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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT