“Discrimination” in the Workplace

Recently, there has been increased focus on LGBTQ rights within the religious community. In particular, instances of potential illegal discrimination within religious institutions have resulted in court cases going to the Supreme Court. In October alone, the Supreme Court will hear three cases dealing with LGBTQ rights in regard to discrimination that could be protected under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In a story covered by NBC’s Julie Moreau, she details the case of Lynn Starkey, a long-time guidance counselor at Roncalli High School in Indianapolis. After 4 decades of employment, she was fired after school officials discovered her same sex marriage. The current case thus asks are Catholic schools protected under religious grounds to discriminate based on same sex marriages? 

Before continuing, I feel that it is important to distinguish what it means to “discriminate” in this instance. In the case of hiring and maintaining staff, discriminating would mean favoring a certain attribute more than another. Discrimination is known to be legal in many religious cases. Moreau states “any employer can discriminate on the basis of religion if religion is considered necessary for the exercise of the job” (Moreau). Two clear examples of this would be kosher butcher preferring Jewish employees and a Baptist school preferring a Baptist teacher.

Lynn Starkey had been a guidance counselor at Roncalli High School for nearly 40 years when she was fired after officials discovered that she was married to another woman. While on the surface many will quickly jump to defend her citing Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which protects LGBTQ community members from discrimination in the workplace. Title VII states its intent is to “to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations” however, there is more to the legislation. In SEC. 2000e-1. [Section 702] the bill states that “This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to ... a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation.” This could mean that because the school is Catholic and has a specific religious mission, the elements of Title VII would not apply. If Starkey is to be considered serving in a ministerial position, the school would have the right to discriminate, favoring other potential employees who may be better suited to articulate the perspective of the Catholic Church. 

When Lynn Starkey agreed to work for the Catholic school, she was under the understanding that the mission of the Catholic school system is “to communicate the Catholic faith to the next generation" according to the Archdiocese of Indianapolis (Moreau). In further discussion, the archdiocese explained “To accomplish their mission, Catholic schools ask all teachers, administrators, and guidance counselors to uphold the Catholic faith by word and action, both inside and outside the classroom." This thus brings into question what the exact stance of the Catholic Church is on LGBTQ marriage (Moreau). Currently, the Catholic Church still does not condone gay marriage or civil unions, thus making Starkey’s action a breach of the Catholic mission. 

A similar court case does exist from 2012. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the school fired Cheryl Perich who had been diagnosed with narcolepsy. When the school fired her, she claimed that under the Americans with Disabilites Act that she was being discriminated against. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Perich was to be considered a minister and could not be protected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Similarly, I imagine the Supreme Court will rule that Starkey was operating in a ministerial role of a religious institution because she worked for a Catholic school that has a clearly religious mission. If she had been working for a non-religious school, the ruling would be completely different. 

In my opinion, I forecast that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Catholic School. Because Starkey was operating under the understanding that she must uphold the standards of the Catholic Church while working at the school, any explicit violation of such rules would be an instance causing them to favor another potential employee. 

Ultimately, this case will come down to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of whether Starkey can be considered as serving in a ministerial role. If the Court rules that the Catholic school is a religious institution and that Starkey is thus serving in a ministerial role, Catholic schools would have the ability to discriminate on grounds of same-sex marriage; however, if the school is treated as a secular educational institution, Lynn Starkey will likely win. Because of the explicitly religious mission and the previous result of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, I believe the Catholic schools’ employees will be treated as ministers subject to discrimination. 

NBC Article

EEOC

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC

Catholic Views of Same Sex Marriage