158 A.3d 251
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Chestnut Hill College (a Catholic, church-affiliated but largely lay‑staffed college) expelled Allan‑Michael Meads, an African‑American senior, for alleged misappropriation of proceeds from student plays; expulsion prevented his graduation and caused other losses.
- College conducted internal disciplinary proceedings (hearing, appeals board) and ordered restitution; College later donated the repayment to the same charity Meads had designated.
- Meads filed a racial discrimination complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) and the PHRC’s investigation found disparate punishments of African‑American students and concluded there was probable cause.
- College moved to dismiss for lack of PHRC jurisdiction, arguing: (1) as a Catholic college it is a "distinctly private" institution not a public accommodation under the PA Human Relations Act (PHRA); (2) First Amendment religion clauses preclude PHRC review of its expulsion decisions (entanglement/deference); and (3) PFEOA is unconstitutional as applied. The PHRC denied the motion.
- The Commonwealth Court granted interlocutory review limited to whether Catholic colleges are public accommodations, whether the First Amendment precludes application of the PHRA to such disciplinary decisions, and whether the PFEOA is unconstitutional as applied; the Court affirmed the PHRC denial and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meads) | Defendant's Argument (College) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Catholic college is a "public accommodation" under the PHRA | College is open to the general public and thus is a public accommodation subject to PHRA | Catholic colleges are "distinctly private" by virtue of religious character and therefore exempt from PHRA | Court: Colleges/universities are expressly listed in PHRA; religious affiliation alone does not categorically exclude a college—PHRC may determine factual nature; denial of dismissal affirmed |
| Whether First Amendment (deference/entanglement) bars PHRC jurisdiction over expulsion decisions | Enforcement against racial discrimination does not require resolving religious doctrine; neutral principles apply | Adjudication of expulsions requires deference to ecclesiastical matters and would cause unconstitutional entanglement | Court: Applying Connor neutral‑principles test, College failed to identify any doctrinal issue; First Amendment does not bar PHRC jurisdiction at this stage |
| Whether PFEOA is unconstitutional as applied to College | PFEOA furthers equal educational opportunity; applies to non‑registered religious institutions for race claims | PFEOA application would infringe religious autonomy and entangle church and state | Court: College waived detailed PFEOA argument; as‑applied constitutional challenges should be addressed first by the agency; remand to PHRC |
| Whether interlocutory appeal was permissible | N/A (Meads supported agency process) | PHRC challenged appellate jurisdiction as nonfinal | Court: Interlocutory order contained required §702(b) statement; permission to appeal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. Human Relations Comm’n v. Lansdowne Swim Club, 526 A.2d 758 (Pa. 1987) (agency initially determines its jurisdiction over discrimination claims)
- Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. Pa. Human Relations Comm’n, 548 A.2d 328 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (parochial schools held distinctly private in that case; Court declined to extend that categorical rule to colleges)
- Connor v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 975 A.2d 1084 (Pa. 2009) (adopted neutral‑principles approach and articulated a multi‑prong test to determine whether deference applies)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1971) (Establishment Clause entanglement test and factors for excessive entanglement)
- Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (U.S. 1971) (distinguishing religious character of higher education from primary/secondary parochial schools)
- Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Schs., Inc., 477 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1986) (administrative investigation into discrimination claims does not necessarily violate First Amendment; investigation permissible)
- Gaston v. Diocese of Allentown, 712 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. 1998) (parochial elementary school expulsions found at that time to implicate ecclesiastical matters; Court explained limits of that precedent)
- Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2006) (recognizes religious institution rights to decide matters of faith, doctrine, and governance)