United States v. Columbus Country Club
1990 WL 151335, 915 F.2d 877 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Exemptions to the Fair Housing Act must be narrowly construed. An organization does not qualify for the religious organization exemption unless it is itself a religious organization or has a tangible, mutual relationship of control or operation with a religious organization; furthermore, the private club exemption does not apply to the discriminatory sale of dwellings.
Facts:
- The Columbus Country Club was formed in 1920 by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic men's organization.
- The Club maintains a community of 46 summer homes, called bungalows, on a 23-acre property that also includes a chapel and grotto.
- The Club's bylaws require 'annual members,' who own the bungalows and the land collectively, to be members in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church.
- The Club has no formal or legal relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, but the local Archdiocese has granted it special permission for a priest to celebrate mass on the grounds each Sunday during the summer season for nearly 70 years.
- In 1986, Anita Gualtieri, an associate member, attempted to purchase her mother's bungalow leasehold but was told she was ineligible for annual membership because she was a woman.
- After Gualtieri complained to the Archdiocese, the Club amended its bylaws to be gender-neutral but retained the requirement that annual members be Roman Catholic, adding a requirement for a recommendation from a parish priest.
- Gualtieri reapplied in 1987 and was denied membership again, prompting her to notify the Department of Justice.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the government, sued the Columbus Country Club in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging religious and sex discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Columbus Country Club, finding it was exempt from the Act under both the religious organization and private club exemptions.
- The district court then dismissed the government's entire action with prejudice.
- The United States government (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 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:
Do the Fair Housing Act's exemptions for religious organizations or private clubs protect a country club from liability for religious discrimination when it requires owners of its summer homes to be Catholic but has no formal ties to the Catholic Church?
Opinions:
Majority - Seitz, J.
No. A country club that discriminates based on religion does not qualify for the Fair Housing Act's exemptions where it lacks a sufficient connection to a religious organization and where its actions fall outside the specific language of the exemptions. First, the bungalows are 'dwellings' under the Act because members intend to reside in them for significant periods, not as mere transients. Second, exemptions to the Act must be construed narrowly. The club is not a 'religious organization' itself. To be 'operated... in conjunction with' a religious organization, there must be a mutual relationship and more than just tacit approval or the provision of services by the church; the club failed to prove such a relationship exists. Third, the 'private club' exemption is inapplicable because the bungalows are 'dwellings,' not temporary 'lodgings,' and the exemption only protects limits on 'rental or occupancy,' not the outright 'sale' of property.
Dissenting - Mansmann, J.
Yes, the club should be protected by the religious organization exemption. The majority construes the exemption too narrowly by insisting on a formal, hierarchical relationship that is not required by the statute's text. The phrase 'in conjunction with' should be interpreted according to its broad, common meaning. The club has substantial and long-standing connections to the Catholic Church, including its founding, 68 years of weekly masses conducted by a priest provided by the Archdiocese, and the church's de facto control through its ability to withdraw this central privilege. Subjecting the club to the Act will destroy its legitimate character as a religious community, which is not the type of 'wrong' the Fair Housing Act was designed to remedy.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the narrow scope of the Fair Housing Act's statutory exemptions. By requiring a tangible, mutual relationship for the religious organization exemption, the court limited its application to entities with formal or functional ties to a church, rather than groups merely organized around a shared faith. The decision reinforces the Supreme Court's mandate to give the Act a 'generous construction' while narrowly construing its exceptions. Furthermore, by distinguishing between 'dwellings' and 'lodgings' and between 'sale' and 'rental/occupancy,' the court severely restricted the applicability of the private club exemption in the context of property ownership.
