Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy

Last updated

Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy is a Massachusetts Superior Court decision of December 16, 2015, that found that a Roman Catholic secondary school violated the state's laws against discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender when it withdrew an offer of employment from a candidate when officials learned he was in a civil same-sex marriage. It was the first decision in the United States since the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage accomplished by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges the previous June to consider the competing claims of discrimination in employment and the protections afforded religious institutions.

Contents

Background

On January 29, 2014, Matthew Barrett represented by GLAD filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination against Fontbonne Academy, a Catholic secondary school in Milton, Massachusetts, because in July 2013 the school withdrew an offer of employment as food service manager when officials learned he was in a same-sex marriage. [1] After accepting the job offer, Barrett completed paperwork and provided as his emergency contact the name Ed Suplee, whom he identified as his "husband". A few days later the school withdrew its offer of employment and explained that his status as a spouse in a same-sex marriage was inconsistent with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

The facts of the case were not in dispute. A spokesperson for the school said it "does not discriminate based on sexual orientation, but that church doctrine against same-sex marriage drives policy at Fontbonne, and other Catholic schools." [2] The Academy is an all-girls college preparatory school sponsored by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Boston.

Some negative reaction from alumnae of Fontbonne Academy, on social media and in comments on news articles, was directed at the school, though some blamed the Church rather than the school. [3]

In September 2014, Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley was asked how to reconcile the Church's outreach to gays and lesbians with the number of LGBT-related employment disputes in the news. He replied that the situation "needs to be rectified". [4] [5]

Decision

The case moved to Massachusetts Superior Court in May 2014. On December 16, 2015, Judge Douglas H. Wilkins [6] ruled in Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy that the Academy had violated the state's laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender. [7]

The court identified two types of discrimination. It held that Barrett suffered discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation because basing the school's action on his marriage is not distinct from basing it on his sexual orientation. It also found gender-based discrimination, because "he was denied employment for marrying a person whom a female could have married without suffering the same consequences".

The court then weighed the Academy's claims that it qualified for exemption under the statutes, first examining certain contradictory language in the relevant statutes. It said that the legislature allowed only a very narrow exemption for religious institutions as employers and that because the Academy admits non-Catholic students–"including Muslims, Jews, Baptists, Buddhists, Hindus and Episcopalians"–it failed to meet the law's strict test for exemption as an enterprise that "limits membership, enrollment, admission, or participation to members of that religion". The school requires only administrators and the theology faculty to be Catholics. The Academy had argued that requiring it to employ Barrett violated its federal Constitutional right to "expressive association", but the court found that Barrett's employment as food service manager would not significantly burden the school's ability to communicate its message or "dilute that message, given Barrett's only assertion in conflict with the school's message had occurred when completing a form and that in the position he sought to fill he would not be engaged in the school's mission of "presenting the gospel values or the ... teachings of the Catholic Church". The court also pointed to public awareness of the issue:

The widespread public awareness of the civil laws allowing same-sex marriage and prohibiting employment discrimination, coupled with Fontbonne's ability to explain its position without interference in the form of advocacy from Barrett, leaves little risk that Fontbonne's involuntary compliance with civil law will be mistaken for endorsement of same-sex marriage.

Finally, the court considered the Academy's claim that it merited an exception from the anti-discrimination statutes based on the "ministerial exception" established under both the federal and state constitutions that prevents government interference in the free exercise of religion, specifically interference in a religious group's selection of its ministers, teachers and those who exercise religious functions. The Academy asserted that each of its employees is a "minister of the mission". The court found under U.S. Supreme Court precedent that more was required to meet the "ministerial exception" than such an assertion alone.

Reaction

The decision received national news coverage, [8] and much of the response broke down along the lines established in the debate over same-sex marriage.

Andrew Beckwith, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, commented: "This court decision makes it impossible for faith-based institutions to survive....If this decision stands, it will either force faith-based schools to close their doors to anyone who is not of the same religion or they will have to give up their beliefs and hire without any regard to faith which will ultimately cease to make them faith-based institutions". [9] Gregory S. Baylor, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, said: "You are on a slippery slope if you allow the government to determine which jobs it deems 'religious. The government should not be allowed to interfere with a religious school's hiring practices and what it believes is important to remain true to its mission and identity. Religious schools should be able to have representatives that behave in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs so that there is no misunderstanding where the school stands on controversial issues." [9]

Denise Donohue, deputy director of K-12 education programs for the Cardinal Newman Society, said students need a consistent message: "Hiring individuals who are not on mission, whether they are a classroom teacher, librarian or grounds keeper, weakens Catholic identity and undermines the mission of the school." [7]

