NJ Anti-Discrimination Law Creates Defense for Catholic School That Requires Teachers to Follow Catholic Teachings

 In Cristello v. St. Theresa School, (NJ Sup. Ct., Aug. 14, 2023), the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed a suit against a Catholic school which had fired an art teacher/ toddler room caregiver who was unmarried and become pregnant.  The teacher's employment agreement required her to abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church and prohibited employees from engaging in premarital sex. The teacher sued under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) alleging pregnancy and marital status discrimination.  The court's majority opinion held that the LAD provision creating an exception for religious organizations following the tenets of its religion in establishing employment criteria gives the school an affirmative defense. The majority said in part:

Determining whether a religious employer’s employment action was based exclusively on the tenets of its religion requires application of only neutral principles of law and does not impermissibly entangle the courts in ecclesiastical matters.

Justice Pierre-Louis filed a concurring opinion taking the position that the religious tenet provision does not create an affirmative defense, but instead shifts to plaintiff the requirement to show that the purported reason for the firing was a pretext for prohibited discrimination. However here plaintiff did not show that this was a pretext.

Washington Examiner reports on the decision.

Proposed Regulations Under Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Include Abortion as Pregnancy Related Condition

Yesterday the EEOC filed for publication in the Federal Register Proposed Rules (full text) under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The Act requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for employees and applicants arising out of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship on the operation of the business. "Related medical conditions" are defined by the proposed regulations as including "termination of pregnancy, including via miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion." Anti-abortion advocacy organizations say the proposed regulations will force employers to violate their religious beliefs. (See ADF press release.)

EEOC Commissioner, In Unusual Procedure, Targets Abortion Travel Benefits By Employers

 Bloomberg Law reported yesterday:

Republican EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas is deploying a rarely used agency procedure to silently initiate targeted discrimination probes against at least three companies providing their employees with abortion travel benefits....

The investigations triggered by Commissioner Charges are based on claims by Lucas that by favoring employees seeking abortions and not furnishing comparable benefits to pregnant workers or disabled workers, employers are violating the pregnancy discrimination ban in Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bloomberg Law also reports that the EEOC's former general counsel, even though she no longer held a position with the agency after being fired by the Biden administration, last month sent letters to a number of employers warning them of the possibility of such actions by the EEOC.

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

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

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

Bridgewater Courier News reports on the decision.

Suit Filed Against Pharmacies That Refused To Fill Emergency Contraceptive Prescription

A suit was filed earlier this week in a Minnesota state trial court against two pharmacies and an individual pharmacist by a woman who was turned down at both pharmacies when she attempted to full a prescription  for ella-- a morning-after emergency contraceptive. The suit contends that defendants discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of sex, in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Act defines "sex" as including pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions. The complaint (full text) in Anderson v. Grand St. Paul CVS, LLC,(MN Dist. Ct., filed 12/9/2019) sets out the facts of plaintiff's discrimination claim:

[Anderson] had her doctor send [her prescription] to the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy. She acted quickly because any delay in obtaining emergency contraception increases the risk of pregnancy. The pharmacist on duty told her that he would be unable to fill her prescription because of his “beliefs.” He also warned her against trying Shopko, another pharmacy in the surrounding area. The pharmacist did not provide Anderson with any information about how she could get her prescription filled.

Anderson next tried a CVS pharmacy in Aitkin, Minnesota, a town roughly 20 miles away. The CVS pharmacist also indicated that she could not fill the prescription. The pharmacist then claimed that she called a pharmacist at the Walgreens in Brainerd Minnesota, who told her that they could not fill the prescription either. Anderson later confirmed with that Walgreens pharmacist that they did speak with a pharmacist from CVS, but that they had told the CVS pharmacist that Walgreens could fill the prescription.

Though Anderson finally found a pharmacy that was willing to fill her prescription, it was over fifty miles from her home. Meanwhile, a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota.  Given the increased risk of pregnancy from any delay in taking emergency contraception, Anderson drove over 100 miles round trip in the snowstorm in order to fill her prescription....

 NBC News reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Teacher May Sue Catholic School For Pregnancy Discrimination

In Crisitello v. St. Theresa School, (NJ App., July 24, 2018), a New Jersey state appellate court reversed a trial court's dismissal of a discrimination suit brought against a Catholic parochial school by a former preschool lay teacher who had been fired for engaging in premarital sex. The teacher was terminated for violating the Church's ethical standards when it was found that she was pregnant and unmarried. Plaintiff sued under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, claiming pregnancy discrimination. The court said in part:

To be clear, in this case, plaintiff does not raise any challenge to defendant's religious doctrines or its right to specify a code of conduct for its employees based on that doctrine. Rather, she seeks an adjudication of her claim that she has been singled out for application of that doctrine as a pretext for impermissible discriminatory reasons. If proven, such conduct by defendant would be a violation of secular law protecting against discrimination....

In a case involving the firing of a pregnant employee, evidence of how male employees were treated is particularly useful in determining whether unmarried pregnant women are treated differently. Absent evidence that men are treated the same way as women who are terminated for engaging in premarital sex, a religious institution violates LAD because if "'women can become pregnant [and] men cannot,' it punishes only women for sexual relations because those relations are revealed through pregnancy." 

Factual Questions Remain On Ecclesiastical Abstention and Ministerial Exception

In Kelley v. Decatur Baptist Church, (ND AL, May 1, 2018), an Alabama federal magistrate judge refused to dismiss a Title VII pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by a maintenance and child care employee of a church.  The court held that factual questions exist as to whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies. Plaintiff claims she was fired because she was pregnant.  Defendant contends she was fired because she engaged in sexual conduct outside of marriage in violation of Biblical standards.  The court also held that factual questions exist as to whether the ministerial exception doctrine applies.  Plaintiff challenged defendant's characterization of her as a minister charged with equipping, training, and evangelizing the next  generation according to biblical standards and morals.

2nd Circuit: Pregnancy Discrimination Claim Against Synagogue Can Proceed

In Shultz v. Congregation Shearith Israel of the City of New York, (2d Cir., Aug. 10, 2017), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that giving an employee a notice of termination of employment can be an "adverse employment action" under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act even though the notice is rescinded before the date that the firing becomes effective.  The court thus allowed a long-time Program Director for a New York synagogue to move ahead with her claim that she was given a termination notice because of disapproval of the fact that she was pregnant at the time of her recent marriage.  The court also allowed her to move ahead with her claim under the Family Medical Leave Act. [Thanks to Rabbi Michael Simon for the lead.]