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.

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.

10th Circuit: Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law Can Apply To Wedding Website Designer

 In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (10th Cir., July 26, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the application of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act to a wedding website design company whose owner for religious reasons refuses to create websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. The Act bars refusing services because of a customer's sexual orientation and publishing any communication that indicates such discriminatory practices. The majority conceded that the law compelled speech and acted as a content-based restriction. However the majority found that it nevertheless was constitutional because it was narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest.  The majority said in part:

Here, Colorado has a compelling interest in protecting both the dignity interests of members of marginalized groups and their material interests in accessing the commercial marketplace....

To be clear, we, like the Dissent, do not question Appellants’ “sincere religious beliefs” or “good faith.”... Yet, we fail to see how Appellants’ sincerity or good faith should excuse them from CADA. Appellants’ intent has no bearing on whether, as a consequence, same-sex couples have limited access to goods or services....

The Communication Clause does not violate the Appellants’ Free Speech rights. As the district court correctly held, Colorado may prohibit speech that promotes unlawful activity, including unlawful discrimination....

Chief Judge Tymkovich filed a lengthy dissenting opinion. saying in part:

While everyone supports robust and vigorously enforced anti-discrimination laws, those laws need not and should not force a citizen to make a Hobson’s choice over matters of conscience. Colorado is rightfully interested in protecting certain classes of persons from arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. But what Colorado cannot do is turn the tables on Ms. Smith and single out her speech and religious beliefs for discriminatory treatment under the aegis of anti-discrimination laws.

 ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

European Court Says Russia Violated Convention In Refusing To Register Same-Sex Unions

In Fedotova and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, July 13, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Russia violated Article 8 (Respect For Private and Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights when it refused to register the marriage of same-sex couples. The Court said in part:

49.  ... Article 8 ... does not explicitly impose ... an obligation to formally acknowledge same-sex unions. However, it implies the need for striking a fair balance between the competing interests of same-sex couples and of the community as a whole....

54.  The Court notes that the protection of “traditional marriage” stipulated by the amendments to the Russian Constitution in 2020 ... is in principle weighty and legitimate interest, which may have positive effect in strengthening family unions. The Court, however, cannot discern any risks for traditional marriage which the formal acknowledgment of same-sex unions may involve, since it does not prevent different-sex couples from entering marriage, or enjoying the benefits which the marriage gives....

56.  ... [T]he respondent Government have a margin of appreciation to choose the most appropriate form of registration of same-sex unions taking into account its specific social and cultural context (for example, civil partnership, civil union, or civil solidarity act). In the present case they have overstepped that margin, because no legal framework capable of protecting the applicants’ relationships as same-sex couples has been available under domestic law.

According to Euronews, Russian authorities have rejected the Court's judgment, saying that the Court is meddling in the country's internal affairs. 

5th Circuit Hears Arguments From Judge Who Refuses To Officiate At Same-Sex Weddings

 Yesterday, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Umphress v. Hall. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, a Texas federal district court dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds (Umphress v. Hall,(ND TX, Nov. 10, 2020), a suit by a Texas judge who was seeking to prevent future action by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct against judges who refuse to officiatae at same-sex weddings. Bloomberg Law reports on the case.

Supreme Court Refuses Original Suit By Texas Against California

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. California, (Sup. Ct., April 26, 2021), (SCOTUSblog case page) denied the state of Texas leave to invoke the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to file a bill of complaint against the state of California. USA Today described the background:

California passed a law in 2016 prohibiting taxpayer-funded travel – such as for state employees to attend conferences – to any state that doesn’t ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Texas law allows foster-care and adoption agencies to deny same-sex couples on religious grounds.

Texas took California directly to the Supreme Court last year, asserting the travel ban was "born of religious animus" and that it violates the Constitution....

The justices had been considering whether to take the suit for months. The court did not explain its decision not to hear the case.

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, saying in part:

The practice of refusing to permit the filing of a complaint in cases that fall within our original jurisdiction is questionable, and that is especially true when, as in this case, our original jurisdictional is exclusive. As the history recounted above reveals, the Court adopted this practice without ever providing a convincing justification....

