In late August of 2021, Kenneth Ference applied to be a teacher at the Aquinas Academy Catholic school serving under the Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. He was hired to teach three secular subjects, math science and social studies, and as he himself was not a Catholic, was “forb[idden]...from religion class or engaging in any spiritual instruction” and would serve purely as a secular teacher. That said, weeks into the school year, he had indicated on an insurance waiver that his healthcare coverage was under his husband, “thus incidentally releavl[ing] that he was in a same-sex marriage.” Soon after, Ference was terminated from Aquinas Academy, and it was widely understood that it was due to their disapproval of his same-sex marital status.
Upon his dismissal from Aquinas Academy, Ference filed a complaint wherein he was suing for compensation for wrongful termination on the basis of discrimination of his sexuality. Ference iterated that “the Diocese violated his Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” which was created to protect people from discrimination of all kinds (racial, religious, gender, or namely sexual orientation in this case). However, his initial attempt to take the diocese to court was placed under review numerous times, as Aquinas Academy argued that as a religious institution, it is within the scope of their power to avoid hiring those that pose a direct conflict with their religious convictions and values. In other words, they have the right to an exemption from the Title VII and civil rights act and can permissibly engage in workplace discrimination for religious purposes. After these attempts by the diocese to dismiss the case, and an amended complaint, the District Court for Western Pennsylvania, the case survives and is still ongoing.
Overall, the constitutional questions at hand are as follows: does Aquinas Academy and its diocese have the right to discriminate against for being in a same-sex marriage? Are Catholic institutions exempt from the parameters of Title VII proceedings because of their religious convictions and ideas about things like sexuality? Does this case limit the free exercise and expression of religion of Aquinas Academy? From the perspective of Aquinas Academy, they believe that having a staff member who, in their opinion, does not live by the teachings of the religion that is central to their students’ education, is a direct violation of their own religious expression. Even as Ference served as a purely secular employee, “Aquinas Academy maintains that ‘at all times, the Catholic school is engaged in the process of catechesis and the formation of the Christian personality, a process which is integrated within the curriculum of all subjects taught in Catholic schools’” (16). This claim that religious teachings are ongoing even outside of the context of religious classes is vital to this case, as it places Ference in a quasi-ministerial role in the eyes of the school and Catholic Church.
While it is true that Catholic schools can permissibly not hire certain teachers for religious classes, I believe that this case should rule in favor of Ference. In fact, during his interview and hiring process, Ference was honest about not being Catholic (rather, a member of the Lutheran Church), and as per the school policy, could only teach secular content, which is surely within the school’s right to do. However, If Aquinas Academy genuinely considered every teacher to be responsible for religious instruction, as they iterate in their own defense, it is reasonable to question why Ference was hired in the first place, given that his religious affiliation was disclosed from the beginning. Judge Ranjan explains that “until the incidental disclosure on the waiver form, his marriage status was apparently a complete secret at Aquinas; and nothing about the circumstances of that disclosure imply that Mr. Ference would not, or could not, remain discreet about his marriage at work” (24). This observation complicates the school’s argument that Ference's marriage interfered with his ability to fulfill his professional responsibilities. Because Ference was already considered unqualified to provide religious instruction due to his non-Catholic faith, it seems inconsistent to make him responsible for holding and promoting the religious mission of the school only after the school discovered that he was in a same-sex marriage.
Ultimately, this case raises serious concerns about workplace discrimination in religious spaces, particularly when an employee’s dismissal appears to be based less on his actual job responsibilities than on the discovery of his marital status. Undoubtedly, religious institutions must have the right to constitutional freedom, and should be able to have total autonomy regarding who represents their faith. But, Ference was never a representative of the Catholic faith as an employee of Aquinas Academy. Aquinas Academy used the First Amendment in order to sanctify discrimination, which the constitution does not protect against. I believe that Ference was, in fact, wrongfully terminated. The discrimination at hand seems to forego any right that Aquinas Academy has in the name of religious free-exercise and expression, and that there is, in fact, a compelling state interest here. The proceedings of Title VII should have protected Ference against discrimination, even at a Catholic institution.
