Church Autonomy Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Title VII Claim By Non-Ministerial Employee

In McMahon v. World Vision Inc., (WD WA, June 12, 2023), a Washington federal district court dismissed a Title VII sex discrimination suit, finding it is barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  A Christian ministry's job offer to plaintiff for the full-time position of Donor/Customer Service Representative Trainee was rescinded when defendant learned that plaintiff was in a same-sex marriage. The court discussed the relationship between the Church Autonomy Doctrine and the Ministerial Exception, concluding that the Church Autonomy Doctrine may be invoked when a non-ministerial employee brings a Title VII action.  The court said in part:

... [T]he Church Autonomy Doctrine requires the court to abstain from resolving employment discrimination claims where a religious institution takes an adverse action pursuant to a religious belief or policy—regardless of whether the employer allegedly discriminated on religious or other protected grounds—unless it is possible for the court resolve the claims without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine or calling into question the reasonableness, validity, or truth of a religious doctrine or practice....

The court joins other courts ... in cautioning religious employers against over-reading the impact of the court’s holding. It is by no means the case that all claims of discrimination against religious employers are barred....  [I]f a religious employer does not offer a religious justification for an adverse employment action against a non-ministerial employee or if the plaintiff presents sufficient secular evidence that would allow a factfinder to conclude that the religious justification was pretext without wading into the plausibility of the asserted religious doctrine, it is unlikely that serious constitutional questions will be raised by applying Title VII.

European Court: Ukraine Violates Human Rights Convention by Denying Legal Recognition to Same-Sex Couples

In Maymulakhin & Markiv v. Ukraine, (ECHR, June 1, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Ukraine violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) by denying any form of legal recognition to same-sex couples. The Court said in part:

While the Court has to date not interpreted Article 8 of the Convention as imposing a positive obligation on the States Parties to make marriage available to same-sex couples, it has confirmed that in accordance with their positive obligations under that provision, the member States are required to provide a legal framework allowing same‑sex couples to be granted adequate recognition and protection of their relationship.... The Court has also held that Contracting States enjoy a more extensive margin of appreciation in determining the exact nature of the legal regime to be made available to same sex couples....

The Court ordered Ukraine to pay the two petitioners 5032 Euros each as damages and to pay 4000 Euros for costs and attorney's fees.

The Court also issued a press release (PDF download link) summarizing its decision.

Christian Teacher Did Not Show That Her Removal Was Retaliation for Protected Speech or Beliefs

In Barr v. Tucker (SD GA, Feb. 21, 2023), a Georgia federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to plaintiff whose position as a substitute elementary school teacher was terminated after she complained to her own children's teachers and to the principal about the school librarian's reading aloud to classes a book that contains illustrations of same-sex couples with school-age children. The court explained:

Plaintiff told Defendant Tucker [the school principal] that she believed the book was '"inappropriate for young children, conflicted with her Christian faith, and appeared to bean effort to indoctrinate young children into a progressive ideological agenda[]" and asked that her children be excused from the read-aloud program.

Plaintiff contended that the school had retaliated against her for her exercising her free speech and free exercise rights. The court disagreed, saying in part:

... Plaintiff's inquiries principally addressed her personal concerns about exempting her children from the read-aloud program, and the context of her speech suggests she spoke on a matter of private or personal interest.

Accordingly ... Plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success in showing she spoke on a matter of public concern .... As a result. Plaintiff has also failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment [free speech] retaliation claim....

The Court accepts, as Plaintiff alleges, that her sincerely held religious beliefs include ''that God created marriage to be between one man and one woman, and that family formation should occur within the confines of heterosexual marriage."... However, at this stage. Plaintiff has not established that she is substantially likely to succeed on showing that Defendants substantially burdened her religious beliefs by terminating her.

It is not clear that Defendants called for Plaintiff's removal due to her religious beliefs....

Defendants maintain they removed Plaintiff due to her inappropriately timed interactions with her children's teachers and concern about how she would support students or parents that identify as gay, not because of her beliefs about marriage and family formation.

European Court Says Russia Violated Rights of Same Sex Couples Who Were Denied Marriage Registration

In Fedotova and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, Jan. 17, 2023), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that Russia violated the rights of three same-sex couples when it refused to permit them to marry. The court said in part:

 206.  The Government argued, firstly, that it was necessary to preserve the traditional institutions of marriage and the family, these being fundamental values of Russian society that were protected by the Constitution.... 

209.  Given that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions, the State, in its choice of means designed to protect the family and secure respect for family life as required by Article 8, must necessarily take into account developments in society and changes in the perception of social and civil-status issues and relationships, including the fact that there is not just one way or one choice when it comes to leading one’s family or private life....

