48 F. Supp. 3d 1168
N.D. Ind.2014Background
- Emily Herx was a long‑time junior high language‑arts teacher at St. Vincent School under year‑to‑year contracts containing a morals clause tied to Church teachings.
- In 2008–2011 she was treated for infertility, including IVF; she informed her principal and took sick leave for treatments; Diocese health insurance covered some costs.
- In April 2011 school clergy learned of her IVF; Monsignor Kuzmich informed Herx IVF violated Church teaching and later declined to renew her 2011–2012 contract for “improprieties related to church teachings or law.”
- Herx filed EEOC charges; EEOC found violations of Title VII and the ADA; she sued for sex (including Pregnancy Discrimination Act) and disability discrimination (ADA).
- Diocese moved for summary judgment asserting religious‑employer exemptions and the ministerial exception; it alternatively argued the nonrenewal was for religiously‑based misconduct (IVF) not sex or disability.
- Court denied summary judgment on Title VII (sex) claim because a reasonable jury could infer sex discrimination, but granted summary judgment for Diocese on the ADA claim because the record showed action was based on the treatment (IVF), not on animus toward infertility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII bars Diocese from nonrenewing Herx for undergoing IVF (sex / pregnancy discrimination) | Herx: nonrenewal for IVF targets women (only women become pregnant), so it’s sex discrimination under Title VII/PDA | Diocese: action premised on religious belief that IVF is gravely immoral; religious exemptions & ministerial concerns justify decision | Denied summary judgment on Title VII: triable issue whether decision was motivated by sex vs. religiously neutral rule against IVF |
| Whether ministerial exception bars Herx’s Title VII claim | Herx: she was a lay teacher, not a minister; ministerial exception inapplicable | Diocese: teachers expected to exemplify faith; ministerial exception should apply | Ministerial exception not found applicable at summary judgment — Herx not shown to perform functions akin to clergy |
| Whether religious‑employer exemptions to Title VII/ADA completely immunize Diocese from sex/disability claims | Herx: exemptions limited to religion‑based hiring; do not permit discrimination based on sex or disability | Diocese: exemptions allow enforcement of religious tenets and hiring standards | Exemptions do not automatically bar Title VII sex claims; court applied usual discrimination analysis |
| Whether ADA claim fails because Diocese acted against IVF (treatment) rather than infertility (disability) | Herx: discriminating against a disability’s treatment equals discrimination against the disability | Diocese: record shows nonrenewal due to IVF (conduct violating tenets), not animus toward infertility | Granted summary judgment for Diocese on ADA claim: no reasonable jury could find disability‑based animus (action targeted treatment/conduct) |
Key Cases Cited
- Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (religious‑employer exemption to secular employment laws limited to religion‑based employment practices)
- Nat’l Lab. Relations Bd. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (limits on governmental intrusion into internal religious governance)
- Hosanna‑Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (recognizing ministerial exception under the First Amendment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard — evidence must create genuine issue for trial)
- Hall v. Nalco Co., 534 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2008) (adverse action based on childbearing capacity can constitute sex discrimination)
- Little v. Wuerl, 929 F.2d 944 (3d Cir. 1991) (religious schools may enforce doctrinal standards in employment decisions but exemptions don’t authorize discrimination on race/sex)
- Rayburn v. Gen. Conf. of Seventh‑Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir. 1985) (statutory history limits Title VII religious exemptions to religion‑based discrimination)