Barrett's attorney, Bennett Klein of GLAD, said: "Marriage equality has been the law of Massachusetts for over a decade, and it is now the law of the land. But you can't have equality if you can get married on Saturday and fired on Monday." He noted that the decision meant that the school is liable for damages for lost wages as well as compensatory damages for discrimination. [8] He wrote in a press release: "Religiously affiliated organizations do not get a free pass to discriminate against gay and lesbian people. When Fontbonne fired Matt from a job that has nothing to do with religion, and simply because he is married, they came down on the wrong side of the law." [10]

Dwight G. Duncan, professor of law at the University of Massachusetts School of Law, called the decision "pretty solid, from a strictly legal point of view." He noted the impact of the case was uncertain given the differences in the exemptions afforded religious institutions as employers under Massachusetts law and under federal a law. [7]

Settlement

Barrett's attorneys announced on May 9, 2016, that he had reached a confidential settlement with the school, which would not pursue an appeal. It included a financial payment, but details were not disclosed. The school issued a statement that said: "Fontbonne Academy expresses deep gratitude to Mr. Barrett for his willingness to come together with us in a spirit of conciliation, and wishes him well as the school moves ahead in its mission to foster educational excellence and social justice in an open and inclusive community". [11]

Related Research Articles

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or, depending on the version of the bill, gender identity, by employers with at least 15 employees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in the United States</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States are among the most socially, culturally, and legally permissive in the world, with public opinion and jurisprudence on the issue changing significantly since the late 1980s. Until 1962, all 50 states criminalized same-sex sexual activity, but by 2003 all remaining laws against same-sex sexual activity had been invalidated. Beginning with Massachusetts in 2004, LGBT Americans had won the right to marry in all 50 states by 2015. Additionally, in many states and municipalities, LGBT Americans are explicitly protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and access to public accommodations. Many LGBT rights in the United States have been established by the United States Supreme Court, which has invalidated a state law banning protected class recognition based upon homosexuality, struck down sodomy laws nationwide, struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, and prohibited employment discrimination against gay and transgender employees.

Fontbonne Academy is a private Roman Catholic college preparatory high school for girls, located in Milton, Massachusetts, United States. It is located in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. It was started in 1954 by the Sisters of St. Joseph. The school was fully accredited in 1959 by the New England Association of Secondary Schools and Colleges. Accreditation has been consistently renewed for ten-year periods. In January 2019, Fontbonne Academy changed its name to Fontbonne Early College of Boston.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Australia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in Australia have advanced over the latter half of the twentieth century and early twenty-first century to make Australia one of the most LGBT-accepting countries in the world, with opinion polls and the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey indicating widespread popular support for same-sex marriage. A 2013 Pew Research poll found that 79% of Australians agreed that homosexuality should be accepted by society, making it the fifth-most supportive country surveyed in the world. With its long history of LGBT activism and annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras festival, Sydney has been named one of the most gay-friendly cities in Australia, and the world as a whole.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Wyoming</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Wyoming may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in Wyoming since 1977, and same-sex marriage was legalized in the state in October 2014. Wyoming statutes do not address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law. In addition, the cities of Jackson and Laramie have enacted ordinances outlawing discrimination in housing and public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Michigan</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Michigan may face some legal challenges not faced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Michigan, as is same-sex marriage. Discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity is illegal since July 2022, was re-affirmed by the Michigan Supreme Court - under and by a 1976 statewide law, that explicitly bans discrimination "on the basis of sex". The Michigan Civil Rights Commission have also ensured that members of the LGBT community are not discriminated against and are protected in the eyes of the law since 2018.

This is a list of events in 2011 that affected LGBT rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Massachusetts</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Massachusetts have the same rights and responsibilities as cisgender heterosexuals. The U.S. state of Massachusetts is one of the most LGBT-friendly states in the country. In 2004, it became the first U.S. state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, and the sixth jurisdiction worldwide, after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in North Carolina</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of North Carolina may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents, or LGBT residents of other states with more liberal laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Arizona</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Arizona may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arizona, and same-sex couples are able to marry and adopt. Nevertheless, the state provides only limited protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Several cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have enacted ordinances to protect LGBT people from unfair discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Virginia</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the United States state of Virginia enjoy the same rights as non-LGBT persons. LGBT rights in the state are a recent occurrence, with most improvements in LGBT rights occurring in the 2000s and 2010s. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Bostic v. Rainey. Effective since July 1, 2020, there is a statewide law protecting LGBT persons from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit. The state's hate crime laws effective since July 1, 2020, now explicitly include both sexual orientation and gender identity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Kentucky</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. commonwealth of Kentucky have most of the same rights as non-LGBT persons have, but still face some legal challenges not experienced by other people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Kentucky. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples. On February 12, 2014, a federal judge ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, but the ruling was put on hold pending review by the Sixth Circuit. Same sex-marriage is now legal in the state under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision, which struck down Kentucky's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, and all other same sex marriage bans elsewhere in the country, was handed down on June 26, 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Montana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Montana may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in Montana since 1997. Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are eligible for all of the protections available to opposite-sex married couples, as same-sex marriage has been recognized since November 2014. State statutes do not address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County established that employment discrimination against LGBT people is illegal under federal law. A number of cities also provide protections in housing and public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT employment discrimination in the United States</span>

