Ministerial Exception Is Affirmative Defense, Not Jurisdictional Bar

In Matter of Ibhawa v New York State Division of Human Rights, (NY Ct App, Nov. 26, 2024), New York's highest appellate court reversed a lower appellate court's dismissal of a priest's hostile work environment claim because the Appellate Division had treated the ministerial exception doctrine as a jurisdictional bar rather than as an affirmative defense.  The state Division of Human Rights had dismissed both the claim of racial and national origin discrimination and the hostile work environment claim by a Black Nigerian Catholic priest who was employed as a parish administrator. On appeal ultimately to the New York Court of Appeals, the court remanded the hostile work environment claim to the Division of Human Rights, saying in part:

... [O]nce the Diocese raised the ministerial exception as one of several affirmative defenses, the question confronting DHR was not whether the exception limited its power to consider Ibhawa's claim, but whether any of the Diocese's affirmative defenses—including the two statutory defenses raised by the Diocese—established that the case could not proceed beyond its current stage....

Because DHR erred in treating the ministerial exception as a jurisdictional bar rather than an affirmative defense, its determination was affected by an error of law. In reaching that conclusion, we express no view on whether any of the Diocese's defenses are meritorious.

[Thanks to John Melcon for the lead.]

18 States Sue EEOC Over Guidance on Transgender Sexual Harassment

Eighteen states filed suit this week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging an EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace issued on April 29.  The lengthy Guidance includes the following:

[S]ex-based harassment includes harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity is expressed. Harassing conduct based on sexual orientation or gender identity includes epithets regarding sexual orientation or gender identity; physical assault due to sexual orientation or gender identity; outing (disclosure of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity without permission); harassing conduct because an individual does not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s sex; repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering); or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.

The complaint (full text) in State of Tennessee v. EEOC, (ED TN, filed 5/13/2024) among other things alleges that the Guidance violates the First Amendment, saying in part:

By purporting to require employers and their employees to convey the Administration’s preferred message on controversial gender-identity preferences— for example, requiring the use of pronouns that align with an employee’s self-professed gender identity and prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with that employee’s biological sex—the Enforcement Document unconstitutionally compels and restrains speech, even if contrary to the regulated parties’ viewpoints....

Requiring that employers and their employees adhere to EEOC’s chosen gender ideology orthodoxy likewise treads on religious freedoms.  Because Title VII provides exemptions for small employers, it is not “generally applicable,” and the Enforcement Document triggers strict scrutiny under free-exercise caselaw.... EEOC’s gender-ideology-accommodation mandate impermissibly violates employers’ and employees’ free-exercise rights.... Thus, adopting the policies required by the Enforcement Document would cause Plaintiff States to violate their employee’s First Amendment rights.

Tennessee's Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Jewish Faculty at NY College Can Move Ahead with Hostile Work Environment Lawsuit

In Lax v. City University of New York, (NY Kings Cty. Sup. Ct., Aug. 24, 2023), a New York state trial court allowed five Orthodox Jewish faculty members at Kingsborough Community College to move ahead with their religious hostile work environment and retaliation claims against the school, the faculty union and others (except for certain claims that duplicated ones being pursued administratively). According to the court:

Plaintiffs allege that they and other observant Jewish faculty and staff members at Kingsborough have faced pervasive, anti-religious discrimination from a particular segment of fellow faculty members who are the leaders of a faculty group called the Progressive Faculty Caucus of Kings borough Community College (PFC).... The New Caucus closely coordinated with the PFC.... Plaintiffs claim that the New Caucus members collaborated with the PFC members to dominate campus elections and call for the removal of observant Jewish faculty members, administrators, department chairs, and others at Kings borough. Plaintiffs allege that each of the defendants actually participated in, and aided and abetted, the conduct giving rise to their discrimination and retaliation claims.

Plaintiffs assert, among numerous alleged acts of discriminatory conduct, that ... the PFC and the New Caucus members lobbied against ... observant Jewish candidates running in campus elections; that the PFC members called for the removal of observant Jewish faculty members...; that the PFC organized an anti-discrimination event for a Friday night ... with the purpose of excluding Sabbath-observant Jewish members...; that the Union leaders applied pressure to Kingsborough's chief diversity officer ... to suppress the investigation of the Friday Night Event....

... CUNY claims that it is not responsible for the alleged discrimination against plaintiffs by a faculty group, i.e., the PFC, or the political party composed of certain members of the faculty, i.e., the New Caucus. CUNY maintains that plaintiffs lump all of their disparate allegations together in an attempt to hold it responsible for the alleged actions of the other defendants. 

