ILNews

Fort Wayne case may force SCOTUS to define who qualifies as a minister

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Since the Supreme Court of the United States weighed in on “ministerial exception” in January 2012, cases have been percolating across the country spurred by religious institutions claiming the exception as protection against employee discrimination lawsuits.

However, the Supreme Court limited its ruling to only the facts presented in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., 132 S.Ct. 694, and left for another day how the exception would apply to workers who do not have specific religious duties.

A lawsuit from Fort Wayne is one of the first cases regarding the ministerial exception that arose after the Hosanna-Tabor decision, and attorneys believe it has the potential to force the Supreme Court to set parameters for determining who in a religious-affiliated institution qualifies as a minister.

delaney-kathleen.jpg DeLaney

The Fort Wayne case, Emily Herx v. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend and St. Vincent De Paul School, 1:12-CV-122, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division in April 2012 – three months after SCOTUS offered its opinion.

Emily Herx’s position appears to fall in that gray area not addressed by the Supreme Court. She was a language arts and literature teacher in a Catholic school but she did not teach any religion courses or lead any church activities. Yet, in response to her complaint that the diocese discriminated against her by terminating her employment after she underwent infertility treatments, the diocese claimed it was exempt from the civil proceeding by the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

“Our view is that the ministerial exception should be limited to people who have religious duties and responsibilities as part of their job and to people who are ordained as ministers,” said Kathleen DeLaney, the Indianapolis attorney representing Herx.

Circuit courts had been deciding ministerial exception cases before the Supreme Court took up the matter. Typically, the decisions from the Circuit went a step farther by formulating tests to determine who fits the minister definition.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals established three factors an employee must meet to be considered a minister and the 4th Circuit developed a primary duty test. In Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 320 F.3d 698 (2003), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a church’s press secretary served a “ministerial function” which barred her employment discrimination suit.

Jennifer Drobac, professor of law at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, speculated the Herx suit will go to trial. She contended the Catholic Church wants to use this dispute as a test case to expand the definition of ministerial exception.

Pointing to the conservative nature of the Fort Wayne community, Drobac believes the church may be counting on a favorable verdict. This case, she said, is less about the intricacies of who qualifies as a minister and more about power.

Religious entities want to be completely left alone by the government and, regardless of what the final outcome is, Herx will have a ripple effect by answering how much independence these organizations can have, Drobac said.

Expanding a family

In her complaint, Herx contends the diocese treated her less favorably than other employees because she sought medical treatment for infertility so she and her husband could have more children. The diocese’s action to terminate her employment, she said, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Herx’s problems with the diocese began when she requested time off for another round of in-vitro fertilization treatments. Msgr. John Kuzmich, then-pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Parish, told Herx she was setting an inappropriate moral example that could have adverse spiritual consequences for her students.

She appealed the decision to not renew her teaching contract, but Bishop Kevin Rhoades refused to reverse course. Rhoades characterized the process of IVF as an “intrinsic evil” because it involves the “deliberate destruction or freezing of human embryos.”

The Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend and its attorneys declined to comment to the Indiana Lawyer. However, in a statement issued shortly after Herx filed her complaint, the church asserted its teacher contracts clearly state the policies requiring classroom instructors to have respect for and abide by the tenets of the Catholic faith.

While the definition of a minister is foggy in the Herx case, it was very clear in the Hosanna-Tabor dispute. Attorney Michael Ewing’s description of Hosanna-Tabor as a “slam dunk case” is confirmed by the Supreme Court 9-0 decision. Cheryl Perich, the plaintiff in the Hosanna-Tabor case, had ministerial duties that included leading her students in prayer and participating in chapel services. In addition, she had passed the requirements to be classified as a “called” teacher and was given the title of “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.”

Left undecided by SCOTUS was where the ministerial line lies for employees who worked for religious-affiliated entities but were not tasked with religious duties. Ewing, senior associate at Frost Brown Todd LLC in Nashville, explained a religious-affiliated employer might feel its employees should embody and personify its core religious values. Consequently, those employees should be held accountable when their actions are not consistent with those values.

DeLaney, managing partner at DeLaney and DeLaney LLC, said if the argument eventually prevails that every employee of a religious institution is a minister and therefore unprotected by Title VII and the ADA, it would have enormous repercussions for the millions of people who work for religious-affiliated organizations.

That point about the potentially large impact was echoed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Both organizations filed amicus curiae briefs in opposition to the diocese’s motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing Herx’s complaint.

The ASRM argued allowing the diocese to terminate employees who sought IVF treatment would have “chilling effect” on a huge patient base. Likewise, the ACLU asserted the Catholic Church’s position would bring back a time when religious-affiliated institutions discriminated against individuals with HIV, African-American doctors and women who became pregnant.

Cincinnati verdict

Writing for the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the Circuit courts’ view that a “ministerial exception” does exist. SCOTUS held that by requiring a church to retain an unwanted minister, the state is interfering with the internal governance of the religious organization and, therefore, infringing on the church’s right to shape its own faith and mission through it appointments as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause.

The ministerial exception, said Rozlyn Fulgoni-Britton, an employment attorney at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP in Indianapolis, “keeps the courts and juries from hashing out ecclesiastical doctrine and weighing faith.” On the other hand, “employees have less protection from employment discrimination law in certain cases.”

A recent verdict in a ministerial exception dispute in Cincinnati gave a boost to Herx. In Dias v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 2012 WL 1068165 (S.D. Ohio, March 29, 2012), Christa Dias was fired from her teaching position after she became pregnant through artificial insemination.

The archdiocese claimed Dias was fired because she failed to act in a manner consistent with the philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. However, the jury agreed with Dias that she was discriminated against and awarded the former teacher $171,000.

Members of a jury typically are persuaded by the fairness aspect, rather than the technical legal issues, Fulgoni-Britton and Ewing said. When jurors judge the action to be unfair, a high verdict likely will follow.

Given the number of couples who have undergone infertility treatments and understand the emotional rollercoaster, DeLaney believes the Dias outcome is a positive indication of how a jury might react to the evidence in the Herx case.

“I think a lot of people have identified with Emily,” DeLaney said, “and her struggles to expand her family with her husband.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  4. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  5. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

ADVERTISEMENT