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

Executive Order 13672, signed by U.S. President Barack Obama on July 21, 2014, amended two earlier executive orders to extend protection against discrimination in hiring and employment to additional classes. It prohibited discrimination in the civilian federal workforce on the basis of gender identity and in hiring by federal contractors on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.

In the United States, a religious freedom bill is a bill that, according to its proponents, allows those with religious objections to oppose LGBT rights in accordance with traditional religious teachings without being punished by the government for doing so. This typically concerns an employee who objects to abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, civil unions, or transgender identity and wishes to avoid situations where they will be expected to put those objections aside. Proponents commonly refer to such proposals as religious liberty or conscience protection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues</span>

The political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues mainly consists of efforts made by the Catholic Church to support or oppose civil government legislation on issues of importance to LGBT people. The Church generally condemns all forms of violence against gay and lesbian people. However, the Church in certain countries has occasionally resisted efforts to decriminalize homosexuality or to introduce measures to tackle discrimination. The Catholic Church also supports legally defining marriage in civil legislation as the union of one man and one woman, therefore generally opposing efforts to introduce gay civil unions and gay marriage – although some clergymen have expressed support for same-sex unions. The Church teaches that not all discrimination is "unjust," and that discrimination against gay people in some spheres of life serves the common good.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with litigation over discrimination of local regulations based on the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The specific case deals with a religious-backed foster care agency that was denied a new contract by the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, due to the agency's refusal to certify married same-sex couples as foster parents on religious grounds.

Jeremy Pemberton is a former Church of England priest who became the first to enter into a same-sex marriage in 2014. Before then, he had been an Anglican priest for over 30 years. Because same-sex marriages are not accepted by the Church, he was denied a job as a chaplain for the National Health Service by John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York.

References

  1. ↑ Valencia, Milton J. (January 30, 2014). "Gay married man says Catholic school rescinded job offer". Boston Globe. Archived from the original on February 22, 2014. Retrieved February 12, 2014.
  2. ↑ Smith, Tovia (February 12, 2014). "Mass. Suit Aims To Clarify Religious Groups' Latitude In Hiring". NPR. Retrieved February 12, 2014.
  3. ↑ "Alumnae react to Catholic high school's refusal to hire openly gay man". Al Jazeera America. February 3, 2014. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  4. ↑ Shine, Bob (September 25, 2014). "O'Malley: Trend of workers fired for LGBT issues 'needs to be rectified'". National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  5. ↑ Lavoie, Denise (December 17, 2015). "Judge rules against Catholic school in gay-hiring retraction". Associated Press. Archived from the original on March 7, 2016. Retrieved February 20, 2016. Since the legalization of gay marriage, there have been cases around the country of Catholic institutions firing employees in same-sex marriages. In June, the director of religious education at a Catholic elementary school outside Philadelphia was fired after two parents complained about her marriage to another woman. Margie Winters said she had told administrators at the school about her marriage when she was hired in 2007. The school's principal said in a letter to parents that the school must comply with Catholic philosophy. In August, a Catholic college preparatory school in Macon, Georgia, settled a discrimination lawsuit filed by a music teacher who said he was fired in 2014 because of his plans to marry his partner.
  6. ↑ "Douglas H. Wilkins appointed to Superior Court". Lawyers Journal. January 1, 2011. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  7. 1 2 3 Labbe, Mark (December 28, 2015). "Judge says Catholic school discriminated against man in same-sex marriage". National Catholic Reporter. Catholic News Service. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  8. 1 2 "Judge rules against Catholic prep school Fontbonne Academy in gay hiring case". CRUX. Associated Press. December 17, 2015. Archived from the original on February 21, 2016. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  9. 1 2 Vuoto, Loredana (February 15, 2016). "Did a Massachusetts court ruling essentially ban Catholic schools?". Catholic News Agency. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  10. ↑ Ring, Trudy (December 17, 2015). "Judge: No Religious Excuse for Catholic School's Antigay Discrimination". The Advocate. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  11. ↑ Herndon, Astead W. (May 10, 2016). "Catholic school, gay man settle discrimination lawsuit". Boston Globe. Retrieved May 13, 2016.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.