7th Circuit: Hebrew Teacher Covered By "Ministerial Exception" Doctrine

In Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., (7th Cir., Feb. 13, 2018), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ministerial exception applies to prevent a former Hebrew teacher in a Jewish day school from suing for her firing in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  Plaintiff taught first and second graders. In concluding that plaintiff should be classified as a "ministerial" employee, the court said in part:

... it is sufficient that the school clearly intended for her role to be connected to the school’s Jewish mission....  Milwaukee Jewish Day School expected Grussgott to follow its expressly religious mission and to teach the Tal Am curriculum, which is designed to “develop Jewish knowledge and identity in [its] learners.”.... This, combined with the importance of Grussgott’s Judaic teaching experience in her being hired, confirms that the school expected her to play an important role in “transmitting the [Jewish] faith to the next generation.”.... Even if Grussgott did not know this, the purpose of the ministerial exception is to allow religious employers the freedom to hire and fire those with the ability to shape the practice of their faith. Thus, it is the school’s expectation—that Grussgott would convey religious teachings to her students— that matters.

Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply When Defendant Is Not Plaintiff's Employer

In McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., (ND MS, Jan. 18, 2018), a Mississippi federal district court rejected ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention defenses in a suit alleging intentional interference with business relationships, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. At issue was the termination of plaintiff, the executive director of the General Mission Board of the Baptist Convention for Maryland/ Delaware, at the insistence of defendant NAMB. The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply when the defendant in a lawsuit is not the employer of plaintiff. The court also held that adjudicating plaintiff's claims will not necessarily involve examination of church doctrine or internal church governance. The Message reports on the decision.

Suit Contends Ministerial Exception Does Not Bar Hostile Work Environment Claims

Yesterday's Cook County Record reports on a hostile work environment lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago by Sandor Demkovich, former organist and music director of St. Andrew the Apostle Church in Calumet City, Illinois.  Demkovich was fired several days after he entered a same-sex marriage. His earlier lawsuit charging employment discrimination was dismissed on "ministerial exception" grounds.  The new lawsuit argues that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply to hostile work environment claims.

Sacristan's Suit Dismissed On Ministerial Exception Grounds

In Vosney v. Archdiocese of Hartford, 2017 Conn. Super. LEXIS 4633 (CT Super., Oct. 13, 2017), a Connecticut trial court dismissed on "ministerial exception" grounds a suit by a former administrative assistant and sacristan of a Catholic Church in Connecticut. Plaintiff had claimed that his hours of employment were severely reduced as retaliation for his opposing discriminatory employment practices.

Civil Rights Suit By Catholic School Principal Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Nolen v. Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama, (ND AL, Sept. 1, 2017), an Alabama federal district court invoked the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss a suit by a former principal of a Catholic elementary school who was fired from her position.  Plaintiff claimed she was fired for protecting Hispanic students and families from racial discrimination. Defendant claimed she was fired for embezzling funds.  After dismissing plaintiff's civil rights and breach of contract claims under the ministerial exception doctrine, the court dismissed her remaining state law defamation and interference with contract claims without prejudice so they could be refiled in state court.

Fired Pastor's Contract Suit Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception and Excessive Entanglement Doctrines

In Lee v. Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church of Pittsburg, (WD PA, Aug. 22, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed a breach of contract claim brought by a pastor against the church that had terminated his employment.  Rev. William Lee claims that the church breached his contract by not compensating him under the clause relating to termination without cause. the church argued that Lee was terminated for failing to fulfill his duties and responsibilities under the contract. The court dismissed on ministerial exception and excessive entanglement grounds, saying in part:

[T]he “ministerial exception” recognizes the right of a religious institution in exercising its First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty and autonomy in matters ecclesiastical to terminate from employment a Pastor such as Rev. Lee. Rev. Lee’s dispute with the Church regarding his termination from employment fully implicates such rights....

