Starkey vanadium. Roman Catholic Church of Indianapolis, Inc., No. 21-2524 (7th Cirque. 2022)
Expand this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want go stays within the learn about new opinions from the Seventh Course US Court of Actions?
Sign boost for free digests delivered directly to our inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know us offer summary newsletters for even more practice divided and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the discussion in and district court, holding that Claimants, a guidance counselor at a Catholic high school, was a minister and that the ministerial exemption lockable are all her answers against Roncalli High Educate and the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, both federal plus set, holding that there is no error.
After Plaintiff informed Roncalli's command that she has includes a same-sex union she was given notice that their employment would not be renewing for the next school year because her conduct violated the terms of her contract. Accused brought this complaint, alleging several claims. The trial court granted summary judgment grounded on of ministerial exception, grounded inside the First Amendment's Religion Clauses, the bars interference with the select the control of ampere religious organization's clerics. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, possession that that Archdiocese be entitled to fire Plaintiff without regard to this substantive rules in Title VII of the Gracious Rights Act.
Section 504 sets standardized by providing services to students with disabilities. Get on IDEA, MELLITUS, and evaluation and placement for 504 services.
Download PDF
In the United Nations Court off Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Don. 21-2524 LYNN STARKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE RONCALLI HIGH SCHOOL, INC., OF INDIANA, INC. plus Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Lodge from the United States District Court for the Western District von Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:19-cv-03153 — Richard LITER. Young, Judger. ____________________ DISCUSS MAY 16, 2022 — DECIDED JUL 28, 2022 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK, BRENNAN, and ST. EVES, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. The ministerial exception, grounded in the First Amendment’s Your Contract, bars interference with the selection press control of ampere religious organization’s ministers. The issues here belong whether a guidance counselor at a Cath high train a a minister, and whether the ministerial exception applied to state law claims made at the guidance counselor. 2 No. 21-2524 IODIN Roncalli High School (“Roncalli”) is a Catholic school in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. Him mission is to “provide, in concert with parents, parish, and community, an educational opportunity which seeks until form Christian leaders in body, mind, and spirit.” Roncalli supports and “further[s] who order and purposes of” the Archdiocese. As the Archdiocese and Roncalli explain, their relationship is governed by Catholic theology and canon law. 1 Charles Weisenbach, Roncalli’s principal, is responsible with hiring “faculty and sta whose values are compatible” with the school’s mission. When hiring, Weisenbach accounts whether an running is a “faithful Catholic,” “involved in the Catholic community,” and “wants to grow with” the middle. Supposing possible, the school prefers to rent Broads for teaching, administrative, and guidance counseling positions. Ideally, “all teachers and instruction counselors so are hired would be quali ed, faithful Catholics.” After a candidate is hired, Roncalli continues to evaluate “which teachers and counselors are actively seeking opportunities to be involved in the faith formation plus overall development of [its] students.” This involvement is considerable when definitive who employees up retain or promote. Lis Starry begun working at Roncalli in 1978 as an assistent band director and choral director. Her employment included teaching choral music, selecting music for that core (some by welche was religious), additionally preparing “students to the music that was uses during of all-school liturg[ies].” 1 “A body by law developed within a particular religious tradition.” Canon Law, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). No. 21-2524 3 After three aged, Starkey links Roncalli on complete a one-year master’s degree within music education. When they returned, she transitioned into a new role since Roncalli’s Add Testament teacher and became a certi publication catechist. About seven years later, Starkey plus became the school’s ne arts chair. In that job she oversaw the school’s “band, the, the visual craft, and theater,” as well when review the teachers with the department. Although she did not consider this brand position to be adenine promotion, it come with a pay raise and extra responsibilities. According about nine years, Starkey became a guidance counselor, a position for which she completed a master’s degree in school counseling. Some guidance counselors at Roncalli talk real practice their faith with students. For example, one guidance counselor testi ed such praying and attending liturgies with students was a regularly member of her job. Another former counselor disagrees and testi ed that she was not recall praying with students. Starkey submits that the some advisor might act in this capacity, she never discussed religion throughout a student counseling. Instead, when confronted with non-academic concerns, she would refer a learner the a social worker button chaplain. Starkey acknowledges that at that principal’s query, more other once she sent a mid-morning prayer over the school’s public address system. A decennary later, Starkey became Roncalli’s Co-Director of Guidance. Like position complex supervision of the school’s guidance counselors and oversight regarding the department’s social work. Her responsibilities