain

State Bar No. 24073602

Attorney for Sgt. Burt Moore, Tony Harding, Sgt.

Barry Scarborough, Det. Anthony Goudeau

cc: Tyrone E. Cooper, City Attorney, City of Beaumont

Fax No. 409-880-3121 Breitb

art T

exas