A gay former employee of Catholic Relief Services may proceed with his lawsuit alleging that the nonprofit organization’s decision to terminate dependent health benefits for his male spouse violated federal and state civil rights laws, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Friday.
In a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel affirmed a lower court’s holding in favor of the plaintiff. It rejected arguments presented by CRS that its position conformed with the First Amendment, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Maryland state law. Neither statute fully immunizes all employment decisions by religious employers involving employees in nonministerial roles, the court explained.
For instance, Section 702 of Title VII exempts religious organizations from its prohibition against employment discrimination. But the 4th Circuit reasoned that discriminatory decisions made on the basis of both religious preference as well as a protected characteristic, such as sex, do not enjoy this protection.
“The opposite interpretation — that section 702 permits religious organizations to discriminate on any basis so long as a religious reason attended — would allow the exemption to swallow the rule, which would undermine rather than respect the remedial goals of Title VII,” the court said.
Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff in Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, an information technology analyst, performed duties that were “materially indistinguishable from those performed by individuals at secular organizations.” Therefore, the plaintiff’s role did not directly further CRS’ core mission, and he did not fall within the category of covered employees exempted from Maryland’s state antidiscrimination protections.
The 4th Circuit also disagreed with CRS’ contention that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could be cited as a defense in the case, noting that the RFRA has never been applied to a lawsuit between private parties. It similarly turned away CRS’ argument that the U.S. Supreme Court’s church autonomy doctrine immunized it from liability in disputes like the one in Doe.
The court concluded that its decision would permit religious organizations the “complete autonomy” to employ those who communicate their teachings while requiring employees to adhere to doctrine, so long as those requirements “do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or national origin.”
“But for those employees who do not perform spiritual functions, the state may act to ensure equal opportunities to work free from discrimination,” the 4th Circuit said.
A dissenting judge wrote that the majority’s decision is “stunningly restrictive of religious freedom” and “turns the First Amendment on its head.”
Appeals courts have had to take time sorting out the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., which held that Title VII’s prohibition of sex-based discrimination incorporates both sexual orientation and gender identity. Attorneys previously told HR Dive that the exclusion of same-sex spouses or domestic partners from employee benefits plan coverage may be an emerging post-Bostock issue for employers to note.
It’s not the first instance in which an appeals court has decided that state-level discrimination prohibitions could apply to religious organizations. In January, the 9th Circuit reversed a lower court’s holding that Washington state’s prohibition against sexual orientation-based discrimination did not apply to a religious ministry.