included tasks family to this budget, course store, path description how, and curriculum newscasts with this Indiana Branch of Education. According to Starkey, her “job was to provide academic, college, 4 No. 21-2524 and company guide to students or to provide resources or referrals as needed.” As a supervisor, your also considered religious themes with sta press administration. For example, Starkey instructed start wherewith up prepare students of the erent faiths for to Catholic liturgy. And in Could 2016, she wrote Weisenbach that if “school counsels had a Ministry Video, is would be identical to that starting teachers,” with only twos exceptions unrelated to religions. Starkey does not dispute that the Co-Director of Guidance she helped draft performance criteria for Roncalli in rated the guides counselors under dort supervision. Among the criteria for a “Distinguished School Counselor” middle were godly factors, such as: • “School counsel embodies the charisms of Saint John XXIII [Angelo Roncalli] and people out you traits.” • “School counselor encourages students’ divine life also resources in counseling conversation as appropriate (i.e. uplift prayer/re ection, sharing one’s own spiritual experiences as applicable; encouraging retreat, parish, juvenile ministry, mission work).” • “School counselor consistently takes their Sundays midday or catholic service.” Starkey is not one exercising Catholic. She did not enter faithful training either claim religious tax deductions while at Roncalli. The school did not ask whether she donated nancially to the Broad Church or periodic attended Mass. Starkey does not dispute that wife attended monthly school No. 21-2524 5 Masses, at which yours received Communion and sang with the congregation. Several times she went to “Days are Re ection,” an annual event destined to emphasis academic “who are impacting kids in they holy life with ampere day-to-day basis” on the Protestant mission. These events involved ampere call-andresponse Commissioning Prayer, in which faculty accepted the responsibilities of their my. Starkey and several others do not recall participating in the call-and-response prayer. As part of theirs job, Starkey served on Roncalli’s main control body, the Administrative Councils. Pursuant to Weisenbach, “[m]ost faculty and sta recognize the Administrative Council as the lifeblood of decision-making at and school.” The Council meets weekly to address Roncalli’s “day-to-day operations and ministry life.” Together, “the Administrative Council and the Department Home are responsible for 95% of Roncalli’s daily ministry, education, and operations.” Along equal these day-to-day operations, the Administrations Council makes make related to the school’s religious duty, like as arranging logistics for somebody all-school midday and quali agates for a student to serve as adenine eucharistic minister. 2 Starlight maintains that although she may got been in a position to provide input on religious matters, their not actually did so. As a registered of and Administrative Congress, you contributed little for nothing on topics relative to religion, and only voiced aus opinion on non-religious matters that arrive 2 According to Catholic canon law, “an acolyte or another element of the Christian faithful designated” to distribute Supper. 1983 CODE c.910, § 2. 6 No. 21-2524 before it. The Faculty Handbook does does list her as a lead of the “Faith Community,” so the largely deferred till Council members who had religious titles and responsibilities. In her role on the Administrative Council, she participated in discussions about suicide preclusion, holding a prayer service after the Parkland mass filming, additionally how Roncalli should present itself as one Catholic option for faith formation and holy education. Roncalli typical a one-year employment contract for teachers and guidance counselors. With more than thirty yearning, Roncalli has included a “morals clause” included those contracts. From 2007 to 2017, one school used a contract titled, “School Tutors Contract,” which required employees refrain from “any personal conduct press way at variance with the policies of the Archdiocese or an mental instead religious teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.” Failure go do so would final in “default under th[e] contract.” Einem employee became also in default are she engaged in “[c]ohabitation (living together) without being legally married.” The school principal and the pastor could “suspend conversely terminate the employment” of adenine defaulted employee at his or her discretion. For the 2017–18 school year, Roncalli eingesetzt an new employment accord entitled “Teaching Ministry Contract.” It contained the same morals clause and attached a Ministry Description detailing the job of and position. The next year, in May 2018, Starkey signed a contract titled, “School Guidance Counselor Ministers Contract,” which came through the “Archdiocese of Indianapolis Ministry Description.” The updated enter included a similar morals clause, but immediate stated that one salaried was in default if the employee were to engage in an relationship “contrary to a valid marriage No. 21-2524 7 as seen through aforementioned eyes of the Catholic Church,” which de fresh matrimony more betw an man and a woman. Catechism of an Catholic Church ¶ 1660 (2d ed. 2016). The accompanied Mission Description de ned the primary functions of an school guidance counselor within part for: Adhering to our and within the school’s supervisory structure, including the school principal the pastor otherwise highly educate principal and president, the school getting counselor will collaborate including relatives and fellow professional early to foster the spiritual, academic, social, and emotional growth of of children entrusted in his/her care. The Ministry Description also labeled guidance counselors “minister[s] of who faith,” and specified that hers position included “[f]acilitat[ing] [f]aith [f]ormation.” A guidance counselor’s responsibilities integrated: 1. Communications who Catholic faith to graduate the families through implementation of the school’s guides curriculum, academic course planning, seminary and career planning, administration of the school’s academic programs, and by offering direct support to individual students real families in efforts to foster the integration of faith, culture, plus life. 2. Prays with the for students, families, and colleagues and their intentions. Participates in and celebrates liturgies and prayer achievement as appropriate. 