Appeals court finds Catholic school could fire gay teacher who announced marriage
Fairly narrow ruling based on ministerial exception to civil-rights law
A Catholic high school in North Carolina had the right to fire a substitute teacher after he announced his marriage engagement to another man, a federal appeals court panel unanimously ruled yesterday. Legally, the case was an unusual one — the court majority disagreed with the legal arguments the school had made, nevertheless giving them the victory by ruling on a different legal principle than what the school’s attorneys had argued.
The decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Va., is the latest major ruling in the ongoing legal battle involving the balance between antidiscrimination laws and freedom of religion.
Obama appointee Pamela Harris wrote the majority opinion, joined by Reagan appointee Paul V. Niemeyer. Their opinion was a fairly narrow one: They decided that under the facts of the case, teacher Lonnie Billard fell under the “ministerial exception” to antidiscrimination law, meaning that he was deemed to be an employee whose employment status was not reviewable by courts because his job involved important religious functions.
The ministerial exception was made by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 and reaffirmed in 2020. It is a constitutional protection derived from the First Amendment and is designed to keep courts out of deciding matters of religious doctrine and practice.
The third judge in the case, Clinton appointee Robert B. King, agreed that the school acted within its legal rights. But rather than invoking the ministerial exception, he would have decided on broader grounds, finding that the school itself fit under an exception in Title VII of the federal civil-rights law that provides certain protection to religious organizations. His concurring opinion coincided with some of the legal positions the school had taken.
The majority found that Billard fell within the ministerial exception in part because his employer, Charlotte Catholic High School, “expected its teachers to model faith in the teaching of all subjects, including the non-religious subjects taught by Billard.” In addition, Billard “was evaluated based on the degree to which he integrated faith throughout his classes, including his ability to teach his subjects in a way ‘agreeable with Catholic thought’ and the ‘catholicity’ of his classroom environment.”
Finally, the court noted, “Billard was expected to — and did — begin each class with prayer and attend Mass with his students, where he regularly opted to receive communion. All of this indicates the performance of ‘vital religious duties’ that implicate the ministerial exception.”
Ironically, the school’s attorneys had expressly indicated to both the trial and appeals court that they were not asking to have the firing upheld on the basis of the ministerial exception. The trial court had sided with the teacher in part because it avoiding ruling using the ministerial exception; it had rejected the school’s arguments, which were based on interpretation of civil-rights laws and the school’s rights to freedom of expression and association.
But the appeals decision raised the ministerial exception on its own, which is highly unusual. In effect, the decision rejected the schools’ apparent attempt to set up a legal dispute that would have far broader applicability than one involving circumstances unique to Billard’s employment.
The schools’ attorneys praised the ruling even though it was decided on issues different from what they had sought. The Becket Fund said in a prepared statement:
Religious organizations must be free to choose those who carry out their religious mission. This not only protects the fundamental freedoms of parents and religious schools to decide how to pass on their faith, but also protects the proper separation of church and state.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which argued in behalf of Billard, expressed strong disappointment in its statement:
This is a heartbreaking decision for our client who wanted nothing more than the freedom to perform his duties as an educator without hiding who he is or who he loves. Every worker should be entitled to equal protection under the law … [and the ruling] threatens to encroach on that principle by widening the loopholes employers may use to fire people like Mr. Billard for openly discriminatory reasons.
Billard could appeal to either a full panel of the appeals court or to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the ACLU’s statement noted that the decision was “narrowly tailored to Mr. Billard and the facts of his employment,” suggesting that an appeal based on interpretation of federal law is unlikely.
A vast array of interested parties
Among the organizations that had supported the school through the submission of friend-of-the-court briefs were The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Southern Baptist Convention, The Seventh-day Adventist church, the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team of the Religious Freedom Institute, the Navigators, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, Samaritan’s Purse, Focus on the Family, and the Institute for Free Speech.
Among those supporting the teacher were Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Muslim Advocates, the National Council of Jewish Women, and 18 state governments (counting the District of Colombia).