Ministerial exception does not bar plaintiffs from suing their religious employers for a hostile work environment

 

The Appellate Division First Department has ruled for the first time in New York that the ministerial exception -- which bars employees working for religious institutions from suing for certain forms of employment discrimination -- does not bar these employees from suing their employers for a hostile work environment, including sexual, race and age harassment. 

The case is Boliak v. Reilly, issued on December 18. Plaintiffs worked for a religious high school, where the principal, Father Michael Reilly, subjected them to endless racist, sexist, ageist and other shocking comments that you'd never expect from a religious figure. The plaintiffs are two retired NYPD detectives and a Social Studies teacher. The case was dismissed in State Supreme Court on ministerial exception grounds. That holding is reversed. I argued the appeal. The law firm of Alterman & Boop filed the case and handled the extensive discovery.  

The ministerial exception is a judge-made doctrine, rooted in the First Amendment's religious clauses, that protects religious employers from judicial review of certain personnel decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on whether this exception applies to hostile work environment claims, an issue on which courts around the country are split. Essentially, the First Department says there is no religious component to the racial and sexual harassment that typically comprises a hostile work environment. While courts will not entertain wrongful discharge or demotion claims against religious employers on the basis that they will not interfere with personnel decisions involving "ministers," or employees who have religious duties, that logic does not apply to hostile work environment claims, where the employer is subjecting employees to verbal abuse that has no religious component. 

 

Key points from the decision:

1. "Although the ministerial exception was created to protect churches from state interference in their decisions to employ and supervise ministerial employees, it was not intended as a shield from all types of workplace conduct."

2. Courts around the country are divided on the applicability of the ministerial exception to hostile work environment claims that do not involve concrete personnel actions.

3. "In the absence of controlling case law, we follow the 9th Circuit’s approach and find that the ministerial exception should not be extended to apply to conduct such as unlawful harassment simply because such conduct is perpetrated by a religious employer. As the 9th Circuit observed, there is no First Amendment reason to permit the ministerial exception to shield a religious institution from its 'obligation to protect its employees from harassment when extending such protection would not contravene the Church's doctrinal prerogatives or trench upon its protected ministerial decisions.'”

4. "Plaintiffs are correct that there is no religious justification for Father Reilly’s appalling conduct, and analyzing their hostile work environment claims would not require the Court to improperly interfere with religious doctrine or defendants’ personnel decisions. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claims should not have been dismissed on the basis of the ministerial exception."