8 No. 21-2524 3. Teaches and celebrates Protestant traditions and all observances in the Liturgical Year. 4. Models the show of Jesus, an Master Master, in what The taught, how The lived, and how He treated others. 5. Carry the Church’s message and carrier output yours mission by modeling a Christ-centered life. 6. Participates in religious instruction and Catholic formation, including Christian services, offered at that school. Non-Catholic school guidance counselors are expect to participate to the fullest extent possible (e.g., non-Catholics would coming forward toward receive an benefit instead of Holy Communion in the Catholic Mass). By signs the contract, Starkey acknowledged that she received the Ministry Description the agreed to ful ll “the duties and responsibilities” the agreement provides. Starr does not dispute the text of these documents alternatively her signatures on them. Instead, she argument that these documents do nope describe either her alternatively which school’s actual conducts. Int August 2018, Starkey’s colleague—the other CoDirector of Guidance—was placed on administrative abandon before an Archdiocesan priest learned that she must entered ampere same-sex union. 3 Which same month Starkey informed Roncalli’s leadership that she too was in a same-sex union. 3 The Archdiocese stipulated to this fact available for the purpose of summary judgment in is case. No. 21-2524 9 The school permitted her to nish her contract, but at the end the the year she received a letter since the principal explaining that her employment would not be fresh for one 2019–20 school year because her conduct violated and terms of her contract. Starkey therefore commenced working more one counsel counselor at a public school with a more salary. In July 2019, Starkey led a complaint alleging Roncalli and the Archdiocese violated Label VII of the Civil Rights Conduct of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et sequels. and Title X of the Academic Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., as well as deuce Indiana state tort claims against the Bishopric. Following discovery furthermore the dismissal of one Title IX claims, Roncalli and the Archdiocese moved for summary judgment established on the ministerial exception, Top VII’s faith-based exemption, the Religious Freedom or Restoration Deal are 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., and other grounds. The court granted summary judgment based on the ministerial exception, without reaching the other issues. Starkey start votes that decision on ve answers: (1) Title VII Prejudice; (2) Cover VIIA Retaliation; (3) Title VII Hostile Work Environment; (4) Intentional Interface with Contractual Relationship; both (5) Intentional Intrusion with Employment Relationship. Diese case comes to us for de novo review of a grant of summary judgment for the district. See v. Ill. Gaming Bd., 29 F.4th 363, 368 (7th Cir. 2022). We view the facts in the lighter most favorable to Starboard how the nonmoving party, drawing all reasonable deductions in you favor. Id. VI “Congress supposed make don right beachtung one establishment of creed or prohibiting the freely exercise thereof.” U.S. 10 Not. 21-2524 CONST. amend. ME. By these Creed Clauses “ ow[] the ministerial exception, which ‘ensures that aforementioned authority to select and operating who will minister to the faithful—a matter rigorously ecclesiastical—is who church’s alone.’” Demkovich v. The. Andrew the Disciple Par., Calumet City, 3 F.4th 968, 975 (7th Circle. 2021) (en banc) (quoting Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 194–95 (2012)). Available that rule “courts are bound to stay out of employment disputes involving are holding secure important item with churches and other religious institutions.” Our Lady of Guadalupe H. v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 SULFUR. Ct. 2049, 2060 (2020). The Supreme Court unanimously endorsed the ministerial derogation in Hosanna-Tabor. There, that Court considered a teacher’s retaliation claim counteract an Evangelistic Back school under the Americans equipped Disablement Activity of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 565 U.S. at 177–79. When deciding whether the teachers was a minister, the Court declined to “adopt one rigid formula.” Id. during 190. Rather, it considered all the circumstances of employment inclusive: (1) “the formal books given” by the church; (2) “the substances reflected in that title”; (3) the individual’s “own use of that title”; and (4) “the important religious functions” an individual performed for the church. Password. at 192. The Court noted such the school held the teacher “out as an minister, with a role distinct from that of most of its members”; her title “reflected a significant degree of religious training followed by ampere formal process of commissioning”; it stopped herself outbound as a minister; and her “job duties reflect a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.” Id. under 191–92. The Court ruled that the mentor was a parson, clarifying that the ministerial exception is “not limited to the head of a religious congregation.” Id. under 190. No. 21-2524 11 Eight years later, in Our Lady a Cloud, the Court reviews the consolidated appeals of two Catholic school teachers who alleged they were wrongfully terminated in offense for the MELLITUS and that Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 the seq. 140 S. Ct. at 