Church Autonomy Doctrine Bars Catholic High School Teacher's Suit Against Archdiocese

In Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (IN Sup. Ct., Aug. 31, 2022), the Indiana Supreme Court held that the church autonomy doctrine bars a suit by a former Catholic school teacher against the Catholic Archdiocese for interfering with his employment contract with a Catholic high school. The suit alleges that the Archdiocese pressured the school to fire plaintiff because he had entered a same-sex marriage. Citing a 2003 decision, the court said in part:

[U]nder the church-autonomy doctrine a civil court may not (1) penalize via tort law (2) a communication or coordination among church officials or members (3) on a matter of internal church policy or administration that (4) does not culminate in a criminal act.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Indiana Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Suit By Fired Catholic School Teacher

Last Tuesday, the Indiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments in  Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc. (video of full oral arguments). In the case, an Indiana state appellate court reversed the dismissal of a suit by a former teacher in a Catholic high school who claimed that the Archdiocese intentionally interfered with his contractual and employment relationships with the school. After plaintiff married his same-sex partner, the Archbishop insisted that the school terminate his teaching contract or else it could no longer designate itself as "Catholic." (See prior posting). Indiana Public Media reports on the case.

Church Autonomy Doctrine Bars Inquiry Into Pretext Claim In Catholic School's Firing Of Teacher

In Butler v. St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Academy, (ED NY, June 27, 2022), a New York federal district court dismissed a sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit brought by Cody Butler, a teacher of English Language Arts and Social Studies who was fired from his Catholic school teaching position shortly after he was hired. After his first teacher orientation session, Butler e-mailed the principal saying that the orientation made him uncomfortable because he is homosexual and plans in the future to marry his boyfriend. Within days, Butler was given a letter of termination.  The court dismissed the suit on both ministerial exception and church autonomy grounds. As to the ministerial exception, the court said in part:

[E]xtensive evidence leaves no doubt that Butler’s job did, and would have continued to, include important ministerial duties....

Butler argued that the school's claim he was fired because his intended same-sex marriage which violated church doctrine was a pretext for firing him because of his sexual orientation. The court said in part:

[T]he only way for the jury to find pretext would be to question the Church’s explanation of religious doctrine, or to question how much that particular religious doctrine really mattered to the Church. To do so, however, would violate the church-autonomy principle.... 

The bottom line is that courts have long recognized the church-autonomy doctrine, and no binding authority has ever said that the ministerial exception eclipses this doctrine in employment-discrimination cases.... I am constrained to conclude that no such limitation exists. Under controlling case law, the church autonomy doctrine applies in the employment-discrimination context, as it does elsewhere. And this principle forecloses judicial inquiry  into the plausibility of St. Stans’ asserted religious justifications in this case....

[Thanks to Mark Chopko for the lead.]

7th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Ministerial Exception Case Involving Catholic School

Yesterday, the US. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Starkey v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis. In the case, an Indiana federal district court  held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars Title VII retaliation, discrimination and hostile work environment claims as well as state law claims of interference with contractual and employment relationships in a suit brought by the former Co-Director of Guidance at a private Catholic high school. The school refused to renew its contract with Lynn Starkey, who had been employed by the school for nearly forty years, after the school learned of Starkey's same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)

Suit Challenges DC's Remaining Mask Mandate For Catholic Schools

In Mayor's Order 2022-029 (Feb. 14, 2022), the District of Columbia lifted its COVID mask mandate for various business and recreation venues, and houses of worship, but continued the mandate for a number of facilities including "Public, public charter, private, parochial, and independent schools."  On Monday, suit was filed in the D.C. federal district court by parents of Catholic school students alleging that keeping the mask mandate on Catholic schools violates RFRA and the First Amendment. The complaint (full text) in Dugan v. Bowser, (D DC, filed 3/7/2022) alleges in part:

Defendants’ mandate requiring the children to wear masks in their Catholic school classrooms—while allowing children and adults to not wear masks nearly everywhere else—is arbitrary, unscientific, and irrational. Under Defendants’ policy, a child could sit for hours at the Wizards game at the crowded Capitol One Arena without wearing a mask, but she must cover her face for seven hours a day, the moment she steps into her Catholic school building....

In addition to unconstitutionally burdening Catholic schools and treating them unequally, Defendants’ prolonged mask mandate has had substantially detrimental effects on—and is continuing to significantly impede—the Parents’ children’s Catholic formation and education.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

UPDATE: On March 11, ADF announced that the lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed after D.C. revoked the mask mandate.  (Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal).