An employer, such as CUNY, however, can be held liable for an employee's discriminatory act where "the employer became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it"....

Legal Insurrection reports on the lawsuit.

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Hostile Work Environment Claims

In Montgomery v. St. John's United Church of Christ, (OH App., April 6, 2023), an Ohio state appellate court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of plaintiffs' hostile work environment claims. In the case, the church's minister and a pastoral assistant contended that they were sexually harassed by a lay leader of the church, and that their employment was terminated because of their resistance to this conduct. The court said in part:

The [trial] court found that due to the nature of relationships of the parties involved and the subject matter of the conversations and communications between them, it could not “adjudicate the sexual harassment claims of Appellants without distinguishing between Appellee Martin as a parishioner in the congregation seeking counsel, guidance, and comfort from his pastor and pastoral assistant, and Martin as a church officer engaging in harassing or hostile behavior.”... The court found that it could not make this distinction or determination without “delving deeply into the relationships and expectations of the parties and their church and their faith.” ... 

We agree that this is precisely the kind of state inquiry into church employment decisions that the First Amendment forbids....

Nuns' Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Claims Can Move Forward

In Brandenburg v. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, (SD NY, Feb. 23, 2023), a New York federal district court held that it can proceed to adjudicate hostile work environment and some of the retaliation claims brought by two nuns against the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and several of its clergy members. The nuns claimed that Father Makris, the school's director of student life and their "spiritual father" subjected them to unwanted sexual attention for 13 to 14 years. According to the court:

[T]he ministerial exception flows from the plaintiff’s status as a “minister.” In this case, however, Defendants’ argument has nothing to do with the fact that Plaintiffs were sanctified nuns; instead, it flows from Father Makris’s status as minister and the alleged rationale for his conduct.... 

These and other cases make plain that the First Amendment does not shield all decisions by religious institutions, whether or employment-related or otherwise, from review. Instead, a court is barred from adjudicating a dispute involving a religious institution “only where resolution of the dispute will require the Court or a jury to choose between competing religious views or interpretations of church doctrine or dogma in order to resolve the dispute.”... 

Defendants do ... assert a religious rationale for ... one relatively minor aspect of Father Makris’s conduct: his kissing of Plaintiffs..... [T]he fact that Defendants proffer a religious rationale does not mean that Defendants should be granted immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims. It merely means that Plaintiffs “may not offer a conflicting interpretation of the teachings of the [Greek Orthodox] Church or canon law to rebut [Defendants’] proffered religious reason.”... [H]owever, Plaintiffs are entitled to offer evidence and argument that Defendants’ proffered religious rationale was not the true rationale for Father Makris’s behavior.

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Applies Categorically to Hostile Work Environment Claims

In Rivera v. Diocese of Venice in Florida, Inc., (SD FL., Dec. 12, 2022), a Florida federal district court dismissed under the ministerial exception doctrine a suit by the former principal of a Catholic elementary/ middle school who alleged that a racially motivated hostile work environment led him to resign his position. Plaintiff, who is black, was repeatedly the subject of racial harassment by the priest of the school's parish. The court said in part:

The principal question presented is whether the ministerial exception categorically bars hostile work environment claims under Title VII and FCRA. As further explored below, this is an issue of constitutional interpretation not yet specifically addressed by the Eleventh Circuit....

[T]he Court concludes that the ministerial exception categorically bars Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims....

To determine whether a minister's claim of hostile work environment proceeds based on the degree to which a court believes the fact-specific allegations require excessive entanglement with a church's internal governance is itself to promote and risk excessive entanglement and interference with a church's authority to supervise and manage its ministers. Put another way, the reason why a functional approach is necessary to resolve the threshold question of "minister status" is also one of the reasons why applying the ministerial exception to claims of hostile work environment is necessary to respect the First Amendment. The opposite rule would thrust courts into examining the inner workings of a church's supervision and management of its clergy—the precise harm the ministerial exception seeks to protect. Therefore, Court declines Plaintiff's "nuanced" invitation to treat "non-terminal employment claims" of hostile work environment differently than "tangible" claims of employment discrimination brought by ministers....

[S]hould the Eleventh Circuit disagree with the Court's "categorical" determination or otherwise decide that no such ruling is necessary on these facts, the Court concludes in the alternative that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint merits dismissal because it clearly contains allegations that trigger excessive entanglement into the church's internal governance and supervision of its ministers.

Employees Fired For Religious Refusal Of COVID Vaccine Bring Title VII Suit

Four former employees of a continuing care retirement community filed suit in an Alabama federal district court last week claiming that they were wrongly fired for refusing the COVID vaccine on religious grounds.  The 105-page complaint (full text) in Hamil v. Acts Retirement-Life Communities, Inc., (SD AL, filed 9/15/2002), contends that plaintiffs were subjected to a hostile work environment, harassment, and wrongful termination based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. They were denied religious exemptions, or had previously granted religious exemptions rescinded. According to the complaint:

Such conduct was undertaken to preserve Defendants' exorbitant sums of monetary assistance in the form of government grants, coronavirus relief funds, and Medicare and Medicaid funds....

In the case at hand, the crux of the issue is the unlawful employment practices undertaken by Defendant and not the constitutional validity of any vaccine mandate....

The complaint contains lengthy descriptions of plaintiffs' religious beliefs and alleges various violations of Title VII as well as numerous state law claims. 1819News reports on the lawsuit.

6th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Minister's Hostile Work Environment Claim

In Middleton v. United Church of Christ Board, (6th Cir., Nov. 22, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII racial discrimination suit brought by a minister claiming an anti-Black hostile work environment. The three-judge panel unanimously agreed that while plaintiff may have been treated badly, it did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment. Two of the judges (Boggs and Larsen, JJ) went on to hold:

[T]he ministerial exception bars any judicial consideration of a church’s tangible employment actions taken against a minister in a discrimination claim, regardless of its underlying basis....  Otherwise, the church would be required to respond that its tangible employment actions were motivated not by discriminatory animus, but by nondiscriminatory reasons.... [T]he court would then be required to conduct a pretext inquiry to determine the church’s true motivation. This would involve an examination of the church’s reasons for determining the fitness and qualifications of its ministers—a determination necessarily informed by religious belief. This is precisely the kind of state inquiry into church employment decisions that the First Amendment forbids.

Judge Moore in a concurring opinion argued that the court need not reach the ministerial exception issue. [Thanks to Heather Kimmel for the lead.] 

 

7th Circuit En Banc: Ministerial Exception Applies To Hostile Work Environment Claims

In Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish, Calumet City, (7th Cir., July 9, 2021), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held by a vote of 7-3 that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to protect religious organizations from  hostile work environment claims alleging minister-on-minister harassment. A 3-judge panel had reach the opposite conclusion. At issue is derogatory and demeaning comments made to the church's gay music director by the church's pastor. The majority opinion, written by Judge Brennan, said in part:

This case concerns what one minister, Reverend Dada, said to another, Demkovich. Adjudicating Demkovich’s allegations of minister-on-minister harassment would not only undercut a religious organization’s constitutionally protected relationship with its ministers, but also cause civil intrusion into, and excessive entanglement with, the religious sphere.

Judge Hamilton filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Rovner and Wood, saying in part: 

[P]laintiff is not asking the court to pass on the substance of the Catholic Church’s religious doctrines or practices. Civil courts have nothing to say about whether the Church should permit same-sex marriage, for example, or whether the Church should have a hierarchical supervisory structure. The Church was free to decide whether to retain plaintiff or fire him. But plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims allege conduct that constituted abuse under neutral, generally applicable standards that would be enforceable on behalf of a non-ministerial employee. That conduct is, by definition, not necessary to control or supervise any employee.

Bloomberg Law reports on the decision.

Discrimination Claim By Muslim Employee of Sheriff's Office Is Dismissed

In Domino v. County of Essex, (D NJ, Feb. 11, 2021), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed, without prejudice, a religious discrimination and hostile work environment claim brought by an African American Muslim male who was employed by the Bureau of Criminal Identification in the Essex County (NJ) Sheriff's Office. Plaintiff complained that a series of actions by the sheriff that variously ordered no beards, limited the length of beards and required documentation from his Imam of plaintiff's religious observance infringed his rights under various statutes and constitutional provisions. The court dismissed plaintiff's Title VII claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It dismissed his equal protection claim for failure to allege a discriminatory purpose. It also dismissed claims under New Jersey civil rights laws.

