The Supreme Court of Maryland has issued a decision in the case of Doe v. Catholic Relief Services that clarifies the religious exception in the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act. Ferguson, Schetelich & Ballew was legal counsel on an Amicus Brief filed in favor of an expansive reading of the statutory protection for religious organizations.
The issue before the Court was whether the prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation applies to employees of a religious organization, and if so to which employees. The issue had reached the Court as a certified question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland which was considering a case of involving such a claim discrimination. The case is particularly important because it concerned not a church, but an organization (Catholic Relief Services) whose activities are motivated by religious beliefs but are not in the nature of religious services.
The question was one of statutory interpretation. The Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, but it has an exemption for “a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity to perform work connected with the activities of the religious entity.” Mr. Doe is a gay man making a claim that he was discriminated against by Catholic Relief Services in that it refused to provide insurance benefits to his same sex spouse. He was employed by Catholic Relief Services as a data analyst.
The question before the Court turned on the meaning of the language in the statute “work connected with the activities of the religious entity.” Mr. Doe argued that the exemption should be read narrowly and be limited to the “ministerial exemption” of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, and so applied only to “ministers” of the religious organization. Catholic Relief Services argued that the statutory exemption should be read broadly and applied to all employees of the organization. To decide the question, the Court carefully parsed the language of the statute and reviewed its legislative history.
In a 4 – 3 decision the Court decided on a middle ground. It concluded that the exemption applies to “employees who perform duties that directly further the core mission (or missions) of the religious entity.” The opinion further explained that duties “directly” furthering the core mission of the religious entity are those “that are not one or more steps removed from taking the actions that effect the goals of the entity.” The question in any particular case would be decided on the facts of that situation, including the nature of the work, the size of the organization, and its goals. Finally, the Court decided that the exemption applies to secular core missions as well as religious missions of the organization.
The decision has generally been well received by religious organizations as providing most (but not all) of the protection that it seeks in making employment decisions. Mr. Doe’s case itself has been returned to the Federal Court for a final decision on the facts.
Ferguson, Schetelich & Ballew was counsel on an Amicus Brief that joined the arguments in favor of an expansive reading of the statutory exemption. Our firm maintains an active practice representing churches and Christian ministries throughout Maryland and nationally.