Petruska v. Gannon University
64 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 823, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13135, 448 F.3d 615 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment's ministerial exception does not bar Title VII employment discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a ministerial employee against a religious institution if the institution's adverse employment action was not motivated by religious belief, religious doctrine, or internal church regulation. A religious institution is not shielded from liability for employment discrimination that is based on secular reasons unmoored from religious principle.
Facts:
- Gannon University, a Catholic college, hired Lynette Petruska and in 1999 appointed her as its first female permanent chaplain.
- Before accepting the promotion, Petruska received assurances from Gannon's President, David Rubino, that her tenure would be based on performance and not on her gender.
- In 2000, President Rubino was accused of sexual misconduct, and Petruska was instrumental in bringing a sexual harassment claim against him to the attention of university leadership, including Bishop Donald Trautman, the chair of Gannon's Board of Directors.
- Petruska also served on a committee that revised Gannon's sexual harassment policies, where she successfully opposed efforts to limit the time for filing grievances and co-authored a report critical of the university.
- In July 2000, Bishop Trautman instructed the acting President, Thomas Ostrowski, to place the Chaplain's Division under the control of Reverend Nicholas Rouch, making Petruska his subordinate.
- Ostrowski refused the instruction and later told Petruska that the proposed demotion was based 'solely on the basis of [her] gender.'
- In August 2002, a new President, Antoine Garibaldi, officially restructured the university, removing Petruska from the President's Staff and making her report to Rouch.
- Feeling she was being forced out, Petruska tendered her resignation in October 2002.
Procedural Posture:
- Lynette Petruska sued Gannon University and its officials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, asserting claims under Title VII and state law.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed all of Petruska's claims, holding they were barred by the First Amendment's religion clauses.
- Petruska (Appellant) appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with Gannon University et al. as Appellees.
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 bar a ministerial employee's Title VII employment discrimination and retaliation claims when the religious employer's adverse action is not motivated by religious belief, doctrine, or internal church regulation?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, J.
No, the ministerial exception does not bar a ministerial employee's Title VII claims when the employer's adverse action is not motivated by religious belief, doctrine, or internal church regulation. The court adopts a tailored version of the ministerial exception, holding that it applies only when an employment decision is grounded in religion. The Free Exercise Clause protects religious exercise, not discrimination unmoored from religious principle, and it should not be a 'license for the free exercise of discrimination.' The court distinguished Supreme Court precedent on church autonomy, like Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, by explaining that those cases protect a church's right to interpret its own internal laws, not to insulate it from neutral, generally applicable federal laws like Title VII. Adjudicating a claim of discrimination based on a secular motive, like sexism, does not violate the Establishment Clause because it does not require the court to resolve questions of religious doctrine. Because Petruska alleged her demotion was due to sexism and retaliation—secular reasons—her claims may proceed.
Dissenting in part - Smith, J.
Yes, the ministerial exception bars Petruska's claims because a religious institution's choice of who performs its spiritual functions is inherently a religious decision protected by the First Amendment. The dissent argues that any government interference with the minister-church relationship, regardless of the church's articulated motive, infringes upon the free exercise of religion and excessively entangles the courts in ecclesiastical matters. The majority's motive-based inquiry is incorrect because the selection of a minister is a per se religious exercise. By treating a minister like any other lay employee, the majority effectively rejects the ministerial exception entirely, creating a circuit split and improperly allowing secular courts to second-guess a church's decisions about its spiritual leaders.
Analysis:
This decision established a new, narrower 'motive-based' standard for the ministerial exception in the Third Circuit, creating a significant circuit split with other federal courts of appeals that had adopted a broader, categorical exception. By allowing courts to inquire into whether a religious employer's action was pretext for secular discrimination, the ruling potentially expanded the scope of Title VII liability for religious institutions. The decision forces courts to walk a fine line between protecting religious autonomy and enforcing anti-discrimination laws, requiring a fact-specific inquiry into the employer's motivation that other circuits had deemed constitutionally impermissible.
