Supreme Court Review Sought in Ministerial Exception Case

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Faith Bible Chapel International v. Tucker, (cert. filed 2/3/2023).  In the case, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 6-4, denied en banc review of a panel decision which held that interlocutory appeals from the denial of a ministerial exception defense are not permitted. (See prior posting.) In the case, a former high school teacher and administrator/ chaplain contends that he was fired for opposing alleged racial discrimination by a Christian school. The petition for review frames the Questions Presented in part as follows:

Whether the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception” should be understood as an immunity from judicial interference in church employment decisions falling within the exception, or instead as a mere defense against liability. 

WORLD reports on the petition.  Becket Law has additional background on the case.

"Ministerial Exception" Doctrine Applies to Claims by Kosher Wine Supervisor

In Markel v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, (CD CA, Jan. 3, 2023), a California federal district court held that the "ministerial exception" doctrine bars claims rooted in the California Labor Code brought against a synagogue organization by a mashgiach (kosher food supervisor) formerly employed by it. The court found that the Orthodox Union meets the requirements for a religious organization and that Markel should be categorized as a "minister", saying in part:

[T]he OU designated Markel as a head mashgiach at the Delano winery, and he was tasked with overseeing the kosher production of wine. Although a mashgiach may not be a "minister in the usual sense of the term—[he] was not a pastor or deacon, did not lead a congregation, and did not regularly conduct religious services"—Markel's title and assigned duties as mashgiach satisfy the first Hosanna-Tabor factor.... As mashgiach, Markel was integral to the koshering of wine for use by Orthodox Jews and the greater Jewish community, and his efforts were necessary in fulfilling an important function of the Jewish faith.

Second, Markel's position "reflected a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning." ...

Third, Markel's duties as a head mashgiach reflected the religious mission of the OU and the importance of supervising the kosher production of wine for the Orthodox Jewish faith.

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.

10th Circuit Denies En Banc Review in Ministerial Exception Case

In Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International, (10th Cir., Nov. 15, 2022), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by a vote of 6-4, denied en banc review of a panel decision which held that interlocutory appeals from the denial of a ministerial exception defense are not permitted. In the case, a former high school teacher and administrator/ chaplain contends that he was fired for opposing alleged racial discrimination by a Christian school. Judge Ebel, joined by Judge McHugh, filed an opinion concurring in the denial of review, saying in part:

Our panel decision, then, is consistent with well-established lines of Supreme Court precedent. Our decision also does not create any circuit split. It appears that no other circuit has addressed the specific question presented here—whether a religious employer is entitled to an immediate appeal under Cohen from a district court’s interlocutory ruling denying the employer summary judgment on its affirmative ministerial exception defense because there are genuinely disputed issues of material fact as to whether the employee qualifies as a minister.

Judge Bacharach, joined by Judges Tymkovich and Eid, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

This appeal involves a religious body’s invocation of the collateral-order doctrine to appeal the denial of summary judgment on the ministerial exception. The panel majority rejected that effort, treating the ministerial exception like other affirmative defenses reviewed by appellate courts after final judgment. 

In my view, that treatment reflects a fundamental misconception of the ministerial exception. Though most defenses protect only against liability, the ministerial exception protects a religious body from the suit itself. Without that protection, religious bodies will inevitably incur protracted litigation over matters of religion. The stakes are exceptionally important for religious bodies deciding whom to hire or fire.

Americans United issued a press release announcing the decision.

School Counselor's Employment Agreement Sufficient To Invoke Ministerial Exception Doctrine

In Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School, Inc., (SD IN Sept. 30, 2022), an Indiana federal district court invoked the ministerial exception doctrine to dismiss a suit brought by Michelle Fitzgerald, a Catholic high school guidance counselor who was fired after the school and the church that oversaw it learned that she was in a same-sex marriage. The court said in part:

Fitzgerald argues that Roncalli never entrusted her with religious teaching duties by raising numerous genuine factual disputes over what exactly she did at the school. She contends the record demonstrates that Roncalli entrusted her in description alone. She never engaged in religious teaching, nor did Roncalli expect her to....

[However,] Fitzgerald's employment agreement and Roncalli's description of Fitzgerald's expected duties are, alone, sufficient to resolve this case because those documents make clear that Roncalli entrusted Fitzgerald to teach the Catholic faith and carry out Roncalli's religious mission....

