« Religious objection to unions | Main | Ledbetter v. Goodyear brief for petitioner »
Ministerial exception flip-flop in Petruska v. Gannon University
September 07, 2006 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
The ministerial exception applies to some employment law claims, but not all, according to yesterday's decision in Petruska v. Gannon University (3rd Cir 09/06/2006).
A previous opinion in this case (05/24/2006) (2-1) had held that the ministerial exception would not apply to any of the claims. But the opinion's author had died before it was filed, so the opinion was vacated and a new hearing was ordered.
The new opinion applied the traditional ministerial exception to most of the claims: The court said that the ministerial exception, "a doctrine rooted in the First Amendment," "applies to any claim, the resolution of which would limit a religious institution's right to choose who will perform particular spiritual functions."
Facts: During a restructuring, a Catholic university demoted Petruska from her position as chaplain. Her suit alleged (1) demotion because of her sex and in retaliation for her opposition to sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, (2) civil conspiracy, (3) negligent supervision and retention, (4) fraudulent misrepresentation, and (5) breach of contract.
Here's how the court ruled on each claim:
- Demotion because of sex and in retaliation for her opposition to sexual harassment in violation of Title VII
The court said: "Gannon's choice to restructure constituted a decision about who would perform spiritual functions and about how those functions would be divided. Accordingly, application of Title VII's discrimination and retaliation provisions to Gannon's decision to restructure would violate the Free Exercise Clause."
- Civil conspiracy
The court said: "Because the First Amendment protects Gannon's right to restructure - regardless of its reason for doing so - we cannot consider whether the act was unlawful or tortious, and, therefore, these claims must be dismissed."
- Negligent supervision and retention
The court said: "Because the First Amendment protects Gannon's right to restructure - regardless of its reason for doing so - we cannot consider whether the act was unlawful or tortious, and, therefore, these claims must be dismissed."
- Fraudulent misrepresentation
The court said: "The resolution of Petruska's fraudulent misrepresentation claim does not turn on the lawfulness of the decision to restructure, but rather on the truth or falsity of the assurances that she would be evaluated on her merits .... * * * The state's prohibition against fraud does not infringe upon Gannon's freedom to select its ministers ...."
- Breach of contract
The court said: "Application of state contract law does not involve government-imposed limits on Gannon's right to select its ministers: Unlike the duties under Title VII and state tort law, contractual obligations are entirely voluntary."
|
|
« Religious objection to unions | Main | Ledbetter v. Goodyear brief for petitioner »
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
