Sandor Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish
Not Applicable (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment's ministerial exception, which protects the autonomy of religious organizations in employment matters concerning their ministers, categorically bars hostile work environment claims brought by a minister against their religious employer.
Facts:
- In September 2012, St. Andrew the Apostle Parish hired Sandor Demkovich as its music director, choir director, and organist.
- Reverend Jacek Dada, the church's pastor, served as Demkovich's supervisor.
- Demkovich is a gay man who also suffers from diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and weight-related issues.
- Over the next two years, Reverend Dada allegedly subjected Demkovich to derogatory comments and demeaning epithets based on his sexual orientation and physical condition.
- The frequency and hostility of the remarks regarding his sexual orientation allegedly increased after Reverend Dada learned Demkovich planned to marry his male partner.
- Shortly after Demkovich's marriage in September 2014, Reverend Dada asked for his resignation, stating that his marriage was contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
- When Demkovich refused to resign, Reverend Dada terminated his employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandor Demkovich sued St. Andrew the Apostle Parish and the Archdiocese of Chicago in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, initially alleging discriminatory termination.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the ministerial exception as an affirmative defense.
- The district court found that Demkovich qualified as a minister and dismissed his termination claims without prejudice.
- Demkovich then filed an amended complaint, re-characterizing his allegations as hostile work environment claims under Title VII and the ADA.
- The defendants again moved to dismiss on the basis of the ministerial exception.
- The district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the claims related to sex and sexual orientation but allowing the disability-based hostile work environment claim to proceed.
- At the defendants' request, the district court certified the legal question for an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit heard the appeal and issued a decision.
- The Seventh Circuit subsequently vacated the panel's opinion to rehear the case en banc.
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 minister's hostile work environment claims brought under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act against their religious employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Brennan, J.
Yes, the First Amendment's ministerial exception bars a minister's hostile work environment claims against their religious employer. The ministerial exception, flowing from both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, protects a religious organization's authority to select, control, and supervise its ministers. This protection covers the entire employment relationship, not just hiring and firing. To allow hostile work environment claims would require secular courts to adjudicate disputes between ministers, impermissibly intruding into ecclesiastical matters of church governance, discipline, and supervision. Such an inquiry would cause excessive entanglement with religion by forcing courts to distinguish between religious discipline and secular animus, a task for which they are ill-suited and which is forbidden by the First Amendment. Therefore, the exception acts as a categorical bar, precluding claims related to the work environment created by and for ministers, regardless of whether the employer offers a religious justification for the alleged conduct.
Dissenting - Hamilton, J.
No, the First Amendment's ministerial exception does not categorically bar a minister's hostile work environment claims; instead, courts should evaluate such claims on a case-by-case basis. The Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor explicitly limited its holding to tangible employment actions like termination and did not decide whether the exception applies to tort-like claims such as hostile work environment. A categorical bar is unnecessary to protect religious liberty because harassing conduct is, by definition, outside the scope of legitimate supervision and control. Courts regularly handle sensitive tort, contract, and criminal cases involving religious institutions without granting them absolute immunity. The majority's broad rule draws an arbitrary line, providing a constitutional shelter for severe and pervasive abuse based on race, sex, or disability, which is not a necessary component of a church's right to control its ministers.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a circuit split on the scope of the ministerial exception, aligning the Seventh Circuit with the Tenth Circuit in applying a categorical bar, contrary to the Ninth Circuit's case-by-case approach. The ruling significantly expands the exception's protection within the circuit beyond tangible employment actions like hiring and firing to encompass the entire ministerial relationship. By creating a complete shield for religious organizations against hostile work environment claims brought by ministers, the decision prioritizes church autonomy over statutory anti-discrimination protections in this context. Consequently, future litigation in this area will likely focus more intensely on the threshold question of who qualifies as a 'minister,' as this determination is now dispositive for an entire category of employment claims.
