Judge Rules Against Fontbonne Academy In Gay-Hiring Retraction

[_Abyssinia]

BOSTON (AP) — A Massachusetts judge has ruled that an all-girls Catholic school violated state anti-discrimination law by rescinding a job offer to a gay man in a same-sex marriage.

Matthew Barrett was offered a job as (http://www.fontbonneacademy.org/page)‘s food services director, but the offer was withdrawn after he listed his husband as his emergency contact.

Barrett sued. A judge ruled Wednesday that the school discriminated against him based on sexual orientation and gender. The judge rejected Fontbonne’s claim that it should be exempt from the law because it would infringe on free exercise of religion. The Catholic church opposes same-sex marriage.

boston.cbslocal.com/2015/12/17/judge-rules-against-fontbonne-academy-in-gay-hiring-retraction/

 

[signit]

Thanks for posting.

Our discussion on that last year:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=856182&highlight=fontbonne

The official decision doesn’t seem to be out yet, but there’s a longer article that goes into the reasons for the decision:

bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/12/17/fontbonne/ANcFqZ2bns2r6Et7GSEl7H/story.html

Fontbonne, a ministry sponsored by the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Boston, had argued it is entitled to a religious exemption under the state antidiscrimination law.

It also claimed that hiring Barrett would infringe on its constitutional rights because it views his marriage as incompatible with its religious mission.

Wilkins rejected those arguments.

“As an educational institution, Fontbonne retains control over its mission and message,” he wrote. “It is not forced to allow Barrett to dilute that message, where he will not be a teacher, minister or spokesperson for Fontbonne and has not engaged in public advocacy of same-sex marriage.”

Wilkins said Fontbonne could claim a religious exemption to the state antidiscrimination law only if it limited “membership, enrollment, or participation” to members of one religion. The school, however, is open to students and employees of all faiths, except for members of its administration, theology faculty, and mission and ministry staff, he wrote.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

boston.cbslocal.com/2015/12/17/judge-rules-against-fontbonne-academy-in-gay-hiring-retraction/

This is really horrible.

 

[SuperLuigi]

This is really horrible.

I agree. It’s about scandal more than anything else.

Imagine if the same judge ruled that GLAAD offices in Boston had to hire members of the Westboro Church.

 

[TMC]

I agree. It’s about scandal more than anything else.

Imagine if the same judge ruled that GLAAD offices in Boston had to hire members of the Westboro Church.

I think they do, if they are not actively speaking out against GLAAD at work and not proselytizing. Simply being a member of a religion that GLAAD disagrees with would not be a valid reason to fire someone.

 

[_Abyssinia]

This case is an example of why Catholic schools should have morality contracts for teachers, which should be provided for the would-be employee, before it is confirmed they have been offered the job. If they are not happy with it, they don’t have to sign it and can move on. People could lie though, but if they’ve signed a document, they’ve signed to adhere to it, and that can be produced if the employee takes the school to court if they have broken that contract.

 

[mdgspencer]

This decision may well be reversed in court on appeal.
If a school accepts gay sex, this would seem to undermine the reason for its existence. No wonder Catholic schools are resisting such things.
If there were openly gay staff members at the local Catholic school, it is very likely that I would send my children to another school.

 

[Paganus]

“The judge said the exemption applies only if a religious organization limits admission. Fontbonne is open to students and employees of all faiths.”

In other words, the religious exemption protects only non-“catholic” faiths.

This is only the beginning. Build your priest holes while ye may.

 

[signit]

The full decision is up, for anyone interested:

glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/barrett-v-fontbonne-academy/barrett-v-fontbonne-summary-judgment.pdf

 

[Nixbits]

Most interesting. Signit, thank you for posting the link to the full adjudication.

 

[signit]

More on this:

A National Catholic Register blogger criticized the decision, saying that the decision conflicts with the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court Case saying that it is "“impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers”:

ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/

That might or might not be a strong argument, as the employee in the 2012 case had religious training and performed some specifically religious functions, while the person here was involved in food service.

A better argument might be that the court misread the exemption in state law the school tried to rely on (discussion beginning at p.6 of the opinion):

Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law nothing herein shall be construed to bar any religious or denominational institution or organization, or any organization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, from limiting admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion or denomination or from taking any action with respect to matters of employment, discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law which are calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained.

The school could make the argument that the court incorrectly limited the exemption by adding language from a different exemption from the same section. The other exemption seems to provide a broader exemption, from the entire section and not just that provision, for a more limited class of employers.

 

[gardenswithkids]

More on this:

A National Catholic Register blogger criticized the decision, saying that the decision conflicts with the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court Case saying that it is "“impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers”:

ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/

That might or might not be a strong argument, as the employee in the 2012 case had religious training and performed some specifically religious functions, while the person here was involved in food service. …

A strong case could be made that food service is a ministry function. Our faith’s list of the Corporal Works of Mercy includes “feed the hungry”. We fast and abstain from certain foods on certain days. Our sacred celebrations involve “The Bread of Life”, and there are canon laws as to what substrates may or may not be used at Mass.

If I were in charge of the school, I’d change the job description and duties so as to leave no room for any legal doubt that food service is a ministry.