Nonprofit Organizations Law and Policy Third Edition - Libraries ...

10 OVERVIEW OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR CH.l
that statute constitutes his exclusive remedy for discrimination in employment.
* * *
Plaintiffs allegation of injury in fact is thus on its face insufficient,
for there would still be no cognizable injury even if the allegation were
proved. Indeed, if the requisite nexus were found to exist here, every
employee of every governmental organization would automatically be
deemed to have standing to challenge any action of government, or at
least any action of the department or agency which employs him, for he
could acquire such standing by the simple device of refusing to implement
the particular governmental policy and await the inevitable adverse personnel
action. Were the Court to entertain such a doctrine, the consequence
would be that only government employees, but not other citizens
or taxpayers, would be able to challenge in court governmental action with
which they disagree ... * * *
Plaintiff has also failed to show that his interest in reversing the
exemption policies is arguably within the zone of interests protected by
the First Amendment. The abortion clinics themselves obviously are not
vested with the requisite governmental authority for a valid constitutional
deprivation claim, nor do they in any way impede or interfere with
plaintiffs freedom of speech or religion. Insofar as the grant of tax
exemptions for such clinics are concerned, while they of course constitute
governmental action, it is action which does not violate the Constitution.
Tax exemptions for religious organizations in general have long been
held not to constitute an impermissible government sponsorship of religion.
* * * More specifically, the grant of an exemption from taxation
which is otherwise appropriate, e. g. to providers of health care, does not
impermissibly infringe upon the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment merely because abortions are or are not performed by the
particular health care organization. * * * Such exemptions do not foster
an excessive governmental entanglement with religion, inhibit the free
exercise of religion, or fail to reflect a secular purpose. * * * Different
religions take different views on abortion (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 160-
61, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) ) and the Constitution neither
requires nor prohibits governmental funding of abortions. Maher v. Roe,
432 U.S. 464, 480, 97 S.Ct. 2376, 53 L.Ed.2d 484 (1977). For these
reasons, plaintiffs claimed interest cannot be regarded as being within the
zone of interests protected by the First Amendment.
* * *
For these reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss the claim which
challenges the validity of tax exemptions to abortion clinics and other
organizations will be granted.
II
Plaintiffs second claim is that he was denied a promotion to the
position of a reviewer position in IRS's Exempt Organizations Branch in
violation of the Constitution of the United States and of Title VII of the