Texas raises novel constitutional claims, arguing that California’s travel ban violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U. S. Const., Art. IV, §2, cl. 1, the Commerce Clause, Art. I, §8, cl. 3, and the Equal Protection Clause, Amdt. 14, §1. I express no view regarding any of those claims, but I respectfully dissent from the Court’s refusal even to permit the filing of Texas’s complaint.

Christian Wedding Photographer Sues Over NY Public Accommodation Law

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court challenging on 1st Amendment grounds the application of New York's public accommodation law to a Christian wedding photographer.  Among other things, the law broadly prohibits sexual orientation discrimination.  The complaint (full text) in Emilee Carpenter, LLC v. James, (WD NY, filed 4/6/2021), alleges in part:

[T]he Accommodations Clause ... makes it unlawful for Emilee to treat photography requests for same-sex engagements and weddings different from photography requests for opposite-sex weddings—whether by responding to the former more slowly, by always referring the former to another photographer, or by offering any part of her services to the latter but not the former, such as posting wedding photographs or blogs for opposite-sex weddings on her website but not posting wedding photographs or blogs for same-sex weddings.

... In short, the Accommodations Clause forces Emilee to celebrate same-sex engagements or weddings and would require her to promote messages that violate her religious beliefs or require her to participate in religious ceremonies that violate her religious beliefs, something she cannot do....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Colorado Supreme Court: Same-Sex Common Law Marriages Before Obergefell Are Valid

In In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer, (CO Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2021), the Colorado Supreme Court held that a court may recognize as a common law marriage a relationship entered into by same-sex couples before the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriages. Chief Justice Boatright concurred in part. Justice Samour dissented. In In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, decided at the same time, the Colorado Supreme Court refined the test for common law marriages in Colorado.

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Colorado Ban On Discriminating Against Same-Sex Weddings

 On Monday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in 303 Creative v. Elenis. In the case, plaintiff Lorie Smith wanted to expand her business to design custom websites for couples planning weddings. However she would not provide her services for same-sex weddings.  Last year, a Colorado federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge to the application of the "communications clause" of Colorado's public accommodation law to Smith's business.  That law prohibits publication of any notice or advertisement indicating that services will be withheld on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation. (See prior posting.) KNSI News reports on the oral arguments.

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Today In Catholic Foster Care Agency Case

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In the case,  the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld against 1st Amendment challenges the City of Philadelphia's policy of refusing to contract with foster care agencies, such as Catholic Social Services, that will not place children with same-sex married couples. (See prior posting.) Links to pleadings and briefs filed in the case, as well as to commentary on the case, are at the SCOTUSblog case page. When the transcript and/or recording of oral arguments become available later today, I will post a link to them.

UPDATE: Here is the transcript of the oral arguments, and here is the audio of the arguments.

New Survey On Attitudes Toward LGBT Rights

The Public Religion Research Institute yesterday released polling results on the extent of support in the U.S. for same-sex marriage and LGBT anti-discrimination laws. The study finds that majorities of Americans favor allowing same-sex marriage, oppose allowing religiously affiliated agencies that receive taxpayer funding to refuse to accept qualified same-sex couples as foster parents, oppose religiously-based refusals to serve gays and lesbians, and favor allowing transgender individuals to serve in the armed forces. When examined by religious preference, only white evangelical Protestants had majorities at odds with the broader results.

Title VII Religious Exemption Does Not Protect Against Suit Over Sexual Orientation Discrimination

 In Starkey v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (SD IN, Oct. 21,2020), an Indiana federal district court held that a former Catholic school guidance counselor who was fired because of her same-sex marriage may bring a discrimination claim under Title VII. The court rejected the school's contention that the religious institution exemption in Title VII applies. The court said in part:

Sexual orientation is a protected class under Title VII, and the language and legislative history of Title VII indicate Congress intended that religious institutions remain subject to Title VII's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of a protected class. To be sure, this case requires a careful balancing of religious liberty and an employee's right to be free from discrimination. The proper balance is to interpret Title VII's religious exemption to allow a religious employer to make hiring decisions in favor of coreligionists without facing claims of religious discrimination, but to allow a plaintiff to bring claims of other forms of Title VII discrimination. The religious exemption does not bar Starkey's Title VII claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, retaliation, and hostile work environment....

So, the question then becomes: Does a religious reason for an employment decision bar a plaintiff's Title VII claim when the religious reason also implicates another protected class?  The exemption under Section 702 should not be read to swallow Title VII's rules. It should be narrowly construed to avoid reducing Title VII's expansive rights and protections.

 Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

Seminary May Expel Students For Entering Same-Sex Marriages

In Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary, (CD CA, Oct. 7, 2020), a California federal district court held that the Religious Organization Exemption in Title IX applies to a seminary controlled by its own board of directors rather than by an outside religious organization. Thus, while Title IX was interpreted by the court to include a ban on discrimination on the basis gender stereotypes, the exemption allowed it to expel two students because they had entered same-sex marriages. Washington Times reports on the decision.

Court Enjoins NY Ban On Adoption Agencies Discriminating Against Gay Or Unmarried Couples

In New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, (ND NY, Oct. 5, 2020), a New York federal district court, hearing a case on remand from the Second Circuit (see prior posting), issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a regulation of New York's Office of Children and Family Services. 18 NYCRR §421.3 bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status in furnishing of adoption services. The regulation was challenged by a Christian adoption agency that refuses to place children with unmarried or same-sex couples.  The court said in part:

[T]he totality of the evidence indicates that section 421.3(d), as promulgated and enforced by OCFS, is not neutral and appears to be based on some hostility towards New Hope's religious beliefs. In light of the Second Circuit's all but explicit direction, the Court finds that the totality of the evidence weighs in favor of a finding of hostility. In finding hostility, the Court relies on a number of factors that the Circuit noted in its decision.....

The Court finds that by attempting to force New Hope to say that it is in a child's best interests to be placed with an unmarried or same sex couple, despite New Hope's sincere disagreement with that statement, OCFS is attempting to compel speech. Although OCFS argues that New Hope is not compelled to speak because there is an alternative, closure is surely a harsh alternative for New Hope and, as discussed below, it is not the most narrowly tailored means of advancing the state's compelling interests....

Washington Times reports on the decision.

Cert. Denied In Appeal By Kim Davis Who Refused To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Davis v. Ermold, the case involving former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis who refused on religious grounds to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, concurred in the denial of review, but issued a four page statement critical of the Court's same-sex marriage precedent. (Order List, scroll to page 55.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Davis may be sued in her individual capacity and is not entitled to qualified immunity. (See prior posting). Justice Thomas wrote in part:

In Obergefell v. Hodges ... the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the States had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs.... The Court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often “decent and honorable,” ... the Court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview....

The Hill reports on the case.

Wedding Photographer Successfully Challenges Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

 In Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County Metro Government, (WD KY, Aug. 14, 2020), a Kentucky federal district court held that a wedding photographer is likely to succeed in her Free Speech challenge to Louisville, Kentucky's Fairness Ordinance. That law prohibits a business from denying services to an individual based on the person's sexual orientation, and from advertising that it will engage in such discrimination.  Holding that plaintiff's wedding photography is speech, the court said in part:

Nelson is a photographer, editor, and blogger. She takes engagement and wedding photos with artistic skill....

Nelson is also a Christian. Her faith shapes everything she does, including how she operates her photography studio. She believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. For that reason, she would decline to photograph a same-sex wedding, and she would decline to edit photos from a same-sex wedding. She wants to explain these views on her website....

 Louisville can’t ban expression just because it finds the expression offensive.

To be clear, most applications of anti-discrimination laws — including Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance — are constitutional. Today’s ruling is not a license to discriminate. Nor does it allow for the “serious stigma” that results from a sign in the window announcing that an owner won’t serve gay and lesbian customers.... Marriott cannot refuse a room to a same-sex couple.  McDonald’s cannot deny a man dinner simply because he is gay. Neither an empty hotel room, nor a Big Mac, is speech.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Wedding Services Company Challenges Public Accommodation Non-Discrimination Ordinance

A Christian minister, Kristi Stokes, the owner of Covenant Weddings LLC, filed suit in an Ohio federal district court this week challenging the constitutionality of Cuyahoga County, Ohio's public accommodation ordinance (full text) which which makes it illegal for any public accommodation to

discriminate against, or treat differently any person except for reasons applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, military status, national origin, disability, age, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression...

The complaint (full text) in Covenant Weddings LLC v. Cuyahoga County, (ND OH, filed 7/22/2020) alleges in part:

The County ... cannot rescind religious liberty and free speech by relabelling them discrimination....

Through Covenant Weddings, Kristi personally officiates and writes custom homilies, vows, and prayers for weddings...

The Accommodations Clause forces Kristi to provide her wedding services for same-sex wedding ceremonies or for wedding ceremonies where a marrying individual identifies as the opposite sex and would require Kristi to proclaim messages and to participate in religious ceremonies that violate her religious beliefs, which she cannot do.... 

This undercuts Kristi’s message (expressed elsewhere in her social media accounts and wedding services) celebrating marriage between one man and one woman; harms Kristi’s reputation among her past and prospective clients; undermines her editorial control over what services she offers to the public; and adversely affects Kristi’s ability to share biblical truths about marriage with others....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

2nd Circuit: Free Speech and Free Exercise Claims of Christian Adoption Agency Can Move Forward

In New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, (2d Cir., July 21, 2020), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in an 84-page opinion, reversed the dismissal of free exercise and free speech claims brought by a Christian adoption agency.  The court summarized the issues:

New Hope Family Services, Inc., is a voluntary, privately funded Christian ministry devoted to providing adoption services and authorized to do so in the State of New York for more than 50 years. New Hope professes that, consistent with its religious beliefs, it cannot recommend adoptions by unmarried or same-sex couples. It does not itself disapprove such couples; rather, it refers them to other adoption agencies. In 2018, the State’s Office of Children and Family Services (“OCFS”) informed New Hope that its policy respecting unmarried and same-sex couples violates the antidiscrimination mandate of N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18, § 421.3(d). OCFS advised New Hope that it either had to change its policy or close its operation.

In reversing and remanding the case to the district court, the 2nd Circuit said in part as to plaintiff's free exercise claim:

[W]e conclude that the pleadings give rise to a sufficient “suspicion” of religious animosity to warrant “pause” for discovery before dismissing New Hope’s claim as implausible. 

In connection with plaintiff's free speech claim, the court said:

New Hope asserts that, based on its religious beliefs about marriage and family, it does not believe and, therefore, cannot state, that adoption by unmarried or same-sex couples would ever be in the best interests of a child. It charges OCFS with requiring it to say just that—or to close down its voluntary, privately funded adoption ministry....

AP reports on the decision.

British Court Says Foster Care Agency Can Serve Only Christians, But Cannot Exclude Gay Couples

In Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service Ltd. v. Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, (England & Wales High Ct., July 7, 2020), a British judge ruled that a Christian adoption and foster care agency does not violate the Equality Act or the European Convention on Human Rights by recruiting only Evangelical Christians to be foster carers. However it does violate both the Equality Act and the Convention when it refuses to place children with Evangelical Christian same-sex couples. Christian News reports on the decision.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Catholic School Teacher's Suit On Church Autonomy Grounds

In Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (IN Super. Ct., May 1, 2020), an Indiana trial court refused to dismiss a lawsuit against the Catholic Archdiocese brought by a teacher who claims that the Archdiocese interfered with his contractual relationship with Cathedral High School, an independent school that had a relationship with the Archdiocese. The teacher was ordered to be fired by a directive from the Archdiocese issued after the teacher entered a same-sex marriage. The school feared that if it did not comply, the Archdiocese would no longer recognize it as a Catholic institution. The Archdiocese argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the "church autonomy" doctrine. The court said in part:

In civil dispute involving church as party, the court has jurisdiction to resolve the case if it can be done without resolving an ecclesiastical controversy. The court can avoid the religious controversy by deferring to the highest authority within the ecclesiastical body....

... [T]his Court cannot determine that the directive by the Archdiocese to terminate Payne-Elliott was made by the highest authority in the ecclesiastical body of Cathedral or of the Roman Catholic Church.“

The court also questioned whether the case involved an ecclesiastical controversy at all:

... [A] letter from the President and Chairman of the Board of Cathedral elaborates as to ”What is at stake?” Therein, Cathedral states: ”Furthermore, Cathedral would lose its 501(c)(3) status thus rendering Cathedral unable to operate as nonprofit school." This rational for firing Payne-Elliott is important,... If Payne-Elliott was terminated by Cathedral for an economic benefit to Cathedral at the direction of the Archdiocese, then that is different matter than Catholic doctrine.

The court also refused to accept several other grounds for dismissal put forward by the Archdiocese.  Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.