212.  In the present case, there is no basis for considering that affording legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples in a stable and committed relationship could in itself harm families constituted in the traditional way or compromise their future or integrity..... Indeed, the recognition of same-sex couples does not in any way prevent different-sex couples from marrying or founding a family corresponding to their conception of that term. More broadly, securing rights to same-sex couples does not in itself entail weakening the rights secured to other people or other couples. The Government have been unable to prove the contrary.

213.  Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that the protection of the traditional family cannot justify the absence of any form of legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples in the present case....

219.  ... [T]he allegedly negative, or even hostile, attitude on the part of the heterosexual majority in Russia cannot be set against the applicants’ interest in having their respective relationships adequately recognised and protected by law....

Law & Religion UK reports in greater detail on the decision.

Dismissal of Title VII Suit By Teacher Fired By Catholic School Is Denied

In Ference v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg, (WD PA, Jan. 18, 2022), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge recommended denying a motion to dismiss filed by the Catholic Diocese in a Title VII sex-discrimination lawsuit by a Lutheran 6th-grade teacher in a Catholic school who was fired shortly after being hired when the school discovered that he was in a same-sex marriage. The Diocese had raised defenses based on Title VII's exemption for religious discrimination, the church autonomy doctrine, the ministerial exception and RFRA.

Congress Gives Final Passage To Respect For Marriage Act

 Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives gave final passage to HR 8404 the Respect for Marriage Act (full text). By a vote of 258- 169, the House accepted the amendments added to the original bill by the Senate. The bill now goes to President Biden for his signature. Biden issued a statement yesterday praising Congress' passage of the bill. The bill assures federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages between two individuals and requires states to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages from other states. The bill goes on to provide:

Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action....

 Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.

Fox4 reports on contents of the bill.

UPDATE: On Sept. 13, President Biden signed the bill into law. (White House press release.)

Catholic Parish Sues Michigan Over Expansion of Its Civil Rights Act

Suit was filed this week in a Michigan federal district court by a Catholic parish which operates an elementary school claiming that the Michigan Supreme Court's interpretation of the state's anti-discrimination law violates the parish's First Amendment rights.  The complaint (full text) in St. Joseph Parish St. Johns v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 12/5/2022), alleges in part:

5. In a series of actions culminating in a Michigan Supreme Court decision from July 2022, the Michigan Attorney General, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, and the Michigan Civil Rights Commission ... reinterpreted the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) such that provisions which previously prohibited conduct based only on biological sex now also apply to distinctions made based on sexual orientation and gender identity....

10. As a result, Michigan’s new understanding of “sex” discrimination deems it unlawful for St. Joseph’s to follow the 2,000-year-old teachings of the Catholic Church, including its teaching that marriage is a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman, that sexual relations are limited to marriage, and that human beings are created as either male or female....

11. Michigan’s reinterpretation poses an imminent threat to St. Joseph. St. Joseph needs to hire new employees and to publicize its job openings. St. Joseph’s advertisements would note, as they have in the past, that applicants must be “practicing Catholic[s] with the ability to infuse Catholic faith and teaching throughout the curriculum.”... 

12. St. Joseph is also reviewing applications for new families seeking to send their children to its school. And families at St. Joseph Catholic School enter a “Family – School Agreement.” This agreement requires, among other things, that parents and students agree “to live their lives in a way that supports, rather than opposes, the mission of our school and our faith beliefs.”

13. Also at stake is St. Joseph’s ability to rent its facilities—like its gymnasium and soccer fields—and whether it can carry out its parish activities open to all, like attending Mass, without being held liable as a public accommodation....

15. St. Joseph’s religious decisions regarding how to advance its mission and ministry are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Michigan cannot force the Catholic Church to compromise its religious character simply as a function of its doors being open to all.

Becket has a case page with more details on the case.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Wedding Website Designer Who Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Today the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. In the case, 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 Court granted certiorari only on the question of "Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment." Over 75 amicus briefs have been filed in the case.  The SCOTUSblog case page has links to them and to other filings in the case. The arguments will be broadcast live beginning at 10:00 AM at this link. SCOTUSblog has a preview of the arguments. I will update this post with links to the recording and transcript of the arguments when they become available later today.

UPDATE: Here are links to the transcript and audio of this morning's oral arguments.

Senate Will Begin Voting on Respect for Marriage Act with Religious Liberty Amendments

The U.S. Senate is expected to begin voting today on an amended version of H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act (full text). The House has previously passed the original version of the bill, and the Senate has passed a cloture motion ending a filibuster of the original bill.  The Act will assure federal recognition of same-sex marriages that were valid where performed and will require states to give full faith and credit to same-sex (as well as interracial) marriages performed in other states. Amendments designed to protect religious liberty were added in the Senate.  If the bill passes, it will then go back to the House to act on the amended version. Here are the major changes added in the Senate version to protect religious liberty:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:

       (1) No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.

       (2) Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect....

SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CONSCIENCE.

       (a) In General.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.

       (b) Goods or Services.--Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

SEC. 7. STATUTORY PROHIBITION.

       (a) No Impact on Status and Benefits Not Arising From a Marriage.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.

       (b) No Federal Recognition of Polygamous Marriages.-- Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals....

As reported by The Center Square and The Hill, various conservative religious organizations (some expressing extreme concerns about the effect of the bill), as well as some Republican senators, continue to strongly oppose the bill.

UPDATE: On Nov. 29, the Senate by a vote of 61-36 passed the Respect for Marriage Act.  The bill now goes back to the House for a vote on the bill in the amended form passed by the Senate.

Challenge To HHS Health Care Non-Discrimination Rules Is Moot

 In American College of Pediatricians v. Becerra, (ED TN, Nov. 18, 2022), a Tennessee federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services that barred discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the furnishing of health care.  The court said in part:

Given Plaintiffs’ failure to allege any of the McKay factors, the availability of a religious exemption by which they are arguably protected from enforcement, which has not yet been interpreted otherwise, the fact that Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit before seeking an exemption, and the Supreme Court’s mandate that the standing inquiry is “especially rigorous when reaching the merits of the dispute would force [a court] to decide the constitutionality of an action taken by one of the other two branches of the Federal Government,” the Court finds Plaintiffs have not established standing as to their claims. 

The court also concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge an HHS rule requiring grant recipients to recognize same-sex marriages.

Plaintiffs do not allege that HHS has any history of enforcing the 2016 Grants Rule against them or others, or that Plaintiffs have received any sort of enforcement warning regarding the 2016 Grants Rule.

The court's 41-paage opinion traces the complex history of rulemaking and litigation as to both rules.

Disciplinary Warning to Justice of the Peace Who Would Not Perform Same-Sex Weddings Is Upheld

In Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (TX App., Nov. 3, 2022), a Texas state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging a public warning issued by the Commission on Judicial Conduct that concluded plaintiff, a justice of the peace, has cast doubt on her ability to act impartially toward LGBTQ litigants. Plaintiff refused to perform same-sex weddings, while continuing to perform weddings for heterosexual couples. Instead of appealing the Commission's public warning to a special court of review, as provided by Texas statutes, plaintiff filed suit in state trial court arguing that the Commission had violated her rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Act and that her conduct had not violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.  She sought damages and additional declaratory relief. The appeals court said in part:

The trial court correctly dismissed this impermissible collateral attack on the Commission’s order....

Because the evidence establishes that the Commission has in fact not threatened further disciplinary action against Hensley, she has failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that the TRFRA waives the Commission’s immunity for her claim that threats of further discipline by the Commission have burdened her free exercise of religion.

Justice Goodwin filed a concurring opinion saying in part:

I would decide Hensley’s TRFRA claims on the ground that she did not comply with its notice provisions.... I do not agree with the Court’s analysis..., particularly the Court making an implicit finding by the Commission that its investigation and disciplinary action did not substantially violate Hensley’s free exercise of religion and that this implied finding foreclosed any future claims.

KWTX News reports on the decision. 

Baker With Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage Did Not Violate California's Civil Rights Law

In a tentative decision which becomes final in ten days unless objections are filed, a California state trial court has concluded that a bakery which refuses on religious grounds to furnish custom designed cakes for same-sex weddings and instead refers customers to another bakery for such items did not violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cathy's Creations, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., Oct. 21, 2022), the court concluded that the state failed to prove intentional sexual orientation discrimination, saying in part:

Miller and Tastries do not design and do not offer to any person-- regardless of sexual orientation-- custom wedding cakes that "contradict God's sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.

The court went on to hold that because California's Unruh Civil Rights Act is a neutral law of general applicability, the state did not violate defendant's free exercise rights. However, application of the Unruh Civil Rights Act here would violate defendants' free speech rights because it would compel expressive conduct based on content or viewpoint. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision.

Pre-School Teacher Sues After Being Fired For Her Stance On Same-Sex Marriage

A child-care employee who was fired by her employer for refusing to read to her pre-schoolers books that celebrate same-sex relationships has filed suit alleging religious discrimination, wrongful termination, harassment and retaliation. The complaint (full text) in Parisenkova v. Bright Horizons Children's Center, LLC, (CA Super. Ct., filed 10/13/2022), filed in a California state trial court, alleges that plaintiff's Christian religious beliefs prevent her from promoting messages that support same-sex marriage. After an initial informal accommodation, the school's director, who took personal offense at plaintiff's religious beliefs, refused to grant plaintiff a formal religious accommodation.  As a prelude to her dismissal, plaintiff was forced to leave the school building mid-day in extremely hot weather.  Plaintiff was terminated after she refused the requirement that she receive diversity awareness training. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the law suit.

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.