Sources:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/pawdce/2:2022cv00797/289970/101/
https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964
I agree with your argument that Ference was in fact a victim of workplace discrimination. Given that he was hired to teach purely secular subjects due to his religious faith being different from that of the school, his job duties were completely absent of religion. Therefore, the school should not have been able to fire him for not representing the school's faith if that was not his duty anyway. Catholic institutions absolutely should not be exempt from the parameters of Title VII proceedings that protect workplace discrimination because of their religious convictions. If that were to be the case, where would we draw the line on whether and when one law should override another? Title VII is a generally applicable law and religious institutions earn no exception.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this seems to be an issue of Ference being discriminated against in the workplace. I think it is very important that from the beginning, Ference was not hired to be a representative of the Catholic faith, as he was clear about his Lutheran identity and the school said he could not teach religious classes from the start. If the school was okay with his religious convictions in this instance, his marital life/status should have no impact on him teaching secular classes at the school.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Ference should win this case, mostly because of the inconsistency you pointed out, since it's hard for the school to say every teacher is part of its religious mission when they knowingly hired a non-Catholic and specifically told him he couldn't teach religion. It reminded me of Our Lady of Guadalupe, where the Court said what matters is what the employee actually does, and those teachers were leading prayer and teaching the faith, which is pretty much the opposite of Ference's job. The only part I'm less sure about is that the school could argue it's about the example teachers set for students and not just what they teach, so I'm curious where you think the line should be between a teacher's job duties and their private life.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. I think the most important factors in this case are that he was hired to be a secular teacher, they knew he was not a participant in their faith, and they did not expect him to participate or represent their faith or teachings in any way (and even discouraged or barred him from doing so). Because of this, it is unreasonable to then fire him because he did not fufill or represent the beliefs of their faith, when he was never supposed to in the first place, and was hired regardless of the fact that he did not practice their religion. I also find your point that in no way was he fired for misconduct or problems with the way he actually did his job, but instead for a way he lives his. life is clear discrimination.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that Ference’s secular responsibilities weaken the school’s justification for firing him. The school knowingly hired a Lutheran teacher and prohibited him from providing religious instruction, making its later claim that he represented Catholic teachings seem inconsistent. Your focus on his actual duties is convincing because treating every employee as a religious representative could allow religious institutions to extend exemptions beyond roles that involve teaching faith.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that Ference was wrongfully fired. I think religious schools should have the freedom to hire teachers who reflect their beliefs, but that does not mean they get to discriminate teachers that do not. He was hired to specifically be a secular teacher and not teach religion. The school already knew he wasn't Catholic and still hired him, his marriage does not change his abiity to do his job.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that Ference was wrongfully fired, and I also agree with what several others have pointed out in the comments about the inconsistency in the school's reasoning. Aquinas Academy knowingly hired Ference despite his not being Catholic and specifically prohibited him from teaching religion, so it seems contradictory to later argue that he was responsible for upholding Catholic teachings. I also think the circumstances surrounding how the school discovered his marriage make the situation even more concerning. As you mentioned, his marital status became known only through an insurance waiver, not through anything he said or did while teaching. If his marriage had never affected his ability to perform his job or caused any issues within the school before its discovery, I question how the school can reasonably argue that it interfered with its religious mission. While religious institutions should have some authority to preserve their religious identity, I think there needs to be a distinction between protecting that identity and regulating employees' private lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Ference was wrongfully terminated. I find the inconsistencies of when Aquinas chose to apply religion to be the primary issue; despite the fact that Ference was open about being a member of a different religion (Lutheran), he was still hired to teach three secular subjects. Then after the school found out he was in a same-sex marriage, they terminated his employment. My question would be, why does it matter if he was in a same-sex marriage or not? If the argument is that his sexual orientation goes against the religious belief of Aquinas, I think that’s a weak argument. Ference was hired, knowingly, that he was part of a different religion and not adhering to Aquinas’s religious beliefs. I think what Aquinas did was discriminatory against Ference.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the school was discriminating against Ference by firing him for being gay. This is a textbook case of discrimination based on sexual orientation, and Aquinas has no right to terminate someone based on their sexual orientation alone. If Ference had advocated against the Church's teachings for his own lifestyle, I think that there would be a better case that he wasn't wrongfully terminated.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument, I think that it is very important to note that when Ference was hired he was transparent that he was not a Catholic, and the school still choose to hire him to teach secular classes only. The school also told him that he may not bring up religion at all while teaching these classes. The school was well aware that Ference's religious beliefs did not align with theirs and had no problem hiring him in the first place. While I believe the school should have the right to only hire people who they believe agree with their religious beliefs as a religious school, they hired Ference already knowing that he was against their beliefs and did not have a problem initially.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that Ference was treated unfairly. Since he was only teaching subjects like stem, and social studies, I don’t think his personal life should have affected his job. I think religious schools should have the freedom to follow their beliefs, but employees should also be protected. Ference was not responsible for teaching religion, so his marriage should not have affected his ability to teach. I also think schools should focus more on how well teachers do their jobs rather than their personal beliefs or relationships.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that Ference should have been protected from discrimination, especially since he was only hired to teach secular subjects. I though it was interesting that the school knew he wasn't Catholic when they hired him but only had an issue after finding out about his marriage.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your analysis. The main problem is the school's inconsistency. Aquinas Academy hired Ference knowing he was not Catholic and made sure he would not teach religion. Later, they argued that every teacher has a religious role, but only after his same-sex marriage became known. This seems like an excuse rather than a real policy. Since his daily work was only secular and he was never asked to represent the faith, Title VII protections against discrimination should apply. Great post pointing out the difference between his job duties and his private life!
ReplyDelete