Monday, September 9, 2019

“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. 



6 comments:

  1. This case is extremely interesting and complex because as Will points out, at face value one may think that the Catholic School is definitely in the wrong in firing Cheryl Perich for being gay. Court precedent however reveals this may not be the case at all. I agree that the Supreme court will rule in the favor of the Catholic School due to the fact Perich will be considered to have been acting in a ministerial role. However, I would urge the court to consider that that this relationship was happening outside the walls of her job and not impacting her Catholic teachings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Bess that this case has many layers to it. While I believe that the Court will rule in favor of the Catholic school because Starkey agreed to "uphold the Catholic faith by word and action" and abide by the Catholic mission, Starkey was also in good standing with the school for four decades. This leads me to believe that Starkey successfully upheld the Catholic faith within the classroom and did not threaten the school's mission. However, even if the relationship did not impact her Catholic teachings, Starkey agreed to uphold the faith "both inside and outside the classroom," and so I can understand why the school may find this situation unjust.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really like this case because it discusses the rising issue of equality for the LGBTQ community. I agree in that the Catholic School is in the wrong for firing Cheryl Perich for being gay. The court however revealed that due to his position as a ministry role, it was looked upon as going against religious beliefs due to him working at the Catholic school and having the expectation of following the rules of the school as well. It also came to my attention that Perich did not act upon his belief while working at the school, upholding his liberties stated in the First Amendment, one has the freedom to religion and belief.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This case seems very interesting to me because I attended a Christian school for my last 3 years of high school, and they made it very clear to us students before attending that we must uphold Christian values by the way we speak and act. There seems to be a very distinct difference between public and private schools in regards to the amount of state intervention allowed. In this particular case, I agree with a few of the comments above that the court will side with the private school because it is clearly stated that in order to teach there, you must uphold a certain standard of conduct and the state has little authority over protecting privately funded institutions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I attended a Christian school from kindergarten to 12th grade and both my parents have, and still are, teachers at Christian high schools. This case is really interesting because so many Constitutional rights were the center of heated debates while I was there. Do random locker and backpack searches violate the 4th Amendment (search & seizure)? Does enforcing a dress code take away freedom of expression (1st Amendment)? When you attend or work at a private, religious institution you sign away a lot of these individual rights. Although I do not like, or personally agree with, how this school handled the situation with Lynn Starkey, I do understand that private schools do not always operate as public schools should. I agree with the way you predict the ruling, the Catholic school is a private and religious institution and the Court will most likely rule in their favor.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I went to a Private Catholic High School and my school paraded with pride flags and many teachers held pride flags in their office. Although this was just my school, I was also raised Catholic and with the understanding that gay marriage is not condoned. But one of the great teachings of Catholicism is that we are to love our neighbors and we are also not allowed to kick anyone out of church if they want to be there respectfully, for we are all sinners. Although I can see the Supreme Court siding with the school, it would be unjust. The teacher has been a part of the professional staff for 40 years. What she promotes and the type of person she is outside of the school should not effect her job. As long as she continues to abide by the rules of the school and not push the "LGBTQ+ agenda" on students who don't agree then she should stay in good standing with the school. This is discrimination and the school is acting like a Godly figure.

    ReplyDelete