7th Circuit Now Says Wisconsin Wrongly Denied School Bus Aid To Catholic School Students

In St. Augustine School v. Underly, (7th Cir., Dec. 20, 2021), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sent back to the district court a suit challenging Wisconsin's refusal to provide bus transportation to students at St. Augustine School. The decision was based on a Wisconsin statute that requires school districts to bus private school students, but limits the obligation to only one private school affiliated with the same religious denomination or sponsoring group in each attendance district.  Another Catholic school in the same district was already receiving bussing aid.  In 2018, the 7th Circuit rejected 1st Amendment challenges to the law and upheld the state's decision. (See prior posting.)  

Plaintiffs sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2020, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, summarily vacated the judgment below and remanded the case to the 7th Circuit in light of its decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. At that point, the 7th Circuit decided to certify to the Wisconsin Supreme Court the state law question of how to determine if two schools are affiliated with the same denomination.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court responded to the certified question in July of this year. (See prior posting.) Applying that guidance, the 7th Circuit this week held:

We conclude that the Superintendent’s decision in the case before us was not justified by neutral and secular considerations, but instead necessarily and exclusively rested on a doctrinal determination that both St. Augustine and St. Gabriel’s were part of a single sponsoring group—the Roman Catholic church—because their religious beliefs, practices, or teachings were similar enough....

Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal Of Fired Catholic Teacher's Suit

In Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (IN Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2021), an Indiana state appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a suit by a former teacher in a Catholic high school who claimed that the Archdiocese intentionally interfered with his contractual and employment relationships with the school. After plaintiff married his same-sex partner, the Archbishop insisted that the school terminate his teaching contract or else it could no longer designate itself as "Catholic." In rejecting dismissal of the suit, the appeals court said in part:

Here, the parties have yet to undertake the requisite “fact-sensitive and claim specific” analysis that must precede analysis of whether the First Amendment bars Payne-Elliott’s claims against the Archdiocese. For instance, do genuine issues of material fact exist regarding: (1) whether Payne-Elliott’s job duties as a teacher at an Archdiocese-affiliated school rendered him a “minister”; or (2) the applicability of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine?  At this juncture, discovery in this matter is ongoing, and we find that this matter is well shy of being ripe for summary disposition....

Moreover, at this very early juncture, this Court cannot say that “it appears to a certainty on the face of the complaint” that Payne-Elliott is not entitled to any relief.... Nor can we say that the allegations present no possible set of facts upon which the complainant can recover.

WISH-TV News reports on the decision.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Ministerial Exception Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Orr v. Christian Brothers High School. As reported by Law & Crime, at issue in the case is  "whether a California Catholic school can use the “ministerial exception” to shield itself from claims of racial discrimination by its former principal."

6th Circuit Grants En Banc Review Of Catholic School's Challenge To Mask Order

In Resurrection School v. Hertel, (6th Cir., Nov. 10, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the 3-judge panel opinion and granted en banc review. The panel decision, by a 2-1 vote, upheld  Michigan's previous COVID-19 mask order for schools.  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a Catholic elementary school, concluding that the order was neutral and generally applicable. (See prior posting.) AP reports on yesterday's action by the court.

Catholic School Parents Lose Challenge To School Mask Requirement

In  Resurrection School v. Hertel, (WD MI, Nov. 3, 2021), a Michigan federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against a county health department COVID order requiring (with certain exceptions) all persons in indoor educational settings to wear face coverings. Parents of Catholic school students argued that the order violates their free exercise rights because masks in school inhibit their children's Catholic education. The court said in part:

[Plaintiffs] argue that ... they are likely to succeed on the merits ... because (1) the emergency order targets Catholic and private schools, (2) the emergency order does not pass strict scrutiny ... and (3) the emergency order is not generally applicable because it only applies to schools and not all public spaces. The Court does not find any of these arguments to be persuasive and instead finds that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits.

6th Circuit Upholds Michigan's Classroom Mask Mandate

In Resurrection School v. Hertel, (6th Cir., Aug. 23, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected free exercise, equal protection and due process challenges to Michigan's previous COVID-19 mask order for schools.  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a Catholic elementary school. All 3 judges agreed that the case is not moot because the mask requirement might be re-imposed.  The majority, however, held:

[T]he district court ... correctly concluded that because the requirement to wear a facial covering applied to students in grades K–5 at both religious and non-religious schools, it was neutral and of general applicability.

Judge Siler filed an opinion dissenting in part. Detroit News, reporting on the decision, says that the school will seek en banc review.

