A gay Catholic church music director, who was fired for marrying another man, should be able to sidestep the Chicago Archdiocese’s religious freedom protections and sue the Archdiocese under federal civil rights laws for allegedly allowing the priest at the suburban parish at which he worked to allegedly create a hostile work environment, a split federal appeals panel has ruled.
On Aug. 31, a three judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago sided 2-1 with the fired music minister on the question of whether the so-called “ministerial exception” should block him and others from being able to sue churches for the treatment they may receive from their superiors while working at the church.
The majority opinion was authored by Seventh Circuit Judge David Hamilton, with Judge Ivana Rovner concurring.
U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge David F. Hamilton
| law.columbia.edu
“Supervisors within religious organizations have no constitutionally protected individual rights … to abuse those employees they manage, whether or not they are motivated by their personal religious beliefs,” Judge Hamilton wrote in the majority opinion.
Circuit Judge Joel Flaum dissented, saying the ruling would open the door for judges to potentially violate the First Amendment by inserting themselves into churches’ relationship with the ministers they employ to lead their worship, interpret their doctrine and scriptures, and administer their internal affairs.
Such “employment discrimination claims … unavoidably involve religious matters at the core of that relationship,” Flaum wrote.
The decision centers on litigation brought against the Roman Catholic Chicago Archdiocese by Sandor Demkovich, who served as church organist and director of music at St. Andrew the Apostle Church in Calumet City from 2012-2014.
Demkovich sued after the church’s pastor, the Rev. Jacek Dad, fired him several days after Demkovich, who is gay, married his longtime partner.
In the original lawsuit, Demkovich, of Whiting, Ind., claimed his firing violated employment discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation, marital status and disability.
According to court documents, Demkovich is overweight and a diabetic. In his complaints, Demkovich said he suffered repeated offensive comments from Dada, particularly targeted at his physical condition, and the cost to the church of insuring him.
U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang dismissed that initial action, saying the church’s decision to terminate Demkovich’s employment was protected by the so-called ministerial exception. The exception shields churches and other religious organizations from most employment discrimination claims, as the U.S. Supreme Court has declared churches are and should be free under the First Amendment to hire and fire people in ministerial roles to protect the sanctity of their beliefs and mission.
Judge Chang determined Demkovich, as the church music director, fit the description of a ministerial employee.
Demkovich and his attorneys, however, then restyled their litigation, this time focusing on Dada’s alleged treatment of Demkovich before he was fired. The plaintiffs asserted this should allow them to press hostile workplace claims against the church under both Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, which protects sexual identity, and under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Judge Chang partially sided with the plaintiffs.
The Archdiocese asked the Seventh Circuit to review the case and answer whether the ministerial exception should shield them from the hostile workplace claims, as well.
Similar questions have been tackled by other federal appeals circuit courts, as well, with differing results. The Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said hostile workplace claims can proceed, while the Tenth Circuit Court in Denver said the ministerial exception should prevent such claims.
The majority on the Seventh Circuit panel said it believed the Ninth Circuit answered the question correctly.
They drew a distinction between a church’s ability to hire and fire – to “select and control” – its ministers, and the church’s ability to mistreat those ministerial employees. They said the “tangible” actions of hiring, firing, promoting and transferring ministers are protected by the ministerial exception. But they said a church’s treatment of its ministerial employees – or “intangible” actions - could still be subject to protections within the civil rights laws.
Judges Hamilton and Rovner noted the ministerial exception doesn’t shield churches from criminal statutes, nor does it prevent injury lawsuits. And they said, churches enjoy no protection from civil rights laws for “non-ministerial” employees.
Therefore, they said, hostile workplace claims should be acceptable for ministers, as well.
Judge Flaum, however, said this opens the door to allow the courts to exert control over the employment decisions of churches.
He warned allowing such hostile workplace claims to proceed would “’gravely infringe’ on the rights of religious employers … ‘to select, manage, and discipline their clergy free from government control and scrutiny…’”
“… To assess Demkovich’s employment discrimination claims, the district court will need to determine whether his religious work environment was appropriate,” Flaum wrote.
“… Allowing Demkovich’s employment discrimination claims to overcome the ministerial exception will ‘involve gross substantive and procedural entanglement with the Church’s core functions, its polity, and its autonomy,’ which is ‘precisely what the ministerial exception was designed to cover and to prevent,’” Flaum wrote.
Judges Hamilton and Rovner recognized the potential for judges to involve themselves improperly in church affairs. But they discounted the risk.
“Perhaps defendants’ predictions of intolerable abuses and intrusions may come true,” Judge Hamilton wrote. “At this time, however, we are not persuaded that courts cannot manage a balance that respects the rights of both churches and their employees.”
Barring further appeals, the case could return to Judge Chang for further proceedings.
Demkovich has been represented by attorneys with the Lavelle Law firm, of Palatine.
The Archdiocese has been represented by the firm of Burke, Warrant, MacKay & Serritella, of Chicago.