6th Circuit Affirms That County Clerk Kim Davis Had No Qualified Immunity Defense

In Ermold v. Davis, (6th Cir., Sept. 29, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Kentucky federal district court decision that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis does not have qualified immunity in a suit against her for stopping the issuance of all marriage licenses to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples. The court said in part:

[P]laintiffs have not only “alleged” but also now “shown” that Davis violated their constitutional right to marry.... And, as we held three years ago, that right was “clearly established in Obergefell.”

The court held that insofar as Davis has raised a free exercise defense under the First Amendment, that issue should be resolved when the case goes to trial and not at the current motion-to-dismiss stage. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Cuba Referendum Approves Family Code Allowing Same-Sex Marriage and More

AP reports that on Sunday, voters in Cuba approved a new Family Law Code that allows same sex couples to marry and to adopt. The over 400-Article Code also allows surrogate pregnancies and expands grandparent rights. Cuba's evangelical movement opposed the new Code. The Code was approved by 66.9% in favor to 33.1% opposed. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Certiorari Petition Filed Again In Bakery's Refusal To Design Wedding Cake For Same-Sex Marriage

Last week, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, (Sup. Ct., filed 9/7/2022). This is the second time the case has worked its way up to the Supreme Court. (See prior posting.) At issue is a finding by the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that Sweetcakes bakery violated the state's public accommodation law when it refused on religious grounds to design and create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. In January, the state court of appeals remanded the case to the Bureau of Labor and Industries for it to determine a remedy after finding that the Bureau's first determination of damages was tainted by non-neutrality. (See prior posting.) In August, the Bureau imposed damages of $30,000. First Liberty has additional background.

District Court: Public Accommodation Law Violates Wedding Photographer's Free Speech Rights

In Chelsey Nelson Photography, LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County, (WD KY, Aug. 30, 2022), a Kentucky federal district court held that Louisville's public accommodation ordinance violates the free speech rights of a Christian wedding photographer who has moral and religious objections to same-sex marriages. The court said in part:

Courts across the country have addressed whether bakers, florists, website designers, and other creative professionals must either provide their services for weddings that violate their beliefs or else abstain entirely from the wedding business. And those courts’ disagreement on whether this amounts to prohibited discrimination or protected dissent is what the U.S. Supreme Court has set out to resolve during its upcoming term....

This is a real conflict between nondiscrimination and speech that cannot be wished away: compelling access for all necessarily clashes with the liberty of some. The City contends that Nelson’s speech demeans same-sex couples, while Nelson says the City’s Ordinance demeans her speech....

The First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise ... are unlikely to help those in Nelson’s position: at least as currently construed, that aspect of the Constitution does not shield people whose sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with generally applicable laws....

But the government’s authority over public accommodations does not extend to “abridging the freedom of speech.”...

So although Louisville may require restaurants and hotels and stores to provide services regardless of the proprietors’ views or their customers’ legal status, the government may not force singers or writers or photographers to articulate messages they don’t support.

The court also concluded that the ordinance violates the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Church Autonomy Doctrine Bars Catholic High School Teacher's Suit Against Archdiocese

In Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., (IN Sup. Ct., Aug. 31, 2022), the Indiana Supreme Court held that the church autonomy doctrine bars a suit by a former Catholic school teacher against the Catholic Archdiocese for interfering with his employment contract with a Catholic high school. The suit alleges that the Archdiocese pressured the school to fire plaintiff because he had entered a same-sex marriage. Citing a 2003 decision, the court said in part:

[U]nder the church-autonomy doctrine a civil court may not (1) penalize via tort law (2) a communication or coordination among church officials or members (3) on a matter of internal church policy or administration that (4) does not culminate in a criminal act.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

No Church Autonomy Defense To Catholic Organization's Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, (D MD, Aug. 3, 2022), a Maryland federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff who was denied spousal health insurance coverage for his same-sex husband. Rejecting a church-autonomy defense, the court said in part:

CRS insists that any judicial inquiry into this case inevitably requires an inquiry into matters of Catholic faith and doctrine. This is not so; this case concerns a social service organization's employment benefit decisions regarding a data analyst and does not involve CRS's spiritual or ministerial functions.

The court held that Catholic Relief Services violated Title VII, and that the exemption in Title VII for religious organizations only applies to discrimination by them on the basis of religion. It also held that RFRA does not provide a defense because it applies only to claims against the government. The court also found no First Amendment violation, saying in part:

Our Constitution's solicitousness of religious exercise is not carte blanche for any religious institution wishing to place itself beyond the reach of any neutral and generally applicable law. This court need not engage in a strict scrutiny analysis that would apply if a truly comparable secular institution were being treated favorably compared to CRS.

The court went on to find violations of the federal and state Equal Pay Acts, and ordered certification to the state court of a question of coverage by Maryland's Fair Employment Practices Act.