Monica L. McDowell Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church Will Ackles
375 F.3d 951, 85 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,702, 94 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 206 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment's ministerial exception bars Title VII claims that challenge a church's ministerial employment decisions, such as termination, but it does not bar claims for the underlying sexual harassment or retaliatory harassment. A church may be held liable for a hostile work environment unless it proves the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense, which is considered a secular inquiry.
Facts:
- Monica L. McDowell Elvig, an ordained minister, served as the Associate Pastor of Calvin Presbyterian Church from December 2000.
- Shortly after taking the position, Pastor Will Aekles, her supervisor, allegedly engaged in sexually harassing and intimidating conduct toward her, creating a hostile work environment.
- Elvig used the Church's internal procedures to file a formal complaint of sexual harassment against Aekles.
- The Church allegedly took no action to stop the harassment, and Aekles retaliated by relieving her of duties, verbally abusing her, and engaging in intimidating behavior.
- After Elvig filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Church placed her on unpaid leave.
- The Presbytery then voted to terminate its employment relationship with Elvig.
- Subsequently, the Presbytery's Committee on Ministry refused to permit Elvig to circulate her church resume, effectively preventing her from acquiring other pastoral employment in any Presbyterian church in the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- Monica Elvig filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and later received a right-to-sue letter.
- Elvig filed a second charge for retaliation and received a second right-to-sue letter.
- Elvig filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, asserting Title VII and state law claims against the Church and Pastor Aekles.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- The district court dismissed Elvig's Title VII claims, ruling they were barred by the First Amendment's ministerial exception.
- The district court then dismissed the remaining state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- Elvig, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment's ministerial exception completely bar a minister's Title VII claims for sexual harassment and retaliation against her church when the church has taken tangible employment actions against the minister?
Opinions:
Majority - Fisher, J.
No. The ministerial exception does not completely bar a minister's Title VII claims for sexual harassment and retaliation. Following the precedent set in Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus, the court bifurcated the claims. The exception protects a church's ministerial employment decisions, so Elvig is precluded from challenging her termination, suspension, or the refusal to circulate her resume. However, she is not barred from bringing claims for the underlying hostile work environment and retaliatory harassment. The court reasoned that an inquiry into whether harassment occurred and whether the Church's response was reasonable under the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense is a 'restricted, secular inquiry' that does not require evaluating religious doctrine or second-guessing ministerial choices, thus avoiding excessive government entanglement with religion.
Dissenting - Trott, J.
Yes. The ministerial exception should completely bar all of Elvig's claims. The dissent argued that the majority's attempt to separate the harassment from the protected employment decisions is unworkable and leads to profound substantive and procedural entanglement with religion. By allowing the suit to proceed, a secular court will be forced to evaluate the reasonableness of the Church's internal judicial process, its interpretation of its own governing documents (the 'Book of Order'), and the effect of Elvig's ordination vows. This constitutes a 'microscopic examination' of church governance, which the First Amendment forbids. The dissent distinguished this case from Bollard, noting Elvig was an ordained minister who had taken vows and had exhausted the church's internal disciplinary process.
Concurring - Gould, J.
No. The author concurred with the majority opinion because it correctly applies the binding circuit precedent of Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus. However, the author expressed 'misgivings whether Bollard was correctly decided,' suggesting that while he felt compelled to follow the existing law of the circuit, he questioned its underlying correctness.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and extends the Ninth Circuit's nuanced application of the ministerial exception, creating a significant circuit split with courts that apply the doctrine more broadly. By separating protected employment decisions from actionable harassment, the ruling provides a pathway for clergy to seek redress for hostile work environments without directly challenging a church's right to choose its ministers. This holding places religious institutions on notice that while their core ecclesiastical decisions are shielded, their response to harassment may be subject to a secular 'reasonableness' standard in court. The case frames the issue as one of protecting employees from unlawful conduct that is not part of church doctrine, rather than one of absolute institutional autonomy.
