« Gender-based salary discrimination claims, and burdens of proof | Main | Big Case #7 - ATU v. Laidlaw Transit »
Big Case #6 - Petruska v. Gannon University
August 31, 2006 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
#6 in the Big Cases Series for 2006: Petruska v. Gannon University, 448 F.3d 615 [advance sheet; withdrawn from bound volume] (3rd Cir 05/24/2006) (2-1), vacated and referred for rehearing (06/20/2006).
Facts: A chaplain sued her Catholic university employer under Title VII claiming she was demoted because of her sex and in retaliation for her opposition to sexual harassment. She also had state law claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent supervision and retention, and civil conspiracy.
Held: The district court cannot dismiss these claims on a 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) motion.
Key quote:
"We adopt a carefully tailored version of the ministerial exception. Where otherwise illegal discrimination is based on religious belief, religious doctrine, or the internal regulations of a church, the First Amendment exempts religious institutions from Title VII. In such cases, restricting a church's freedom to select its ministers would violate the Free Exercise Clause by inhibiting the church's ability to express its beliefs and put them into practice. Furthermore, questions about religious matters would pervade litigation, entangling courts in ecclesiastical matters and violating the Establishment Clause.
"But where a church discriminates for reasons unrelated to religion, we hold that the Constitution does not foreclose Title VII suits. Employment discrimination unconnected to religious belief, religious doctrine, or the internal regulations of a church is simply the exercise of intolerance, not the free exercise of religion that the Constitution protects. Furthermore, in adjudicating suits that do not involve religious rationales for employment action, courts need not consider questions of religious belief, religious doctrine, or internal church regulation, a process that would violate the Establishment Clause by entangling courts in religious affairs."
Related cases:
- The traditional and majority rule: The "ministerial exception" "deprives a federal court of jurisdiction to hear a Title VII employment discrimination suit brought against a church by a member of its clergy, even when the church's challenged actions are not based on religious doctrine." Combs v. Central Texas Annual Conference, 173 F.3d 350 (5th Cir 1999), following McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir 1972).
- Tomic v. Catholic Diocese, 442 F.3d 1036 (7th Cir 04/04/2006) followed the traditional rule.
- Hankins v. Lyght, 438 F.3d 163 (2nd Cir 02/16/2006) (2-1) avoided deciding the ministerial exception issue, and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act amended the ADEA. Remanded for reconsideration in light of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951 (9th Cir 2004), rehearing denied with opinions, 397 F.3d 790 (2005), held that a church minister can state a claim for sexual harassment.
- Dolquist v. Heartland Presbytery, 342 F.Supp.2d 996 (D Kans 2004) held that a church pastor can state a claim for sexual harassment and retaliation.
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
