Catholic Church Argues It Doesn't Have to Show Up in Court Because Religious Freedom

[trotsky]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/catholic-school-fires-teacher-using-ivf-unusual-religious-freedom-defense

When Emily Herx first took time off work for in vitro fertilization treatment, her boss offered what sounded like words of support: "You are in my prayers." Soon those words took on a more sinister meaning. The Indiana grade school where Herx was teaching English was Catholic. And after church officials were alerted that Herx was undergoing IVF—making her, in the words of one monsignor, "a grave, immoral sinner"—it took them less than two weeks to fire her.

Herx filed a discrimination lawsuit in 2012. In response, St. Vincent de Paul School and the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, her former employers, countered with an argument used by a growing number of religious groups to justify firings related to IVF treatment or pregnancies outside of marriage: Freedom of religion gives them the right to hire (or fire) whomever they choose. But the diocese took one big step further. It is arguing that, in this instance, its religious liberty rights protect the school from having to go to court at all.

"I've never seen this before, and I couldn't find any other cases like it," says Brian Hauss, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Center for Liberty. The group is not directly involved in the lawsuit but has filed amicus briefs supporting Herx. "What the diocese is saying is, 'We can fire anybody, and we have absolute immunity from even going to trial, as long as we think they're violating our religion. And to have civil authorities even look into what we're doing is a violation.'…It's astonishing."

...

"Employers try to appeal these decisions all the time. But this is unusual because of the incredibly broad claim to a religious exemption they're making," says Susan Deller Ross, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who has written about Title VII and worked on sex discrimination cases. Thomas Brejcha, the president of the Thomas More Society, a conservative religious liberty legal group, called the move "creative, venturesome, and unusual." He adds, "I'm very interested to see what happens."

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. "It all feels so medieval."

Quoted for truth. I can even remember the name of the bit of medieval history it reminded me of (taught to be about 35 years ago), about whether the church was subject to the same laws as secular people:

The Constitutions of Clarendon were a set of legislative procedures passed by Henry II of England in 1164. The Constitutions were composed of 16 articles and represent an attempt to restrict ecclesiastical privileges and curb the power of the Church courts and the extent of Papal authority in England. In the anarchic conditions of Henry II's predecessor, Stephen, the church had extended its jurisdiction by taking advantage of the weakness of royal authority. The Constitutions were claimed to restore the judicial customs observed during the reign of Henry I (1100–35), while in fact they were a part of Henry II's larger expansion of royal jurisdiction into the Church and civil law, which was a defining aspect of his reign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutions_of_Clarendon

[FBaggins]

2. That's a really deceptive title

It makes it sound like something unusual is going on... when all I can find looks like a very standard motion for summary judgement.

That type of motion is incredibly common. In fact, I think the church already won that argument as it pertains to her disability claim a couple months ago an are here appealing their initial loss on sexual discrimination grounds.

They aren't saying "We Have to Show Up in Court Because Religious Freedom"... they're saying "there's no need for a trial because we should win as a matter of law even if none of the material facts are disputed".

This sounds much more like the ACLU trying to argue in the court of publc opinion with bluster.

And... of course... the church's appeal here takes place in court... so they can hardly be said to be claiming that they are somehow immune from "showing up in court".

[Bluenorthwest]

3. And yet two other legal experts in the article call this unusual and are specific as to why:

"Employers try to appeal these decisions all the time. But this is unusual because of the incredibly broad claim to a religious exemption they're making," says Susan Deller Ross, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who has written about Title VII and worked on sex discrimination cases. Thomas Brejcha, the president of the Thomas More Society, a conservative religious liberty legal group, called the move "creative, venturesome, and unusual."

[FBaggins]

4. I didn't disagree with either of them

I simply pointed out that the title itself is pretty extreme spin. Nowhere is the church saying that they're above being called into court.

They're saying that this particular case does not warrant a trial because trials are for determining facts, and they think they win on the law regardless of any of the currently-disputed facts in the case.

I think the judge has already ruled against them on this argument as it relates to sexual discrimination, but for them as it relates to disability discrimination.

If I had to guess, she's already lost her stronger at-trial argument by the first dismissal. This appeal is less likely to be a loss for her, but the issue itself is also less-likely to be a win at trial. I think they're fighting to keep it open in the expectation that what they can find in discovery and the damage they can do to the diocese in the court of public opinion, makes an acceptable settlement more likely.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Well, they both called it unusal, which you said was ACLU spin and you said

"It makes it sound like something unusual is going on... when all I can find looks like a very standard motion for summary judgement."

Both scholars quoted at the end one on each side of the issue, use the word 'unusual' among others, such as board and venturesome.

And of course this is the Catholic Church, which claims gay people are 'inherently disordered' and influenced by demons and they say this in public and they teach it to kids. If a headline is worded too strongly about them it's just their bread cast upon the waters returning to them after many days as they were taught that it would. Cry me a river.

[FBaggins]

6. Sorry... nope.

The ACLU spin was the false claim that the church was arguing that they were somehow immune to showing up in court. Some sort of claim to religious immunity to legal action is implied.

Both scholars quoted at the end one on each side of the issue, use the word 'unusual' among others,

Yet neither of them claims that it's "unusual" to move for summary judgment. It's the reasoning involved in the claim that's unusual... and I agree with that too. But that too is what you expect. Motions for summary judgment, while common, often involve tortured legal reasoning. There's a very high bar to cross.

In this case, the challenge is that while the church probably does have a first amendment claim (that is... they can fire someone for violating an agreed-upon standard of conduct based on church teachings)... BUT... they can't fire someone just because of her gender. Since it's conceivable that she could demonstrate sexual harassment (if, for instance, the church treated men differently in similar situations), there is still a question of fact to determine, not just one of law.