The United States Department of Justice is requesting the Supreme Court of Indiana to expel a lawsuit involving a free exercise dispute within a parochial school. In the case, the plaintiff, Joshua Payne-Elliott, argues that he has been fired from his position as a teacher at Cathedral High School because of his sexual orientation. In 2017, Payne-Elliott entered a same-sex marriage and because the Catholic faith deems non-heterosexual relationships as immoral, his marriage was seen as invalid within the school’s diocese. The diocese of Payne-Elliott’s former employment stated that they terminated his employment because he violated his contract’s morality clause, which states that employees will follow Catholic teachings. Furthermore, Payne-Elliott’s partner was employed at the parochial Brebeuf Jesuit school in the same diocese. Both schools were notified that if the respective schools did not fire the Payne-Elliotts, the school would lose their affiliation with the archdiocese. Consequently, Payne-Elliott filed a lawsuit against the archdiocese stating that his employment was unfairly terminated based on his sexual orientation.
The overarching question is if Cathedral High School’s termination of Payne-Elliott is unconstitutional as an instance of discrimination or is protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment? Furthermore, the lawsuit asks if the Courts are entitled to offer their opinion on the operation of religious institutions.
Payne-Elliott argues that not only was his termination unfair, but he should be entitled to compensation. He contends that his firing was an instance of discrimination that is protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation; therefore, the Archdiocese should uphold the law. Allowing the parish to fire him would put the Church above the law, and establish a precedent which can authorize and foster discrimination. Payne-Elliott also believes that he should receive unemployment compensation from the Archdiocese for their discriminatory actions and the inconveniences experienced.
The Archdiocese argues that the employees of the parochial schools hold the responsibility to educate the next generation of Catholics. Because Payne-Elliott does not practice Catholic tenants, the diocese argues that he is unfit to teach the Catholic doctrine. When Payne-Elliott was employed, he signed a contract with the school stating that he would affirm Catholic beliefs within his personal and private life. The diocese argues that Payne-Elliott’s marriage breached their contract and that his rejection of Catholic teachings threatens the mission of the school. The Archdiocese further elaborates that the free exercise clause prohibits the Courts from making decisions regarding religious matters, threatening the separation between Church and State.
In early September of 2020, the Justice Department issued a brief to the Supreme Court of Indiana in efforts to dismiss the case on the basis that the Constitution “bars the government from interfering with the autonomy of religious organizations”. The Justice Department cites “ministerial exception”, which prohibits the Court from deciding employment matters within religious organizations (Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Beru (2020)). This exception is interpreted by the Justice Department to accredit religious teachers with a minister status because they are to teach and instill the Catholic faith.
The Indiana Supreme Court will have to consider the competing interests to prevent employment discrimination and to avoid obstruction with internal matters of religious institutions. Considering the adamant position of the Justice Department, I believe that the Indiana Supreme Court will either be compelled to dismiss the case or will rule in favor of the Archdiocese of Cathedral High School. Because of the “ministerial exception”, I believe that Payne-Elliott’s dismissal will be deemed constitutional. The ministerial exception strips the Court of the jurisdiction in the instance of religious employment affairs. This exception reflects the free exercise clause and confirms the ascendancy of the Church to determine internal affairs. Although Payne-Elliott is not ordained as a minister, I believe the Court will consider him as one, because he was intended to serve as an instructor of religious faith. I do not believe that Payne-Elliott’s argument will be compelling to the Court, because of the precedent established in Our Lady of Guadalupe School. I believe this precedent will protect the Archdiocese in their decision to fire Payne-Elliott because the free exercise clause prohibits unreasonable government interference of religious practice. I believe the Court will not find the defendant guilty because the school has a compelling interest to educate and instill the Catholic faith within their students.
Post by Hannah H.
6 comments:
I agree that the precedents seems to suggest that the court will rule in favor of the diocese and the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment rather than the anti-discrimination laws fo the civil rights act. This case reminds me of the Colorado baking case and others that really show how entangled religious freedom and freedom from discrimination are in practice. In theory, both o these clauses make complete sense and appear to be neutral, but unfortunately in practice they are difficult to uphold with the same neutrality. In a case like this, no matter the outcome, one freedom will suffer, either religious freedom or freedom from discrimination.
Additionally supporting the court's likely outcome here is Indiana's status as an 'At Will Employment' state. This means essentially that employers in the state can fire non contracted employees at any time, and for any reason. With this rule, the Payne-Elliots would have been aware of school policies against non-heterosexual relationships. Although I would argue the Payne-Elliots deserve termination pay as would an employee who was fired for non-heinous reasons, I do agree that the court will likely, and with good cause support the school's decision in this case.
I agree that the court will rule in favor of the diocese. My initial thought was also similar to Emma's of the notorious Bakery case in Colorado; where a Christian baker refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. Payne-Elliot also knew that he could not enter into a same-sex relationship if he wanted to work at the school. The same goes for anyone who is employed by the Catholic Church. Many would assume that he was fired for simply being gay; when in fact it is the act of entering into a same-sex relationship which is condemned by the church. My main thought about this case is that every place of employment has things that an employee can and cannot do; which is a good argument for the diocese and another reason why I believe they will win this case.
To follow the comments of my classmates, I also assume that the court will rule in favor of the diocese. My thought process here is that since Payne-Elliots signed the school's employment waivers, which specifically mention that teachers have to follow the Catholic church's teachings in their personal lives, they have the power to fire him for going against said teachings. Personally, I find it quite interesting that Payne-Elliots ever signed the school's terms of agreement in the first place, and wonder if it might be because he did not read the fine print. I know that my Catholic high school had openly gay teachers, and they were never fired on account of their sexual orientation. Whether my school had different employment rules or not, I am unsure, but I can only imagine the uproar that would be caused if something like this had occurred at my high school.
I also think that the court will find the dismissal of Payne-Elliot's claim to be unconstitutional. This is primarily due to the fact that the the Free Exercise clause prohibits the Court from making decisions based on religious matters. I addition, both Payne and Elliot signed contracts to the school e they were hired that they would uphold the Catholic mission of the school in both their personal and private lives. This is a contact that they ultimately breached. As Hannah stated in her opinion, if anything, the Archdiocese's stance is essentially a reflection of the the Free Exercise Clause. Since the actions of Payne-Elliot are essentially endangering the school from their mission and fully exercising their religious views, I do think that the court will rule in favor of the diocese.
I must admit, this case is a bit confusing to me. If I'm not mistaken, it is a Carnal Sin in Catholicism to engage in homosexual activity. I believe this is a position openly held by the highest ranking members of the church and is located in the catechism. How then Payne-Elliot is a Catholic and why he would want to hold a position in a Catholic institution doesn't make much sense. This case almost doesn't seem real, especially considering the timing of Mr. Payne-Elliott's marriage. Regardless, I believe the court will rule in favor of the diocese. This is a clear and intentional violation of the contract that was signed and of the tenants of the religion Mr. Payne-Elliot was tasked with upholding.
Post a Comment