Court Sorts Out Standing Issues And Substantive Challenges To Vermont Town Tuition Program

In Valente v. French, (D VT, Aug. 16, 2021), students and their parents sued various school agencies and districts challenging their policy of refusing to pay tuition to religious schools under Vermont's Town Tuition Program. Under that program, school districts that do not operate their own high schools pay tuition for students to attend other schools. However, sectarian schools are excluded unless there are adequate safeguards against the use of the tuition funds for religious worship. The court held that plaintiffs have standing to sue various state agencies, having alleged that they have not taken appropriate steps to prevent school districts from discriminating against religion in the Town Tuition Program. However the court found no standing to sue supervisory unions made up of local school boards which have no responsibility for the tuition payments.

The court went on to hold that plaintiffs have adequately alleged an equal protection claim and (except for one plaintiff) a free exercise claim against the state defendants, but have not adequately alleged an Establishment Clause or substantive due process claim. Eleventh Amendment defenses were also rejected.

In a companion case, A.H. v. French, (D VT, Aug. 16, 2021), students, parents and the Catholic Diocese sue challenging the refusal to allow Rice Memorial High School, a Catholic high school, to participate in the Town Tuition Program. The court held that the parents have standing to sue the state Agency of Education and its secretary, saying that plaintiffs allege these defendants set policy and directed school districts to exclude religious schools and their students. It also rejected 11th Amendment defenses by the head of the Agency. However the court held that the Diocese of Burlington lacks standing to assert the interests of parents who wish to send their children to Rice.

Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal Of Title VII Claims By Catholic School Guidance Counselor

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Roncalli High School, Inc., (SD IN, Aug. 11, 2021), an Indiana federal district court  held that the ministerial exception doctrine bars Title VII retaliation, discrimination and hostile work environment claims as well as state law claims of interference with contractual and employment relationships in a suit brought by the former Co-Director of Guidance at a private Catholic high school. The school refused to renew its contract with Lynn Starkey, who had been employed by the school for nearly forty years, after the school learned of Starkey's same-sex marriage. The court said in part:

To be sure, the court does not mean to say that divergent understandings of the religious nature of an employee's role should always be resolved in the religious employer's favor. For example, it would be difficult to credit a religious employer's claim that a custodian or school bus driver qualifies as a minister simply because the employer said so.... But this case concerns the Co-Director of Guidance ... [who] performed "vital religious duties" at Roncalli.... Employees in that position met with every student throughout the year and discussed some of the most sensitive issues in a young person's life.... Roncalli expressly entrusted Starkey with the responsibility of communicating the Catholic faith to students and fostering spiritual growth.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Indiana Trial Court Dismisses Catholic School Teacher's Suit Against Archdiocese

As previously reported, in May 2020 in Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., an Indiana trial court refused to dismiss a lawsuit against the Catholic Archdiocese brought by a Catholic high school teacher who the Archdiocese ordered fired after he entered a same-sex marriage. In July 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court broadly interpreted the "ministerial exception" doctrine as it applies to teachers in religiously affiliated schools. Subsequently, in State of Indiana ex rel. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Marion Superior Court, (IN Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2020), the Indiana Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus and prohibition and remanded the case to a different trial court judge "to consider new and pending issues and reconsider previous orders in the case."  Now, in Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc.,  (IN Super. Ct., May 7, 2021), the trial court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Legal Reader reports on the case.

Catholic School Campus Minister's Claims Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Simon v. Saint Dominic Academy, (D NJ, April 28, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court applied the ministerial exception doctrine as defined in recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent to dismiss statutory and contract-based claims by the former Chairperson of the Religious Department and Campus Minister at a women's Catholic high school. Plaintiff was terminated the day after she returned from a leave due to a motor vehicle accident.  She contends that she was dismissed because of her age, disability, and whistleblowing activities. The court said in part:

Plaintiff pleads that she was replaced by a younger individual who was not qualified to teach religion.... Plaintiff’s allegations ... will require the Court to second guess SDA’s decision to terminate a minister, which is precisely what the ministerial exception is intended to prohibit and will necessarily entangle the Court in internal church governance.

Catholic Schools' Suit Against COVID Closings Is Moot

In Michigan Association of Non-Public Schools v. Gordon, (WD MI, Dec. 21, 2020), a Michigan federal district court dismissed as moot a challenge to Michigan's COVID-19 Order temporarily closing all high schools to in-person learning. The suit, brought by a group of Catholic schools, claimed that the Order violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights. That Order expired on Dec. 20 and a new Order now allows high schools to reopen. Detroit Free Press reports on the decision.

