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.

Ministerial Exception Leads To Dismissal Of Part of Nuns' Sexual Harassment Claims

In Brandenburg v. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, (SD NY, June 1, 2021), two nuns who formerly worked at a Greek Orthodox monastery sued the Archdiocese and several clergy members for sexual harassment by Father Makris at the monastery. One of the plaintiffs also sued over the conduct of Father Makris when he was Dean of Students at the religious college she attended in Massachusetts. When the student reported a sexual assault by a male student, Makris made her marry her attacker to cure the assault.

Invoking the ministerial exception doctrine, the court dismissed plaintiffs' sex discrimination claims and their retaliation claims to the extent they are based on tangible employment action (hiring, firing, job assignments, promotion, compensation).  However the court held that the claims for constructive discharge survive, as do the claims for retaliation to the extent they are based on harassment and not a tangible employment action. Some of plaintiffs' defamation claims also survived the motion to dismiss.

Suspended Priest's Age Discrimination Claim Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In In re Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso, (TX App., May 17, 2021), a Texas appellate court by a vote of 2-1 held that under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, Texas civil courts lack jurisdiction over an age discrimination and fraud case brought by a Catholic priest against his diocese.  The suit was brought when the diocese reduced payments being made to the priest who was placed on administrative leave after criminal allegations were lodged against him. The majority said in part:

The Diocese contends in this mandamus that a civil court cannot adjudicate whether Bishop Seitz exercised his discretion to reduce Olivas’s payment of decent support in a reasonable manner without inextricably involving itself in the governance of the Catholic Church. We agree and conclude that for both of the asserted claims in this case, that the fact finder would have to judge the stated rationale of Bishop Seitz’s reduction of payments which is grounded under the church’s canon law.

Chief Justice Rodriguez dissented on several grounds. He said in part:

I believe that employment discrimination laws such as the age discrimination provision of Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ... may be constitutionally enforced against religious entity employers, provided that the employee bringing the claim is not one of the defendant’s “ministers.”...

[T]he wrinkle in this case is that while Olivas retains the title of priest, he is by the Church’s own assessment a priest in name only. Seitz admitted that Olivas does not and cannot perform any ministerial duties for the Diocese due to Olivas’ suspension of faculties.

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Ministerial Exception Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International.  In the case, a Colorado federal district court refused to dismiss on the pleadings a ministerial exception case. At issue is whether a science teacher and chaplain/ director of student life at Faith Christian Academy is a "minister" for purposes of the exception.  Plaintiff  was fired after he organized a controversial chapel service titled "Race and Faith." Reuters has additional background on the oral arguments.

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.

Christian Student Group Wins Suit Seeking To Limit Its Leadership To Believers

In Intervarsity Christian Fellowship/USA v. Board of Governors of Wayne State University, (ED MI, April 5, 2021), a Michigan federal district court held that Wayne State University violated the free exercise, free speech, association and assembly rights of a Christian student organization (IVCF) when the University suspended the group's status as a Recognized Student Organization.  The University took this action because IVCF violated the school's non-discrimination policy by insisting that its leaders agree with IVCF's  “Doctrine and Purpose Statements,” “exemplify Christ-like character, conduct and leadership,” and describe their Christian beliefs. In an 83-page opinion, the court said in part:

The First Amendment provides religious organizations the right to select their own ministers, and, under the First Amendment and §1983, organizations can sue the government for violating that right....

Plaintiffs also provide uncontradicted evidence that student leaders, called “Christian leaders,” qualify as ministers under the First Amendment....  In essence, Plaintiffs’ student leaders participate in proselytizing efforts and are Plaintiffs’ chosen spiritual resource for students at Wayne State....

No religious group can constitutionally be made an outsider, excluded from equal access to public or university life, simply because it insists on religious leaders who believe in its cause...

Defendants have barred Plaintiffs from selecting leaders that share its Christian views while allowing other groups to engage in similar form of leadership selection. This divergent treatment cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny....

The court awarded an injunction and nominal damages. Detroit News reports on the decision.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Says Social Work Prof Not Covered By The Ministerial Exception

In DeWeese-Boyd v. Gordon College, (MA Sup. Ct., March 5, 2021), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the ministerial exception does not apply in a suit by an associate professor of social work at a private Christian liberal arts college who claims her promotion to full professor was denied because of her vocal opposition to the school's policies on LGBTQ individuals. In allowing plaintiff to move ahead with her discrimination, retaliation and breach of contract claims, the court said in part:

We conclude that Gordon College (Gordon) is a religious institution, but that the plaintiff, Margaret DeWeese-Boyd, is not a ministerial employee..... [S]he did not teach religion or religious texts, lead her students in prayer, take students to chapel services or other religious services, deliver sermons at chapel services, or select liturgy, all of which have been important ... factors in the Supreme Court's functional analysis. The most difficult issue for us is how to evaluate her responsibility to integrate her Christian faith into her teaching and scholarship as a professor of social work.

The Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the significance of the responsibility to integrate religious faith into instruction and scholarship that would otherwise not be considered ministerial. If this integration responsibility is sufficient to render a teacher a minister within the meaning of the exception, the ministerial exception would be significantly expanded.... In fact, Gordon has recently attempted to describe all of its faculty, and even all of its employees, as ministers, over the objection of the faculty itself. It is our understanding that the ministerial exception defined by the Supreme Court is more circumscribed.

Salem News reports on the decision.

Washington Supreme Court Rejects Facial Challenge To Discrimination Exemption for Non-Profits

In Woods v. Seattle's Union Gospel Mission, (WA Sup. Ct., March 4, 2021), the state of Washington's Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to an exemption in the state's anti-discrimination law for religious and other non-profit corporations. Plaintiff was denied employment by a Christian legal aid program for the homeless because he was in a same-sex relationship. The majority held that because reasonable grounds exist to distinguish non-profit corporations from others, the exemption does not, on its face, violate Article I, §12 of the state constitution that prohibits any law granting privileges or immunities which are not equally available to all. The majority concluded, however, that the law may be unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff in this case.  It held that courts should look to federal case law on the ministerial exception doctrine to determine this:

Here, Woods seeks employment as a lawyer with SUGM. SUGM has rejected his application because it maintains that all employees’ first duty is to minister. In order to balance Woods’ fundamental rights with the religious protections guaranteed to SUGM, we hold that article I, section 12 is not offended if WLAD’s exception for religious organizations is applied concerning the claims of a “minister” as defined by Our Lady of Guadalupe and Hosanna-Tabor.

Justice Yu filed a concurring opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Gonzalez. Justice Stephens filed an opinion dissenting in part, joined by Justice Fairhurst.

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.

Ministerial Exception Applies To Whistleblower Act Claim

In Rehfield v. Diocese of Joliet, (IL Sup. Ct., Feb. 4, 2021), the Illinois Supreme Court held that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to require dismissal of a suit alleging retaliatory discharge in violation of the state's Whistleblower Act. In the suit, the principal of a Catholic elementary school alleged that her employment was terminated because she reported a parent's threatening conduct to police. After discussing prior Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedent, the court said:

In light of the consistent body of authority discussed above, we decline to hold that plaintiff’s whistleblower claim is exempt from application of the ministerial exception. We note, however, that our holding is confined to the claim at issue in this case. We express no opinion on whether the exception bars a suit filed in any case other than the one before us.

The court also concluded that the principal was a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception, saying in part: 

although her formal title (“lay principal”) does not necessarily indicate a religious role, it is apparent from the record that plaintiff’s job duties entailed numerous religious functions in furtherance of the school’s Catholic mission.

DOL Says That Ministerial Exception Allows Non-Compliance With FLSA For Religious Teachers

The U.S. Department of Labor has released a January 8, 2021, Wage and Hour Opinion Letter (full text) concluding that the "ministerial exception" doctrine can create an exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act's requirements. The letter concludes that a private religious day care and pre-school may pay its teachers on a salary basis that would not otherwise conform to the wage-and-hour requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act if the teachers qualify as "ministers" for purposes of the ministerial exception. [Thanks to Heather Kimmel for the lead.]

Ministerial Exception Applies To Title IX Hostile Work Environment Claims

In Koenke v. Saint Joseph's University, (ED PA, Jan. 8, 2021), a woman employed by a Catholic university sued under Title IX claiming sexual orientation discrimination.  The court held that the Supreme Court's Bostock decision should be read to apply to sexual orientation discrimination under Title IX as well as under Title VII. All the parties agreed that plaintiff's position as Assistant Director for Music and Worship was a "ministerial" position for purposes of the ministerial exception. However plaintiff claimed that the ministerial exception does not apply to non-tangible employment discrimination claims such as hostile work environment.  The court disagreed, saying in part:

[H]ostile work environment claims, particularly those brought pursuant to Title VII or Title IX, clearly fall within the scope of cases banned by the ministerial exception.... The Supreme Court has not cabined the ministerial exception to tangible or intangible employment actions, and it is not for this Court to create such an exception to binding precedent.

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.]

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Leads To Dismissal of Music Director's Discrimination Suit

In Menard v. Archdiocese of Boston, (MA App., July 29. 2020), a Massachusetts state appellate court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a sex and age discrimination suit against the the Archdiocese.  In the suit, a church's director of music ministries claimed that the church's pastor subjected her to harassment and that she was retaliated against when she notified the Archdiocese. The court said in part:

In this case, Menard's job duties place her squarely within the ministerial exception. As implied by her title, director of music ministries, Menard's role was a substantive one. She selected and played music at all parish events, taught and conducted multiple choirs, trained the church's cantors, and organized the cantors' schedule for Mass. Far more than the rote playing of an instrument, ... Menard's job required her to thoughtfully select the music for each event and train others to perform it. 