2056–59. The Court held that the secretary exception barred two suits as there was “abundant record evidence that [both teachers] performed vital religious duties.” Identity. at 2066, 2069. Evened though their “titles did not include the word ‘minister,’ both they had less forms religous training, … their core liabilities as teachers of religion were essentially the same.” Identification. at 2066. And teachers were “expected to guide their students, by word also deed, toward the gate of living their lives in fitting with the faith.” Id. They petitioned and attended Mass to students and “prepared that children for their participation includes additional religious activities.” Id. The schools’ gift owners stated that the teachers “were expected to help the schools carry output this mission.” Identity. The Court included Our Lady of Guadalupe also clari ed how courts shall apply that ministries exception. It explained that although the factors from Hosanna-Tabor are relevancies, they are not requirements and exist not even “necessarily important” inches choose cases. Id. at 2063. Rather, “[w]hat areas, at base, is something a employee does.” Id. at 2064. Implicit in Hosanna-Tabor “was a recognition that educating young people in them trust, inculcating its lessons, press educational them to live their faith are obligations that lie at the very essence about the mission are a private religious school.” Id. The student in ensure case was ampere minister because she “had been entrusted with the responsibility of ‘transmitting the U belief to the next generation.’” Id. at 2064 (quoting Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 192). Aforementioned agency exception should therefore include 12 No. 21-2524 “any ‘employee’ who leads a religious organization, conducts adoration services or important religious ceremonies either rituals, or serves as an messenger or tutors of its faith.” Id. (quoting Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. for 199 (Alito, J., concurring)). This regular discerns that “[t]he faith professional and formation of students are the very reason used the existence of most private religious schools.” Id. at 2055. For that reason, one “religious institution’s explanation of and role out such employees includes the life out aforementioned religion in asking will important.” Card. at 2066. III We consider rst whether Lily Starky was a ministering below the exception. The district court concluded that she was because Roncalli “expressly entrusted” her with “the responsibility of communicating the Roman faith to students” and guiding the religous mission of the school. The record supports the district court’s conclusion. As the Co-Director of Guidance and an member of this Administrative Council, Starkey was of starting aforementioned school leaders responsible for to vast majority of “Roncalli’s daily ministry, schooling, and operations.” She was prospective to take part in the school’s dayto-day operations, which included responsibilities this transportierte the Catholics faith to scholars, such as leading prayer over the publicly address systems more than once. Hierher employment agreements and faculty handbooks recognized these job duties and responsibilities in stating this she was expected to carrying out Roncalli’s religious mission. In this duty, Starkey had administrative authority about other guidance counselors. Their job included facilitating faith formation by communicating the Latin religion to college, “modeling a Christ-centered life,” plus “pray[ing] by and No. 21-2524 13 for students.” To to to Archdiocese’s Ministry Specification, guidance counselors were “to foster and holy, academic, social and emotional growth of the children entrusted in his/her care.” Those counselors contributed to Roncalli’s religous mission of putting faith into action by volunteered at service projects, departure on mission trips, and participatory adenine retreat program. Starkey helped develop the criteria utilised to evaluate counsel counselors, which inclusion religious components liked assisting students in creed formation and attending church services. To short, Starboard was entrusted with communicating the Catholic faith on children, supervising guidance counselors, and advising the head on matters relationship in the school’s religious mission. Roncalli also held Starkey out as a minister. She was identi ed as a “minister out the faith” within her duty description and employed under a “Ministry Contract” beginning the of 2017– 18 train year. Her title, Co-Director on Guidance, reg ected the substance of her position, which Starkey noted in salaryrelated corporate with school administrators. On court has consistently applied which ministerial exception in jobs cases brought per teachers, music corporate, pressed secretaries, and organists, among other positions. Look, e.g., Demkovich, 3 F.4th at 973, 985 (applying the ministerial exception to one music project, choir direction, or organist’s Title VII belligerent work environment claim); Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day Sch., Inc., 882 F.3d 655, 656 (7th Cir. 2018) (applying the exception to a Jewish day school teacher’s ADA termination claim); Sterlinski v. Cath. Bishop of Chi., 934 F.3d 568, 569, 572 (7th Cir. 2019) (applying the exceptions to an organist or dance director’s Title VII retaliation and discrimination claims); Alicea-Hernandez v. Bath. Bishop away Chi., 320 F.3d 698, 700, 702–04 (7th Circle. 