7th Circuit En Banc Hears Arguments In Ministerial Exception Case

The full U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, yesterday heard oral arguments in Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, a 3-judge panel of the 7th Circuit held by a 2-1 vote that the ministerial exception doctrine does not bar hostile work environment claims brought by a ministerial employee where no tangible employment action was taken.  In the case, the music director of a Catholic church alleged that his supervisor harassed an humiliated him about his sexual orientation, as well as his weight and his medical issues. (See prior posting.)  Becket has more on the case.

7th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Does Not Cover Hostile Work Environment Claims, Absent Tangible Employment Action

In Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish, (7th Cir., Aug. 31, 2020), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to a question certified to it by an Illinois federal district court held by a 2-1 vote that the ministerial exception doctrine does not bar hostile work environment claims brought by a ministerial employee where no tangible employment action was taken.  In the case, the music director of a Catholic church alleged that his supervisor harassed an humiliated him about his sexual orientation, as well as his weight and his medical issues.  The majority held in part:

The ministerial exception gives religious organizations the power to use the full range of tangible employment actions to select and control their ministerial employees without judicial review or government interference under these federal statutes. These employers are thus able to control their employees in every way that would be necessary to exercise their religious freedoms. It is hard to see how the Church could not have adequately controlled plaintiff as a ministerial employee by deciding whether to hire him and whether to fire him, or by deciding his job duties, his place of work, his work schedule, his compensation, the resources he needed to work, and so forth.

Subjecting plaintiff to the abuse alleged here is neither a statutorily permissible nor constitutionally protected means of “control” within the meaning of Hosanna–Tabor.

Judge Flaum dissented, saying in part:

Beyond infringing on the Church’s free exercise rights in this case, allowing ministers to bring hostile work environment claims will “gravely infringe” on the rights of religious employers more generally “to select, manage, and discipline their clergy free from government control and scrutiny” by encouraging them to employ ministers that lessen their exposure to liability rather than those that best “further [their] religious objective[s].”

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Does Not Apply To Hostile Work Environment Claim

In Middleton v. United Church of Christ, (ND OH, Aug. 26, 2020), an Ohio federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not preclude a minister bringing a hostile work environment claim, at least where the claim does not involve the court in excessive entanglement with religious matters. The court said in part:

[A]fter examining Middleton’s first cause of action, the court concludes that it does not implicate “any matters of church doctrine or practice.” ... Middleton’s hostile workplace claim involves allegations of racial and gender harassment that are wholly unrelated to Defendants’ religious teachings. ....

Nevertheless the court went on to dismiss the hostile work environment claim, saying in part:

While Middleton describes interactions that are unprofessional and unpleasant, none of the alleged conduct was physically threatening or humiliating. At most, these sporadic comments constituted “offensive utterances,” which “do not rise to the level required by the Supreme Court’s definition of a hostile work environment.”

The court held that plaintiff's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims were barred by the ministerial exception doctrine. [Thanks to Heather Kimmel for the lead.]

Atheist Firefighter's Hostile Work Environment Claim Can Proceed

In Queen v. City of Bowling Green, Kentucky, (6th Cir., April 22, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Kentucky district court's denial of defendants' qualified immunity in a suit by a former firefighter who was harassed by his co-workers and supervisors because he is an atheist. The court held that plaintiff's claim of  hostile work environment based on religion is not covered by Kentucky’s Claims Against Local Governments Act. It also held that plaintiff's supervisor is not entitled to qualified immunity on a retaliation claim against him. Friendly Atheist blog discusses the case at greater length.

Court Upholds $1.8M Award For Religiously Hostile Work Environment

In EEOC v. United Health Programs of America, Inc., (ED NY, March 6, 2020), a New York federal district court, in a 74-page opinion, upheld a jury verdict, as subsequently reduced by the court to $1.778 million, in a suit charging an employer with creation of a hostile religious work environment. The court said in part:

In the fall of 2007, defendants’ CEO, Robert Hodes, hired his aunt, Denali Jordan, who introduced religious and spiritual practices and teachings to the workplace. Defendants’ supervisors and officers, including Denali, imposed certain practices and beliefs, often referred to as “Onionhead” and “Harnessing Happiness,” on plaintiffs.....

[A]mple evidence in the record established that numerous religious images and practices permeated the office environment, and that employees were required to participate in such religious practices. Among other things, defendants’ office environment was cluttered with pervasive religious imagery, including rosary beads, Buddhas, and Onionhead/Harnessing Happiness literature, posters and banners; employees were given Onionhead feeling and truth cards and Onionhead workshop materials and instructed to use them; employees were strongly encouraged or instructed to wear Onionhead pins; employees were scheduled for attendance and participation at the Onionhead/Harnessing Happiness workshops, which employees understood were mandatory. ... [T]he Onionhead religion motivated certain idiosyncratic office practices, including the dismantling of overhead lights, use of candles, incense, and table lamps, hugging and kissing of coworkers, praying and meditation, and coworkers being directed to say “I love you.” All of these practices, taken together,could be found to have “unreasonably interfere[d] with an employee’s work performance” and altered the conditions of an employee’s work environment for the worse.

EEOC Suit Over Insults To Muslim Employees Settled

The EEOC announced  that a consent decree was signed on Tuesday settling a suit against Haliburton Energy Services. The suit charged that two Muslim workers were subjected to taunts and name calling over their religion and national origin. One was fired for complaining about his treatment.  In the consent decree, the company agreed to pay $275,000 in damages. The decree also enjoined future violations and requires training of human resource and managerial employees. (See prior related posting.)

Suit Says Police Chief Forced Religion On Officers

The Advocate reports on a federal court lawsuit filed last week against the Port Allen, Louisiana Police Department::

A second former Port Allen police officer has filed a lawsuit alleging Police Chief Esdron Brown consistently forced his religion on his officer corps through mandatory meetings, and further claimed the chief used God's will as reasoning for unjust promotions.

Robert Cannon Jr.,... , filed a federal civil rights case ... alleging the chief's repeated mention of religion and religious-focused meetings created a hostile work environment.

Ministerial Exception In Hostile Work Environment Cases

In Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish, Calumet City, (ND IL, Sept. 30, 2018), an Illinois federal district court set out an extensive analysis of when the ministerial exception doctrine bars claims for a hostile work environment, as opposed to claims involving firing or refusal to hire, under Title VII and the ADA.  In the case, a parish music director claimed damages because of abusive and harassing behavior growing out of his engagement and marriage to a same-sex partner.  The court said in part:

[W]hen a minister brings a claim that does not challenge a tangible employment action, then whether the First Amendment bars the claim depends on a case-by-case analysis on the nature of the claim, the extent of the intrusion on religious doctrine, and the extent of the entanglement with church governance required by the particular litigation. If the nature of the claim would require that a court take stance on a disputed religious doctrine, then that weighs in favor of First Amendment protection for the church....

If, on the other hand, no religious justification is offered at all (for a nontangible employment action), then there would be little or no risk of violating the Free Exercise Clause....

... [L]itigation over Reverend Dada’s alleged harassment based on Demkovich’s sex, sexual orientation, and marital status would excessively entangle the government in religion. To start, the Archdiocese offers a religious justification for the alleged derogatory remarks and other harassment....

... [H]arassing statements and conduct are motivated by an official Church position (or at least the Archdiocese would defend the case on those grounds). Of course, regulating how the official opposition is expressed is not as directly intrusive as outright punishing the Church for holding that position (which a federal court cannot do). But it comes close, and must weigh in favor of barring the claim under the Religion Clauses. 

EEOC Sues Over Hostile Treatment of Catholic Employee

The EEOC announced on Thursday that it had filed a Title VII lawsuit against New Jersey-based Hackensack Meridian Health alleging a manager's religious harassment of a Catholic employee. According to the press release:

Hackensack was aware of but failed to stop a hostile work environment at its Edison, N.J., facility. Shortly after the employee was hired to perform clinical data analytics work, his manager learned he was Catholic and reacted negatively upon seeing a crucifix in the employee's office. Since then, the manager regularly belittled him, screamed at him, and ridiculed his work in front of others.

Atheist Firefighter Can Move Ahead With Hostile Work Environment Claim

In Queen v. City of Bowling Green, (WD KY, July 20, 2018), a Kentucky federal district court allowed an atheist firefighter to move ahead with his claim of hostile work environment based on religion. The court, analyzing his claim under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, said in part:

Defendants argue that Queen cannot prove the religious harassment he  experienced was unwanted. Rather, Defendants contend that jokes,  pranks, and teasing are all part of the fraternal environment at the Fire Department that Queen enjoyed and participated in.  However, since the Defendants are  moving  for  summary  judgment, the Court must consider the facts in a light favorable to Queen.  According to Queen, none of the harassment he experienced was welcomed.  As he tells it, he was interrogated about his religion by coworkers and forced against his will to participate in Bible studies.  Ultimately, he claims that he was threatened and physically assaulted.  For this reason, there is enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the harassment Queen experienced was unwanted.

Friendly Atheist blog has more on the decision.