242 A.3d 292
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2020Background
- Victoria Crisitello, a lay teacher's aide and art teacher at St. Theresa School, disclosed she was pregnant while unmarried; shortly after, the principal fired her, stating she had engaged in premarital sex in violation of the school's ethics code.
- The school handbook and code of ethics required teachers to avoid "immoral conduct" and scandal, but contained no express prohibition stating premarital sex would result in termination or any stated disciplinary procedure.
- The principal admitted she relied solely on knowledge/observation of Crisitello's pregnancy to infer premarital sex and never investigated other employees for similar conduct (nor asked about marital status, pregnancies, or sexual conduct generally).
- On first appeal this Court held Crisitello established a prima facie LAD claim and remanded for discovery about how similarly situated employees were treated; discovery was permitted to explore disparate enforcement.
- After discovery the trial court granted summary judgment for the school; on second appeal the Appellate Division reversed, concluding that using pregnancy alone as the method to detect violations raises a triable issue of pregnancy/sex discrimination under the LAD.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the First Amendment ministerial exception bars the LAD claim | Crisitello was a lay teacher who did not perform ministerial/religious duties, so the ministerial exception does not apply | School argued its religious mission and moral code exempt it from LAD scrutiny | Held: Ministerial exception does not bar the claim; Crisitello's duties were not ministerial |
| Whether knowledge/observation of pregnancy alone may be used to detect and enforce a premarital-sex prohibition | Termination based solely on pregnancy is discriminatory because it punishes women only; pregnancy alone cannot be the enforcement method | School contended it terminated for violation of Catholic tenets (immoral conduct) — a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason | Held: Knowledge or mere observation of pregnancy alone is not a permissible enforcement basis; this method creates an inference of sex/pregnancy discrimination |
| Whether the handbook/code sufficiently put employees on notice that premarital sex would result in termination | Crisitello argued policies did not expressly forbid premarital sex nor specify termination, undermining the school's stated reason | School argued receipt and acknowledgment of the code/handbook sufficed and that violation justified termination | Held: Handbook did not expressly proscribe premarital sex or mandate termination; absence of explicit policy and absence of uniform enforcement undermines school's justification |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given evidence of disparate enforcement and pretext | Crisitello argued discovery showed the school never investigated others and solely relied on pregnancy, creating triable issue of pretext | School argued no evidence showed others were treated differently and maintained it had legitimate religious reason | Held: Summary judgment was improper; evidence that the school enforced its moral code only when pregnancy revealed conduct allowed a reasonable factfinder to find pretext and discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020) (defines scope of ministerial exception based on an employee's actual duties)
- Cline v. Catholic Diocese of Toledo, 206 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2000) (using pregnancy as the sole method to detect premarital sex enforcement raises material factual issues of sex/pregnancy discrimination)
- Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 440 F. Supp. 2d 211 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (uneven enforcement of moral rules against pregnant women evidences pretext)
- Gerety v. Atlantic City Hilton Casino Resort, 184 N.J. 391 (2005) (LAD prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy)
- Zive v. Stanley Roberts, Inc., 182 N.J. 436 (2005) (plaintiff retains burden of proof and methods to show pretext)