Michigan Catholic Schools Sue Over COVID Order

A group of Catholic schools and parents of students in the schools filed suit this week in a Michigan federal district court challenging the state's latest COVID-19 Order which temporarily bars in-person instruction in high schools. The schools claim that the latest order violates their free exercise, freedom of assembly, due process and equal protection rights. The complaint (full text) in Michigan Association of Non-Public Schools v. Gordon, (WD MI, filed 12/7/2020), alleges in part:

Plaintiffs fully understand and appreciate the challenges of limiting COVID’s spread and of contributing to the common good. They are convinced that continuing in-person religious education contributes  to the well-being of Michiganders, rather than harming it. That is why they have gone to such extraordinary lengths to ensure in-person schooling can be done safely for everyone.

Despite all this, Defendant has shuttered Plaintiffs’ schools. At the same time, Defendant allows other activities with demonstrably higher risks to continue. These include professional and collegiate athletics, tattoo parlors and hair salons. Defendant’s prior three-week “pause” order has now been extended and Plaintiffs face the prospect of indefinite future extensions....

MLive reports on the lawsuit.

Firing Only Unmarried Pregnant Teachers Is Not Proper Enforcement of Catholic School's Morals Code

 In Crisitello v. St. Theresa School, (NJ App., Nov. 19, 2020), a New Jersey state appellate court reversed the dismissal of a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought against a Catholic school by one of its former teachers. The court summarized its holding:

In this action brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, we are asked to determine whether a parochial school's knowledge of the pregnancy of an unmarried lay teacher, who started as a teacher's aide for toddlers, later taught art, and had no responsibility for religious instruction, can serve as the nondiscriminatory basis for the teacher's termination for violating the school's morals code, where the school never made any effort to determine whether any of its other employees have violated the school's prohibition against "immoral conduct" that is allegedly incorporated into each employees' terms of employment. We now hold that knowledge or mere observation of an employee's pregnancy alone is not a permissible basis to detect violations of the school's policy and terminate an employee.

Bridgewater Courier News reports on the decision.

Title VII Religious Exemption Does Not Protect Against Suit Over Sexual Orientation Discrimination

 In Starkey v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (SD IN, Oct. 21,2020), an Indiana federal district court held that a former Catholic school guidance counselor who was fired because of her same-sex marriage may bring a discrimination claim under Title VII. The court rejected the school's contention that the religious institution exemption in Title VII applies. The court said in part:

Sexual orientation is a protected class under Title VII, and the language and legislative history of Title VII indicate Congress intended that religious institutions remain subject to Title VII's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of a protected class. To be sure, this case requires a careful balancing of religious liberty and an employee's right to be free from discrimination. The proper balance is to interpret Title VII's religious exemption to allow a religious employer to make hiring decisions in favor of coreligionists without facing claims of religious discrimination, but to allow a plaintiff to bring claims of other forms of Title VII discrimination. The religious exemption does not bar Starkey's Title VII claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, retaliation, and hostile work environment....

So, the question then becomes: Does a religious reason for an employment decision bar a plaintiff's Title VII claim when the religious reason also implicates another protected class?  The exemption under Section 702 should not be read to swallow Title VII's rules. It should be narrowly construed to avoid reducing Title VII's expansive rights and protections.

 Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

Expulsion of Catholic Elementary School Students Covered By Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Doe v. Archdiocese of Galveston- Houston, (TX App., July 7, 2020), a Texas state appellate court affirmed the dismissal on ecclesiastical abstention grounds of a suit against a Catholic elementary school claiming breach of contract, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference, and conspiracy.  The school claimed that one of plaintiffs' sons, Bob, was seriously misbehaving, including hitting and kicking classmates. Bob's parents in turn suspected that Bob's teacher was bullying and verbally abusing Bob.  The parents hid a recording device on Bob to determine what was going on.  When the school discovered this, they expelled both of plaintiffs' sons. The court said in part:

Jane and Peter ... contend that their children were expelled for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, i.e., not because the children “did not want to attend mass, say their prayers, or genuflect when entering the Church.” Rather, they argue that Bob’s misbehavior and their advocacy on his behalf were secular in nature and therefore, their causes of action do not require a review or interpretation of the teachings of the Catholic church.

The jurisdictional evidence supplied by the school defendants and the Archdiocese tells a somewhat different story—one involving a breach of trust by Jane and Peter and breach of the rules broadly included in the school’s Family Handbook.... [T]he trial court did not err ... because the management of internal affairs, conformity of members to the moral standards required of them, and, in the context of an educational faith-based institution, the expulsion or retention of students are considered ecclesiastical matters to which the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies.