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.

The Plausibility Standard

For years, Federal courts applied a liberal “notice pleading” requirement to determine whether complaints should be dismissed or not. Courts looked to determine whether there were enough facts to give notice to the defendants about the basis for the plaintiff’s case. Then, in 2009, the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, applied a stricter standard and held that complaints must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true” to state a plausible claim for relief. If not, the complaint will likely be dismissed. The Supreme Court did not provide much guidance about what that standard means and so courts have struggled to apply the standard to the cases coming before them.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, New York’s Federal appellate court, faced these questions in Irrera v. Humpherys, which is discussed below.

Court Determines Retaliation Case is Plausible

Irrera was a graduate music student at the Eastman School of Music of the University of Rochester, one of the nation’s most highly regarded music schools. At Eastman, Irrera was pursuing a doctor of musical arts degree and Humpherys was the chair of the piano department and one of his teachers.

On multiple occasions, Humpherys made unwanted sexual advances towards Irrera, which Irrera refused to accept. Some of the unwanted advances included caressing his shoulder, rubbing his hands up and down Irrera’s arms during a piano lesson, blowing kisses at him, and looking at him up and down in a sexual manner.

As a student pursuing a doctor of medical arts degree, Irrera had to perform two solo recitals. Despite being told repeatedly by Humpherys that he was ready and that he would do well, Irrera failed both of his recitals.

Irrera was shocked because in the 27 years that he had been playing the piano, this was the first time that he failed a solo recital. Not surprisingly enough, however, the recitals were judged by a panel of three professors, including Humpherys.

In a recorded conversation, Humpherys told Irrera that he “would never get a university professor job,” and threatened to “make his life a living hell” if he reported the sexual harassment. Regardless, Irrera complained to a school dean.

After Irrera received his degree from Eastman, he applied to 28 colleges and universities for teaching positions in their piano departments. However, Irrera did not receive even one interview invitation.

At issue in Irrera’s case was whether his inability to secure a job interview was caused by Humpherys in retaliation for Irrera rejecting his prior sexual advances.

Irrera lost his retaliation claim at the District Court because the court held that his claim was speculative. The court held that Irrera didn’t state factual allegations in the complaint suggesting that Humpherys provided Irrera’s potential employers with any kind of reference, including a negative reference.

On June 15, 2017, however, the Second Circuit reversed the District Courts decision on the retaliation claim. In holding that Irrera’s retaliation claim was plausible, the Second Circuit held that although it wasn’t impossible that all 28 schools didn’t give Irrera an interview based on his credentials, it was in fact plausible that the schools received negative references from Humpherys.

The Second Circuit also concluded that Irrera had stated a plausible retaliation claim because Humpherys had previously warned Irrera that he would make his life a “living hell” if he reported the sexual advances. Additionally, since Humpherys was the chair of the department, it was plausible that the schools, to which Irrera applied to, would contact Humpherys even though he was not listed as a reference.

Notably, the Second Circuit held that Irrera’s complaint was sufficient even though Irrera did not allege that he was aware of any particular instance in which the defendants sent a negative reference to a school. The Court used its “common experience” to hold that colleges “rarely, if ever, disclose the content of the references they receive.” The sum of the circumstances suggested that the retaliation was plausible.

In sum, this case reminds us that the plausibility standard is not always clear and lawyers and plaintiffs must draft well pleaded complaints to survive possible challenges by defendants to dismiss the case. If you think you have faced retaliation in the workplace or if you have questions about filing a discrimination or retaliation lawsuit, contact the Long Island employment lawyers of Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC at 631-352-0050.

Today’s employment law blog about workplace retaliation lawsuits was written by Thalia Olaya, a Hofstra Law School intern working at Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC, this summer.