The Church argues that where Rev. Lee failed in spiritual stewardship, financial stewardship and responsiveness to Church leadership, as determined by the Church and its Congregation, his termination was for cause under § 12.3.... 

[T]he Court concludes that any determination whether Rev. Lee failed in his spiritual and financial stewardship and responsiveness to Church leaders is a matter best left to the Church alone. Otherwise, the Court and jury would need to probe how the Church evaluated spiritual success and leadership under its doctrine.... Prohibited considerations of ecclesiastical hierarchy are directly implicated in the assessment that Rev. Lee did not adequately respond to Church leadership.

Further Evidence Needed To Rule On Ministerial Exception Defense

In Stabler v. Congregation Emanu-El of the City of New York, (SD NY, July 28, 2017), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss a suit alleging gender, age and disability discrimination brought by the Librarian of a New York synagogue who says that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  Defendants asserted the "ministerial exception" doctrine as a defense. The court held, however, that development of a further factual record is necessary to determine whether plaintiff performed sufficient religious functions to be considered a ministerial employee.

Catholic School Teacher Stripped of Tenure May Sue

In Mis v. Fairfield College Preparatory School, 2017 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3741 (CT Super., June 20, 2017), a Connecticut trial court refused to dismiss a suit by a tenured teacher at a Jesuit prep school whose employment was terminated by the president of the school. The president insisted that teacher Jason Mis engaged in "moral misconduct" when he took an unauthorized ride in a golf cart at a country club during a fundraising fashion show for the school.  Mis requested a committee hearing on his dismissal, as provided for in the school's handbook.  The hearing committee concluded that Mis had not engaged in moral misconduct, and that termination of his tenure was not supported.  Nevertheless the school terminated Mis, who then sued for breach of contract and defamation.  The court rejected the school's attempt to raise the ministerial exception as a bar to jurisdiction.  It went on to hold that the suit may be adjudicated using neutral principles of law without deciding between competing definitions of moral misconduct.

2nd Circuit: Ministerial Exception Requires Dismissal of Sex Discrimination Claim By Catholic School Principal

In Fratello v. Archdiocese of New York, (2d Cir., July 14, 2017), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the principal of a Catholic elementary school is barred by the "ministerial exception" doctrine from pursuing her claim that gender discrimination accounted for the school's refusal to renew her contract. The court said in part:

... [T]he plaintiffʹs claims are barred because she is a minister within the meaning of the exception.  Although her formal title was not inherently religious, the record reflects that, as part of her job responsibilities, she held herself out as a spiritual leader of the school and performed many religious functions to advance its religious mission.

The court noted some of the tensions inherent in the doctrine:

The irony is striking.  We rely in part on Fratelloʹs supervisorsʹ and faculty officialsʹ prior praise of her performance of her religious responsibilities as proof that she could be fired for the wrong reason or without any reason at all.... This case thus lies at the center of the tension between an employerʹs right to freedom of religion and an employeeʹs right not to be unlawfully discriminated against. The ministerial exception, as we understand it to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, resolves that tension in this case against Fratello and in favor of the Archdiocese, the Church, and the School.

New York Law Journal, reporting on the decision, says plaintiff will seek en banc review.

Hebrew Teacher's ADA Suit Barred By Ministerial Exception Doctrine

Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., (ED WI, May 30, 2017), a Wisconsin federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a suit by a teacher in a Jewish Day School who claims she was fired in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  The court concluded that plaintiff, who taught Hebrew to second and third graders, and had taught an integrated Hebrew-Jewish Studies curriculum, qualifies as a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception doctrine.  In rejecting her argument that her teaching of Hebrew was cultural, not religious, the court nevertheless commented that "a religious organization could abuse this deference by claiming that certain apparently secular activities are actually religious."