Supreme Court Interprets "Ministerial Exception" To Employment Discrimination Claims Broadly

In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, (Sup. Ct., July 8, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision held that two elementary school teachers in separate Catholic schools, are covered by the "ministerial exception" so that they cannot sue for employment discrimination. Justice Alito's majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh deferred in significant part to churches' own definitions of their employees:

In a country with the religious diversity of the United States, judges cannot be expected to have a complete understanding and appreciation of the role played by every person who performs a particular role in every religious tradition. A religious institution’s explanation of the role of such employees in the life of the religion in question is important. 

Comparing the teachers here with the one in the Supreme Court's prior ministerial exemption decision in Hosanna-Tabor, the Court said in part:

When we apply this understanding of the Religion Clauses to the cases now before us, it is apparent that Morrissey-Berru and Biel qualify for the exemption.... There is abundant record evidence that they both performed vital religious duties. Educating and forming students in the Catholic faith lay at the core of the mission of the schools where they taught, and their employment agreements and faculty handbooks specified in no uncertain terms that they were expected to help the schools carry out this mission and that their work would be evaluated to ensure that they were fulfilling that responsibility. As elementary school teachers responsible for providing instruction in all subjects, including religion, they were the members of the school staff who were entrusted most directly with the responsibility of educating their students in the faith. And not only were they obligated to provide instruction about the Catholic faith, but they were also expected to guide their students, by word and deed, toward the goal of living their lives in accordance with the faith. They prayed with their students, attended Mass with the students, and prepared the children for their participation in other religious activities.... Their titles did not include the term “minister,” and they had less formal religious training, but their core responsibilities as teachers of religion were essentially the same. And both their schools expressly saw them as playing a vital part in carrying out the mission of the church, and the schools’ definition and explanation of their roles is important.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I write separately, however, to reiterate my view that the Religion Clauses require civil courts to defer to religious organizations’ good-faith claims that a certain employee’s position is “ministerial.”

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissented, saying in part:

In foreclosing the teachers’ claims, the Court skews the facts, ignores the applicable standard of review, and collapses Hosanna-Tabor’s careful analysis into a single consideration: whether a church thinks its employees play an important religious role. Because that simplistic approach has no basis in law and strips thousands of school teachers of their legal protections, I respectfully dissent....

[T]he Court’s apparent deference here threatens to make nearly anyone whom the schools might hire “ministers” unprotected from discrimination in the hiring process. That cannot be right....

NBC News reports on the decision.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Title VII Suit Because Ministerial Exception Unclear On Facts

In Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International, (D CO, May 18, 2020), a Colorado federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII and state common law complaint brought against Faith Christian Academy. The suit was filed by Gregory Tucker who was a science teacher and chaplain/ director of student life at Faith Christian Academy.  Gregory was fired after he organized a controversial chapel service titled "Race and Faith." Defendant contends that the "ministerial exception" doctrine bars the lawsuit. The court said in part:

I find that whether Mr. Tucker was a “minister” within the meaning of the “ministerial” exception” is genuinely disputed on the evidence presented. Defendant’s position is substantially grounded in the wording of documents, most notably the extension agreement that characterized Mr. Tucker as “chaplain” and the handbook which purports to make all teachers and other full-time employees “ministers.” To be sure, those documents are relevant to the issue. But the substance of Mr. Tucker’s position turns on the totality of the facts and circumstances of his employment, and he has come forward with facts that, if believed by the jury, could rationally support the opposite conclusion.

Supreme Court Oral Arguments In Ministerial Exception Cases Live Today

At 11:00 AM today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (SCOTUSblog case page), and St. James School v. Biel (SCOTUSblog case page). In the cases, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Catholic school teacher in each of the cases was not prevented from bringing an employment discrimination lawsuit. The 9th Circuit held that they are not "ministers" for purposes of the "ministerial exception" doctrine.  The oral arguments, which will be held via teleconference may be heard on C-Span live at this link.   Los Angeles Times reports on the cases.

UPDATE: Here is the transcript of the full arguments in the cases. Reuters reports on the oral arguments.

Title VII Suit Against Church Body Can Move Ahead

In Edley-Worford v. Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church, (ED VA, Dec. 30, 2019), a Virginia federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII claim by the former Director of Inclusivity and Lay Leadership Excellence in a church organization.  Plaintiff, an African American woman, claimed she was given an unfair workload in relation to those of her Caucasian co-workers and was fired when she complained to the Board of Laity and Personnel Committee. Defendants unsuccessfully raised defenses of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the ministerial exception doctrine.