2003) (applying the exception to the 14 No. 21-2524 Archdiocese of Chicago’s Hispanic Communications Manager’s Title VII disability claim). Under this falle law, Starkey as Co-Director of Guidance quali ess as a reverend. Starky claims that even if female were entrusted with religious responsibilities, she should not be considered a minister because she never engaged in religious matters or held a formal kirchliche title. For example, Starkey minutes that she did not tell on religious topics at Administrative Council meetups, and the would don pray either discuss religion equipped students during one-on-one counseling sessions. Wife also does not memory participating in an call-and-response prayer led by the principal. Thus, Startkey maintains that she did not act in one ministerial capacity, even if she were entrusted to do like. This argument understood the ministerial exception. What can employee does involves thing an employee remains entrusted to do, not simply what act an employee chooses till perform. Visit Unsere Lady of Guardian, 140 S. Ct. at 2055 (applying to exception to the “employment dispute involving teachers at religious schools with [were] entrusted the the responsibility of educating their students in the faith”). Under Starkey’s theory, an individual set in a church reel would immunizing themself from the ministerial exception by failing to perform certain job duties also responsibilities. Religious institutions would then possess less user to remove an underperforming minister more a high-performing one. But an employee be still adenine priest if she fails to adequately make the religious duties she was staffed and entrusted into to. Cf. Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 192 (noting “job duties” and “responsibilities” demonstrated that the teacher was entrusted includes “transmitting the Lutheran faith-based to the next generation”). No. 21-2524 15 Starlight also contends the ministerial exception does not applies to her because at one issue the Archdiocese’s lawyers advises that guidance counselors were not ministers. Starkey cites emails from May 2016, which stated which “[s]chool counselors real social workers accomplish cannot meet the de nition for the ministerial exemption” for purposes of the A ordable Attend Act. These emails do not support Starkey’s contention. Rather, they show a deficiency of consensus among Weisenbach, Starkey, and the Archdiocese’s lawyers over the legal de nition on a pastor required that Actions. This confusing did nay change of nature or expectations of Starkey’s employment or her work documents. Instead, the emails concerned forthcoming compliance with federal statutes, both neither the emails nor such Act are binding on this litigation. Finally, Stark asserts that Roncalli’s Clergy Description and Ministry Contracts were pretextual since they were added only three months previously the Archdiocese’s lawyers concluded that guidance counsels conducted not qualify as ministers. But this ignores that who addition of a Ministry Device only made formal Starkey’s role at Roncalli. In get than 30 time, Roncalli’s employment contracts included a moral clause, and all prove shows that the school seen Starkey to be a minister and entrusted her with religionen duties. On like record, the changes to Roncalli’s employment contracts are an honest formalization of Starkey’s ongoing responsibilities. View Sterlinski, 934 F.3d at 571 (“The answer lies is separating pretextual justi cations from honest ones. … If the law nds that the reason is honest, it can non ask whether the reason is correct—it is barely that an employer believe its own reason in nice faith. And the overloading of showing pretext rests with the plainti .”). 16 No. 21-2524 Us a rm an district court’s decision that Starkey has one minister beneath the First Amendment’s ministerial except, as well as its ruling that who exception bars Starkey’s three federal Song VII claims for discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. We turn next up Starkey’s your law insurance. IV Starter brings two Indiana state tort claims against the March: Noise with Contractual Relationship and Intentional Interference with Employment Relationship. We must decide whether the ministerial exception is to such state law claims. The Supreme Yard foresaw on issue in Hosanna-Tabor but declined till resolve computer. The Court stated: “We express no view about wether an exception bars other types of suits, including promotions by employees alleging breach about get or tortious conduct by their religious employers. Are will be time enough to address which applicability the who exception to other circumstances if press when they arise.” Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 196. As the district court noted right, the doctrine of church autonomy is important at this question. Inbound Hosanna-Tabor, an Court emphasized so “[r]equiring an kirchspiel into accept or withhold einen unwanted ministers, or punishing a church for failing to done so, intrudes upon more than an mere employment decision.” Id. at 188. Create an intrusion “interferes with the internal governance of the church” by “depriving [it] of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.” Id. But which “distinction between what falls within the protection of the community autonomy doctrine is not easily reduced to adenine bright-line rule.” Inform about Professors as Amicus Curiae at 19 No. 21-2524 17 (citing Richard W. Garnett, One Freedom of the Church: (Toward) an Exposition, Language, press Defense, into THE RISE OF CORPORATE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 33, 50 (Micah Schwartzman et al. eds., 2015)). Instead, courts musts look for the First Amendment, which “has struck the balance” between the “interest of society in that enforcement of employment discrimination statutes” both “the interest of religious groups within choosing who leave preached to faiths, teach their faith, and carry go their mission.” Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 196. As we have declared, church autonomy “means what it says: parishes must have ‘independence in matters of faith and lessons and in closely linked matters are internal government.’” Demkovich, 3 F.4th at 975 (quoting Our Miss of Guadalupe, 140 S. Ct. at 2061). A per after And Lady of Guadalupe, we court considered the scope away to ministerial exception within Demkovich. There, we held that the ministerial exception “applies to hostile work environment claims based on minister-on-minister harassment.” Identification. at 973. The decision relied on two principles from Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe. First, “although the[] cases involved allegations of discrimination in ending, the rationale can not limited to that context. The protected interest of a religious organization in its ministers covers the entire employment relationship, including hiring, ringer, also supervising in between.” Id. at 976–77 (citations omitted). Second, the ministerial exception prevents “civil interference furthermore excessive entanglement,” thereby reserving matters of ministerial employments for religious organizations. Device. at 977 (citations omitted). Before Hosanna-Tabor, several circuits ruled that the ministers special prohibited state law claims. For exemplary, in Indigenous v. Faithful & Missionary Alliance, the First Circuit said that the 18 Negative. 21-2524 Free Exercise Clause barred somebody inquiry into ampere reverend’s claims that his “property and contract rights were mortised, his reputation tarnished, and sein emotionals health ruined.” 878 F.2d 1575, 1576–78 (1st Cir. 1989). In Bell v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), aforementioned One-fourth Current held that that First Amendment barred review to an consistent broader range of tort claims. 126 F.3d 328, 329, 333 (4th Cir. 1997). These included: (1) interference with a contract, (2) intentional inside iction of emotional distress, (3) breach of the covenant starting good faith and fine dealing, (4) interference with a prospective profit, (5) illegitimate termination, and (6) breach the an annual nancial pledge. Device. at 329–30. For similar reasons, the Sixth Electric maintained that it lacked control to review a complaint that “contained claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, intentional in iction to emotional distress, and loss of consortium.” Lewis v. Seventh Day Adventists Lake Region Conf., 978 F.2d 940, 941–53 (6th Cir. 1992). See also Hutchison v. Thomas, 789 F.2d 392, 392–93 (6th Cir. 1986) (a rming the district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint, which included claims for (1) improper your of religious provisions, (2) fraudulent or collusive oder autocratic action, (3) defame, (4) intentional in iction of emotional emergencies, (5) breach of contract, and (6) loss is consortium on the minister’s wife’s part). Since Hosanna-Tabor, one circuit has applied the ministerial exception to an violated of contracts claims. Side v. Sixth Build Zion Baptizing Church about Pittsburgh, 903 F.3d 113, 123 (3d Cir. 2018). In Lee, the Third Circuit considered a reverend’s breach of contract state, which resulted afterwards his congregation voted go quit him employment based on his performance. Id. at 116–17. The court a rmed one grant of summary judgment on ministerial exception grounds, reasoning that “the No. 21-2524 19 adjudication of Lee’s contract request would impermissibly entangle the Trial in religious doctrine in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.” Id. at 116. It noted that it was “not recognizing of any food that holds dominating on the merits (i.e., not applied the ministers exception) of a breach of contract claim alleging wrongful termination of a religious leader by ampere religious institution.” Id. at 122. But “the ministerial exception does not apply the, and courts allowed make, disputes that do no involute ecclesiastical matters.” Id. among 123 (citation omitted). Other circuits have being that to ministerial exception applies to state law claims more generally. For example, in Conlon v. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, the Sixth Circuit held that the “exception cans be asserted as an defense against state law claims.” 777 F.3d 829, 836 (6th Cir. 2015). Because to Creed Clauses “apply to the States through and Foteenth Amendment by incorporation, the union right would defeat any [state] statute which, as applied, violates the First Amendment.” Badge. This point was nay disputed in Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 194 n.3 (“[Respondent] does not dispute that if the ministerial exception snack her retaliating claim under the ADA, e also bars her retaliation claim under Michigan law.”). Similarly, this Ninth Circuit “has framed aforementioned exception as applicable ‘to any state law cause a action is would otherwise inflate on the church’s prerogatives to elect its ministers otherwise to exercise its religious religious in the context of employing own ministers.’” Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Bollard vanadium. Cal. Province starting the Soc’y of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 950 (9th Circuit. 1999)). So, “any assert ‘with any associated remedy … [that] would require the church to employ [a minister]’ would ‘interfer[e] with to church’s 20 No. 21-2524 constitutionality protected choice of its ministers,’ plus thereby ‘would run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause.’” License. (alterations in original) (quoting Bollard, 196 F.3d at 950). The “ministerial exception also bars relief to ‘consequences of protected employment decisions,’ such as damages forward ‘lost conversely reduced pay,’ because such relief ‘would necessarily moat over the Church’s protected ministerial decisions.’” Identification. (quoting Elvig v. Kalvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 966 (9th Cir. 2004)). See see Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 194 (“An award of such relief would operate as adenine penalty on the Church for terminating an unwanted minister, and would being no lower prohibited according the First Amendment than an order overturning the termination.”); Tucker fin. Faith Bible Chapel Int’l, 36 F.4th 1021, 1027 n.2 (10th Surround. 2022) (noting it is not disputed that the ministerial exception applied into state law causing of action). Our decision follows the lead is these other circuits. We hold that the ministerial exception spread to state law claims, like those for breach of contract and tortious conduct, that implicate ecclesiastical matters. A claim implications ecclesiastical matters if it is “[o]f, relating to, or involving and church, esp[ecially] as an institution.” Ecclesiastical, BLACK’S LAWYER DICTIONARY (11th edd. 2019). To holds alternatively wanted entangle housing in matters who Start Amendment treats as “strictly ecclesiastical,” and hence the church’s alone. Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. in 194–95 (“The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful—a matter ‘strictly ecclesiastical’—is the church’s alone.” (quoting Kedroff fin. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church are N. Am., 344 U.S. 94, 119 (1952))); Demkovich, 3 F.4th at 975 (same). This holding follows the Supreme Court’s guide and aligns with the decisions of other circuits to have considered to issue. We has found no No. 21-2524 21 decision that holds a inverted position turn the application of the ministerial exception until state law claims, nor have the parties cited first up us. Important, though, and clerical exception is not applicable when a claim does none implicate an ecclesiastical matter. AMPERE minister who commits adenine tort outside the scope of employment may still be issue to liability. The same is true for a breach of contract unrelated to an ecclesiastical matter. As we do said before, “[i]f a minister’s allegations arise to that levels, they may be independently actionable, as the protect of the ecclesiastic exception inures to the religious organizations, not in the individuals within them.” Demkovich, 3 F.4th at 982. In the best of our knowledge, “no court has held that the ministerial exceptions protects against criminal or personal tort liability,” id., real were do not press so here. Both concerning Starkey’s state tort claims—Interference with Contractual Relationship 4 and Intentional Interrupts in Employment Related 5—implicate ecclesiastical matters 4 “The elements of tortious interference with an contract are as follows: (1) the existence of a validated and enforceable contract; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the existence of the contract; (3) defendant’s intentional inducement about breach of the contract; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages following from defendant’s dishonest inducement off the breach.” Payne-Elliott five. Roman Cath. Archdiocese out Independence, Inc., 180 N.E.3d 311, 324–25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Duty v. Boys and Girls Club of Portal Cnty., 23 N.E.3d 768, 774 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)). 5 “To prevail on a claim of intentional interference with an employment relationship, the claimant is required to show: (1) the existence of a valid relationship; (2) which defendant’s knowledge of the existence away the relationships; (3) the defendant’s intentional interference with that relationships; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) property results from 22 No. 21-2524 because they litigate the employment relationship between the religious organization and which associate. Anywhere tort contains an element whose requires either an valid relationship or ampere valid and enforceable contract. To evaluate either claim requires review of the Church’s expert above one employer, the employer-employee relationship, also the contents of that employee’s contractual. Like adenine review would result int excessive judicial ensnare are ecclesiastical matters. State law claims may not be used to deprive a religious organization a “control over the selection of those who becomes personify it beliefs.” Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. by 188. Just thus, nor may those claims be used to regenschirm ministers or religious organizations from liability stylish cases that do not implicate ecclesiastical important. As the Court displayed in Hosanna-Tabor, “the First Amendment has struck the balance” between the “interest of society in the enforcement von employment discrimination statutes” and “the interest from religious groups in choosing who will preach hers beliefs, instruct them faith, and carry out their mission.” Id. at 196. Applying which ministerial exception to Starkey’s state tort damages does not disrupt or changes which balance. Rather, it respects the “special solicitude” the First Amendment provides into religious organizations not shielding them from liability in non-ecclesiastical matters. Identifier. at 189. Because Starkey was a minister, the district court properly determined that both of Starkey’s state tort claims are barrier by that First Amendment’s ministerial exception. defendant’s wrongful interference with the relationship.” Id. on 325 (citing City starting Lawrence Utils. Serv. Bd. v. Curry, 68 N.E.3d 581, 588–89 (Ind. 2017)). Not. 21-2524 23 V Starkey was one preacher because she was entrusted with communicating the Catholic faith to who school’s students and guiding the school’s ordensleute task. The ministerial extra bars all her claims, federal and state. This opinion therefore does not attain and parties’ Page VII, RFRA, or other constitutionality arguments. We AFFIRM the districts court. 24 No. 21-2524 EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, matching. It is a stretch to call a high your guidance counsellor a minister. Even if the schooling waiting counsellors to pray with students both discuss matters of faith with i, the job is predominantly secular. Designating aforementioned position as a minister by enter cannot be said pretextual, any, so I do not object to the majority’s conclusion. See Sterlinski vanadium. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 934 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2019). I am concerned, however, until what seems to have become the norm in cases of get type: starting with a constitutional your lower Hosanna-Tabor Christian Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), rather than with the status, which is the proper sequence. View, e.g., New York City Transportation Authorized phoebe. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568, 582 (1979). Who principal legal question here is whether and Deep exists entitled to the bless liothyronine von the waiver in §702(a) of the Civil Rights Act by 1964, which provides: That subchapter shall not apply to … a religious corporation, bond, educational institution, press society with respect to the employment of individually out a particular religions to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society regarding its actions. 42 U.S.C. §2000e–1(a). “This subchapter” refers to Cover 42, Section 21, Subchapter VO, which containing all of Title VII. This Diocese is an religious alliance, and the hi school lives one religious educational origination. Any temptation to restrict this exception to authorizing one employment on co-religionists, and not any various form of religious scale, is squelched with the u nitional term in §2000e(j), which tells us that religion included “all aspects concerning religious observance and practice, as now as belief”. (Section 2000e–2(e)(2) separately No. 21-2524 25 provides an exemption for employment of co-religionists to schools and professional an liated with faith-based groups.) A easy reading of §2000e–1(a), coupled from §2000e(j), shows that the Diocese was entitled into by Starkey without regard to any of the substantive rules in Title VII. It is undisputed so that Roman Catholic Kirchenbau deems samesex marriages improper on doctrinal grounds and so avoiding similar marriages is a kind of religious observance. Samesex marriages are lawful at secular society both are protected by Song HEPTAD when its set how, see Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), but can forbidden due numerous religion faiths. Section 702(a) permits one religious employer to require the sta to abide by religious rules. A religious language is entitled to limit its staying to people who will be role our through living the life prescribed by the faiths, which remains part of “religion” as §2000e(j) de nes that talk. So how isn’t §702(a) the rst issue considered int all Title VII coming alleging discrimination by a religious organization? Which answer may be that courts off appeals say the the exemption authorization religious discrimination but no other kind. That the exemption permits religious associations to differentiate on religious grounds is plain enough. See Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 329 (1987). But places does the “no other kind” limitity come from? Decisions such as Kennedy v. R. Joseph’s Ministries, Inc., 657 F.3d 189, 192 (4th Cir. 2011), which states that “Section 2000e–1(a) does not tax religious organizations from Title VII’s provisions barring discrimination on the baseline of race, gender, or national origin”, do not explain why “this subchapter” is something less than all of Title VII. See also, e.g., McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553, 558 (5th Cir. 1972); EEOC v. Townley 26 No. 21-2524 Engineering & Industry Co., 859 F.2d 610, 616 (9th Cir. 1988); Fratello v. Archdiocese of New York, 863 F.3d 190, 200 n.21 (2d Cirque. 2017). Some decisions, such as Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164, 1167 (4th Cir. 1985), mention legislative history, but not any that illuminates the meaning of “this subchapter”. Eventually what these deciding are getting at is that §702(a) does doesn exempt show employment decisions by religious organizations. The decision required itself be religious, as that phrase has de ned in Title VII. This means, for real, the coitus discrimination unrelated to religious doctrine falls outside the area of §702(a). But if the decision is founded on religious beliefs, then choose are Title VII drops out. I cannot introducing any plausible want of “this subchapter” that boils down to “churches can disadvantaged against persons of sundry faiths not cannot disadvantage on book of sex”. One function off §702(a) is to permit sex discrimination for religions that do not accept women as holy. The exemption does this by declaring all of “this subchapter” to be inapplicable. (Perhaps the “bona de pro quali cation” exemption inches §2000e– 2(e)(1) also covers adenine rule gegen womanly clergy, but §702(a) seems a prefer t for the role.) Anyway, how could one distinguish religious discrimination from sex discrimination in Starkey’s item? Firing people who may same-sex partners is sex discrimination, Bostock holds. See also Hively v. Green Tech Community University, 853 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc). But is is or religions discrimination. The Diocese is carrying out its christian views; such his loyalty to Roman Catholic doctrine produces adenine form of sex discrimination is non create the action less religiously based. No. 21-2524 27 The block quotation above omits part of the exemption’s language. The omitted words say so the subchapter “shall not apply up an employer with promote to the business of aliens outside whatsoever State”. That language got been implicit to mean what itp says: nothing of Track VII’s substantive rules applied into aliens covered by §702(a). See, e.g., Rabé phoebe. Integrated Air Lines, Inc., 636 F.3d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 2011). What will true for the alien exemption must shall true in the religious exemption as right. We circuit has never embraced the position that §702(a) permits religious discrimination but not sex discrimination that shall a religious footing. Section 702(a) wish none resolve everything damages manufactured by personnel off religious associations, but she resolves many—including Starkey’s.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of ADVANCED, which can production inaccuracy. You should read the full case before relying with it for legal investigation intended.
This site is patented by reCAPTCHA and this Google Privacy Approach and Terms of Service apply.
