ministerial exception - Famighetti & Weinick

Religious Discrimination Exceptions

Famighetti & Weinick — Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:45:46 GMT

Federal and state laws protect employees from discrimination and prohibit employers from making employment decisions based on factors such as race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, and age. These laws also protect employees against retaliation. In other words, employers are prohibited from subjecting employees to negative employment decisions, such as termination or demotion, because an employee engages in “protected activity” such as filing a discrimination charge with a federal or state agency. Sometimes, discrimination laws clash with Constitutional concerns. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the ministerial exception to religious discrimination claims.

In 2012, however, in Hosanna‐Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. E.E.O.C., the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the ministerial exception doctrine. This exception is an affirmative defense that an employer can use to defend employment discrimination lawsuits. The Supreme Court has recognized that while there isn’t a strict formula to decide when the exception applies, it is usually the role performed by the employee and the religious activities of the employer that determines whether the exception applies.

On March 7, 2018, New York’s federal circuit court in Penn v. New York Methodist Hospital, decided a case based on the application of the ministerial exception doctrine.

In Penn, Marlon Penn, an African American Methodist, worked as the duty Chaplain for New York Methodist Hospital (the “Hospital”) in a primarily ministerial role. For example, “he coordinated the distribution of Bibles, conducted an in-hospital memorial service for an employee who dies, and ‘maintained . . . active, on-going pastoral care to staff.’” Penn remained in this position from 2004-2011.

Penn’s lawsuit stems from several requests that were ignored by the Hospital, asking them to promote him to full-time Staff Chaplain. Instead of hiring Penn, the hospital, on two occasions, passed him over in favor of a Jewish rabbi and a non-Methodist. In 2010, Penn filed an administrative complaint with the federal EEOC and New York Division of Human Rights alleging that the hospital failed to promote him because of his race and religion.

In response to Penn’s complaint, the Hospital provided several purportedly legitimate reasons for failing to promote him. The Hospital argued that Penn ended a service with a hymn that was only familiar to certain types of Christians, spent too much time counseling patients, was insensitive to non-Christian patients, and did not attend meetings. Also, Peter Poulos, the Director of the Department of Pastoral Care, argued that the second employee hired as a full-time Chaplain was a stronger candidate with better pastoral counseling skills than Penn.

In determining whether or not to apply the ministerial exception to Penn’s case, the Second Circuit noted that although there were some organizational and operational changes showing that the Hospital promoted its secular nature, there was nonetheless ample evidence indicating that the hospital remained significantly connected to its religious history. For example, the hospital has kept the word “Methodist” in its name, the Hospital’s by-laws require the hospital to appoint a president “with the advice and counsel of the Bishop of the New York Area of the United Methodist Church,” the by-laws require that every board meeting begin with a prayer, at the employee orientation Chaplain Polous tells employees that “patients are human beings who are created in the image of God,” and the Hospital provides religious services through its pastoral care department.

The Second Circuit’s decision then reiterated Hosanna-Tabor’s primary reason for implementing the ministerial exception doctrine which was to avoid infringing on a religious institution’s First Amendment rights. In other words, requiring a church or a religious group to accept or retain an unwanted minister would violate the First Amendment which prohibits government intrusion in these decisions. Thus, the court stated that because a jury hearing this case would have to make determinations on how a Chaplain should conduct religious services or provide spiritual support, it would dive deeply into protected First Amendment concerns.

Thus, due to the religious nature of Penn’s position at the hospital and the fact that the hospital’s Department of Pastoral Care was indeed a “religious group,” the Second Circuit agreed with the lower court’s decision to apply the ministerial exception and ruled in favor of the hospital.

Famighetti & Weinick PLLC are employment lawyers in New York. If you have questions about employment discrimination or other employment matters, call one of our Long Island employment lawyers at 631-352-0050. We are also available on the internet at https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com or on Facebook.

Today’s employment law blog was written by Hofstra Law School student and employment law intern, Thalia Olaya.

Discrimination by Religious Employers

Famighetti & Weinick — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:29:06 GMT

Employers are prohibited from discriminating against its employees based, among other things, on race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or familial status. Employers are also prohibited from retaliating against its employees. This means that an employer cannot punish an employee for engaging in legally protected activity. For example, if an employee complains either to a supervisor or to an outside agency (such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) about workplace discrimination and the employee subsequently suffers a negative employment action as a result of making the complaint, the employer has unlawfully retaliated against its employee.

However, the law is filled with exceptions. One of the exceptions to employment discrimination and retaliation is called the “ministerial exception.” This exception was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in 2012 in the Hosanna-Tabor case where the Court found that a fourth grade teacher, who taught mainly non-religious subjects at a religious school, could not sue her employer for retaliation.

The Ministerial Exception in Employment Discrimination Cases

The main reason for the ministerial exception is not to make it more difficult for employees, but rather to not infringe on an employer’s First Amendment rights. In Hosanna-Tabor, the Court explained that requiring a church or a religious group to accept or retain an unwanted minister, would violate the First Amendment which prohibits the government from intruding in such decisions.

On July 14, 2017, the Second Circuit addressed the scope of the ministerial exception for the first time in Fratello v. Archdiocese of New York.

In the Fratello case, Fratello was a principal at St. Anthony’s School in Nanuet, New York located in Rockland County. In 2011, the school did not renew her contract. Although it was not mentioned in detail in the court’s decision, the school terminated Fratello because of insubordination towards the pastor of St. Anthony’s. However, Fratello alleged that she was terminated based on gender discrimination and in retaliation for reporting the alleged discrimination.

Although the court determined that Fratello qualified as a “minister” under the law, Fratello did not have any formal training in religious studies or theology. In fact, all of her academic credentials were in education. However, her role as a principal at St. Anthony’s involved being the school’s catholic leader. As such, she implemented a new prayer system at the school where every morning a student would pray over the loudspeaker system. She also communicated religious messages over the loudspeaker such as reciting the “Our Father” and the ten “Hail Mary” prayers.

To determine whether Fratello qualified as a “minister” under the law thus falling under the ministerial exception, the Second Circuit used four factors established by the Supreme Court in the Hosanna-Tabor case. These factors included: (1) the employee’s formal title, (2) the substance reflected in that title, (3) the use of that title, and, (4) the religious functions performed. However, the Court made it clear that these factors did not create a bright line test.

When applying the factors above in the Fratello case, the court determined that the first factor was the only one that weighed against applying the ministerial exception because Fratello’s formal title was “lay principal.” However, the court ultimately found that the remaining three factors weighed in favor of applying the exception because Fratello was not only St. Anthony’s spiritual leader, but she “performed many important religious functions to advance its Roman Catholic mission.”

In sum, although the court did not allow Fratello to sue the school for employment discrimination and retaliation, not every religious leader may fall under the ministerial exception.

Long Island Employment Lawyers Can Help Fight Employment Discrimination

If you have questions about the ministerial exception or employment discrimination and retaliation, contact the Long Island employment lawyers at Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC. Our phone number is 631-352-0050 and our website is http://linycemployment.com.

Today’s employment law blog was written law student intern, Thalia Olaya.