All this indicates Roncalli entrusted guidance counselors like Fitzgerald to convey the Church's message in addition to their secular duties. And under Seventh Circuit precedent, Fitzgerald's non-performance of these entrusted duties makes her "an underperforming minister" who may be removed pursuant to the ministerial exception.

Washington Examiner reports on the decision.

7th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Doctrine Applies To State Tort Claims

In Starkey v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (7th Cir., July 28, 2022), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the the Co-Director of Guidance at a Catholic high school was a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception doctrine. It went on to hold that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to state tort claims against the Archdiocese for Interference with Contractual Relationship and Intentional Interference with Employment Relationship. In the case, 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. Starkey sued both the school and the Archdiocese. Summarizing its holding, the court said in part:

Starkey was a minister because she was entrusted with communicating the Catholic faith to the school’s students and guiding the school’s religious mission. The ministerial exception bars all her claims, federal and state.

Becket issued a press release discussing the decision.

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Requires Dismissal Of Race and National Origin Discrimination Claim

In Chris v. Kang, (D OR, July 26, 2022), an Oregon federal district court dismissed a claim of race and national origin discrimination brought by plaintiff who was not hired as the Worship Pastor of Village Baptist Church.  Plaintiff claimed he was not hired because he was not a native English speaker, was said to be unfamiliar with American culture and to speak with an accent. The court held that the ministerial exception doctrine applies to both Title VII and state employment discrimination claims, insulating from judicial review the church's decisions on who should be its ministers.

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.]

10th Circuit: No Interlocutory Appeal Of Ministerial Exception Determination

 In Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International, (10th Cir., June 7, 2022), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that interlocutory appeals from the denial of a ministerial exception defense are not permitted.  The 50-page majority opinion said in part:

the “ministerial exception” is an affirmative defense to employment discrimination claims, rather than a jurisdictional limitation on the authority of courts to hear such claims....

In the case, a former high school teacher and administrator/ chaplain contends that he was fired for opposing alleged racial discrimination by a Christian school.

Judge Bacharach filed a 44-page dissent, saying in part:

The ministerial exception also advances values of a high order, protecting religious bodies from burdensome litigation over religious doctrine and preserving the structural separation of church and state. These values compel courts to resolve application of the ministerial exception at an early stage of the litigation.

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.)

Cert. Denied In Ministerial Exception Case, With 4 Justices Expressing Concerns

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Gordon College v. DeWeese-Boyd, (Docket No. 21-145, certiorari denied 2/28/2022) (Order List).  In the case, 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. (See prior posting.) Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barrett, filed an opinion (full text) concurring in the denial of certiorari, but expressing concern with the lower court's decision, saying in part:

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that this “ministerial exception” did not apply to a professor at a religious college who “did not teach religion or religious texts,” but who was still expected to “integrate her Christian faith into her teaching and scholarship.” ...  Although the state court’s understanding of religious education is troubling, I concur in the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari because the preliminary posture of the litigation would complicate our review. But in an appropriate future case, this Court may be required to resolve this important question of religious liberty....

What many faiths conceive of as “religious education” includes much more than instruction in explicitly religious doctrine or theology.... [M]any religious schools ask their teachers to “show students how to view the world through a faith-based lens,” even when teaching nominally secular subjects.

Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply To Liberty University Art Teacher

In Palmer v. Liberty University, Inc., (WD VA, Dec. 1, 2021), a Virginia federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply to prevent an age discrimination suit by an art professor at Liberty University whose contract was not renewed. Concluding that the teacher is not a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception, the court said in part:

Palmer's educational background is largely secular.... At the core of Palmer's daily responsibilities was teaching art classes on subjects like drawing and sculpture. For a brief time in the mid-1990s, she also taught humanities courses.... She concedes that she began each class with a short prayer or psalm reading, but she did not otherwise integrate Christian lessons into her classes....  Occasionally, her art lessons would reflect Biblical stories or lessons...., but this was not, apparently, the norm....

Outside of class, Palmer did not significantly participate in her students' spiritual lives. She did not bring her students to church services.... She occasionally counseled them on personal matters outside the immediate scope of her teaching duties, and would have periodic conversations about spirituality with students, but she never led them in Bible study, guided them in scripture, or gave them sermons.

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.] 

 

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."

Ministerial Exception Doctrine Requires Dismissal Of Priest's Interference With Contract Claim

In Tracy v. O'Bell, (PA Super., Nov. 5, 2021), a Pennsylvania state appellate court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a tortious interference with contract suit by Father Tracy, a Catholic priest, against three influential lay members of the Catholic parish which employed Tracy.  Tracy alleges that these members made false and defamatory statements to parish members and to the bishop in order to have him removed from his position after he discovered unexplained amounts of parish cash in a file cabinet under defendants' control. The court said in part:

[T]he First Amendment provides special protection to communications regarding the selection and retention of religious ministers.... [O]ur result does not insulate lay people from liability from defamatory statements against clergy. Nor do we deprive clergy of the ability to seek to redress all civil wrongs committed against them by lay people. We have no occasion to address those questions. Appellant’s complaint is very specific—he alleges that Appellees, through their communications with the local bishop and others, sought and successfully procured Appellant’s removal from ministry. Our holding is correspondingly narrow—Appellant’s allegations are inextricably intertwined with his removal from ministry, and therefore the trial court properly sustained Appellees’ preliminary objection based on the ministerial exception. 

Catholic High School Liable Under Title VII For Firing Gay Teacher

In Billard v. Charlotte Catholic High School, (WD NC, Sept. 3, 2021), a North Carolina federal district court held that a Catholic high school is liable under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for firing a substitute drama teacher after he entered a gay marriage and stated on Facebook his disagreement with Catholic teaching on marriage. The court said in part:

Under Bostock, this Court finds that Plaintiff has raised a valid Title VII sex discrimination claim.... Defendants cannot escape Title VII liability by recharacterizing Plaintiff’s announcement of his engagement as “advocacy.” If Plaintiff were a woman who posted on Facebook that she was getting married to her husband, Defendants would not have interpreted her announcement as “advocacy” for or against the Catholic Church. Plaintiff’s engagement was only considered advocacy because of his sex.

The court went on to reject several defenses that were raised: the religious organization exemption in Title VII; the ministerial exception doctrine; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and 1st Amendment freedom of association.

Bishop's Suit for Indemnification Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Kawimbe v. The African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., (ND GA, Aug. 27, 2028), a Georgia federal district court dismissed a suit by the Bishop of a church district covering part of South Africa.  The bishop's suit sought indemnification from the Church (a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation) for his successful defense before a church tribunal of charges bought against him by a minister in South Africa. The court held that the suit is not precluded by the ministerial exception doctrine because "the Church’s decision to deny Kawimbe indemnification does not implicate its right to select its ministers." The court concluded however that the suit should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, saying in part:

Under Pennsylvania law, if a representative of a non-profit corporation succeeds on the merits in an action or proceeding brought against him “by reason of” his representative status, the non-profit corporation must indemnify him...

To determine whether Kawimbe is or was a representative of the Church, the Court would be required to scrutinize “the composition of [the Church and AMEC’s] hierarchy,” including the nature of Kawimbe’s role as a bishop, which are matters of “core ecclesiastical concern.”...

[T]o determine whether the internal proceeding was brought “by reason of” Kawimbe’s role as a representative of the Church, the Court would have to consider the responsibilities and powers given to Kawimbe in his role as bishop and whether the accusations against him involved those responsibilities and powers. This inquiry would necessarily entangle the Court in matters of church governance. 

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.

Cert. Filed In Dispute Over Ministerial Exception's Applicability To Faculty Member

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Gordon College v. DeWeese-Boyd, (cert. filed 8/2/2021). In the case, 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. The court concluded that the faculty member was not a ministerial employee. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Dispute Over Church Vote On Hiring Pastor May Move Ahead

In Howard v. Heritage Fellowship, (VA Cir. Ct., June 30, 2021), a Virginia state trial court refused to dismiss a suit by five church members challenging the membership vote on employment of a senior pastor.  The court said in part:

... Plaintiffs bring suit in concern of whether "the Deacons Board's decision to finalize the membership roll after the results of the 2018 election was in compliance with Bylaws, Constitution and other applicable policies."... [N]one of this request requires the Court to delve into a religious thicket by reviewing religious principles of membership.... [T]here is no allegation ... of a doctrinal dispute between two factions, HFC also lacks an internal tribunal to decide conflicts.... Since HFC lacks internal tribunals to rule on such matters, civil court action is necessary to resolve this dispute.

The court also concluded that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply, despite the fact that the dispute revolves around selection of the church's minister, saying in part:

Although the language of the ministerial exception does not explicitly state it cannot be applied to other scenarios, that silence does not mean it may extend to election issues. Here, Plaintiffs only ask for democratic, neutral principles of law to be enforced. The Court is not asked to determine whether Reverend Sullivan would make a good Pastor, or if he may stay within said position.