Teacher's Defamation Verdict Against Archdiocese Upheld

In Gallagher v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 2017 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 148 (PA Com. Pl., April 11, 2017), a Pennsylvania Common pleas court upheld a $508,000 jury verdict in a defamation suit by a 6th grade "lay teacher" in a Catholic school against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.  The school administration had accused plaintiff Cindy Gallagher of unethical teaching practices in connection with a study guide she compiled to prepare her students for a standardized test. The court held that it was not required to defer to religious authorities because "the cheating incident was not conceived as an ecclesiastical matter only appropriate for religious resolution." It also concluded that the "ministerial exception" doctrine does not apply because Gallagher was a lay teacher, saying in part:

labeling Appellee as a minister of the church based on her role in prayer with her students and her participation in obtaining mandatory religious credits to be a teacher at the school would expand the scope of the ministerial exception beyond its intended purpose.

Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply To Exercise Science Teacher At Christian University

In Richardson v. Northwest Christian University, (D OR, March 16, 2017), an unmarried professor of exercise science at a Christian university sued for discrimination after she was fired because she became pregnant out of wedlock and refused to either marry her child's father or stop living with him.  The school contended that the professor's action were inconsistent with its policy that faculty are to live their lives in conformity with Biblical Christianity.  The court held that the "ministerial exception" doctrine does not require it to dismiss the lawsuit, saying in part:

[Plaintiff] was expected to integrate her Christianity into her teaching and demonstrate a maturing Christian faith. But any religious function was wholly secondary to her secular role: she was not tasked with performing any religious instruction and she was charged with no religious duties such as taking students to chapel or leading them in prayer. If plaintiff was a minister, it is hard to see how any teacher at a religious school would fall outside the exception.

The court granted plaintiff summary judgment on her marital status discrimination claim under Oregon law. It allowed her to move to trial on her claims of pregnancy discrimination and breach of contract.

Catholic High School Loses Ministerial Exception Defense In Suit By Former Teacher

Monrovia Patch reports that a California state trial court has rejected the ministerial exception defense raised by a Glendora, California Catholic high school in a suit by a former teacher who was fired for marrying his same-sex partner shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision.  The court ruled that Kenneth Bencomo can move ahead with his wrongful termination, Labor Code and breach of contract claims against St. Lucy's Priority High School.  The court ruled that while the high school is a religious institution, Bencomo produced substantial evidence that that did not teach any religious classes.  He taught only studio art, dance, English and yearbook and magazine courses. The school did not require that religion be part of his classes, and he never led prayers or referenced Catholic doctrine.

No 1st Amendment Bar To Suit Over Board Seats In Two Sikh Dharma Entities

In Puri v. Khalsa, (9th Cir., Jan. 6, 2017), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, vacating the district court's dismissal, held that neither the ministerial exception doctrine nor the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a suit by the widow and children of the deceased spiritual leader of the Sikh Dharma faith alleging they are being frozen out of board positions in two nonprofit Sikh Dharma entities. In rejecting application of the ministerial exception doctrine, the court said in part:

[T]he pleadings do not allege the board members have any ecclesiastical duties or privileges. In assessing the responsibilities attendant to the board positions, it is relevant that the entities involved are not themselves churches, but rather corporate parents of a church. SSSC’s primary responsibility appears to be holding title to church property, and UI, in addition to being ... the direct corporate parent of the Sikh Dharma church – owns and controls a portfolio of for-profit and nonprofit corporations, including a major security contractor and a prominent tea manufacturer. Although the complaint alleges the board members have “fiduciary duties to UI and SSSC to hold assets in trust for the benefit of the Sikh Dharma community,” it is not clear on the face of the complaint that these duties are “religious” or “reflect[] a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.”

Turning to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the court said:

Nothing in the character of th[e] defense will require a jury to evaluate religious doctrine or the ‘reasonableness’ of the religious practices followed . . . Under these circumstances, the availability of the neutral-principles approach obviates the need for ecclesiastical abstention.

Catholic Principal's Suit Dismissed On Ministerial Exception Ground

In Ginalski v. Diocese of Gary, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168014 (ND IN, Dec. 5, 2016), an Indiana federal magistrate judge dismissed employment discrimination claims brought by a former principal of a Catholic high school whose contract was not renewed. The principal contended that she was fired because of her sex, age and disability.  The court held that the ministerial exception requires dismissal of her claims, saying:

requiring Andrean High School to reinstate Ginalski as principal or by punishing it for not renewing her contract would violate Andrean High School's freedom under the Religion Clauses to select its own ministers.

Cert Denied In Ministerial Exception Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Melhorn v. Baltimore-Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church, (Docket No. 16-245, cert. denied 10/31/2016) (Order List.) In the case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in an unreported opinion (set out in Appendix 1 to the Petition for Certiorari), applied the ministerial exception doctrine to bar a wrongful discharge suit by a pastor who was fired after refusing to accept the $600,000-plus portion of a bequest for upkeep of a cemetery that the church no longer owned.

First Grade Teacher's Age Discrimination Suit Dismissed Under Ministerial Exception

In Ciurelo v. St. Regis Parish, (ED MI, Oct. 7, 2016), a Michigan federal district court held that federal (ADEA) and state (ELCRA) age discrimination claims brought by a former 1st grade teacher in a Catholic school are barred by the ministerial exception doctrine. The teacher's contract was not renewed after eight years of teaching. Finding that plaintiff was the type of employee to whom the doctrine applies, the court said in part:

While this Court has considered all the factors identified in the Hosanna-Tabor majority opinion, it concludes that the paramount factor of religious function ... provides the decisional pathway here. Plaintiff was unquestionably engaged in two important religious functions on a daily basis: religious teaching for 20 to 30 minutes and leading the morning prayers. These activities are the hallmark of religious exercises through which religious communities transmit their received wisdom and heritage to the next generation of believers. The First Amendment provides a shield to the church and her officials against a secular government’s incursion by way of its employment-law litigation process, which may undermine the freedom to appoint those entrusted with such matters of faith.

Court Refuses To Invoke Ministerial Exception Doctrine To Dismiss Discrimination Suit At Early Stage

In Yin v. Columbia International University, (D SC, Sept. 26, 2016), a South Carolina federal district court, agreeing with a magistrate's recommendation, rejected defendant's invocation of the ministerial exception doctrine as a basis for dismissing for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) a Title VII and the Equal Pay Act lawsuit.  Plaintiff, a female Asian-American Ph.D., was terminated from her faculty position at CIU, a multi-denominational Christian college. She claimed racial, gender and national origin discrimination as well as retaliation. The college claimed that plaintiff (who taught in the school's education program) was required to further the spiritual and pastoral mission of the University including teaching the gospel, spreading the Christian faith, and participating in worship.  However the court held since plaintiff's complaint does not reflect these duties, it is too early in the proceedings to dismiss on ministerial exception grounds.

Interlocutory Appeal Unavailable In Ministerial Exception Case

In Trinity Christian School v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2256 (CT Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2016), a Connecticut trial court dismissed an interlocutory appeal from a decision of the state Commission on Human Rights.  In the case, a Commission referee refused to dismiss a pregnancy discrimination claim brought by an employee against Trinity Christian School.  The school appealed claiming that it is immune from liability under Connecticut's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The court held however that any defense the school has is under the ministerial exception doctrine, which is an affirmative defense to liability.  Therefore an interlocutory appeal is not available. The court rejected the school's argument that merely requiring it to defend the case with an affirmative defense would impose a burden on religious belief.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Minister's Suit Saying Ministerial Exception Is Not A Jurisdictional Bar

In McKnight v. Old Ship of Zion Missionary Baptist Church, 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2065 (CT Super., July 28, 2016), a Connecticut appellate court held that it is bound by language in a footnote of the U.S. Supreme Court's Hosanna-Tabor decision that "the [ministerial] exception operates as an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim, not a jurisdictional bar."  The Connecticut court thus refused to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction a suit by a minister for lost wages and benefits against the church that previously employed him.