Amos v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church
| Decision Date | 18 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. C-83-0492W. |
| Citation | 618 F. Supp. 1013 |
| Parties | Christine J. AMOS, Judy Bawden, Deniece Kanon, April Joyce Reding, Arthur Frank Mayson, Ruth Arriola, Shellen Adamson and Ralph L. Whitaker on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The CORPORATION OF the PRESIDING BISHOP OF the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Elizabeth T. Dunning, David B. Watkiss, Molly B. Kenny, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiffs.
Dan S. Bushnell, M. Karlynn Hinman, David P. Farnsworth, Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendants.
The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and reconsideration and defendants' motion to strike were argued orally on May 17, 1985. The plaintiffs were represented by Elizabeth T. Dunning, David B. Watkiss and John E. Harvey. The defendants were represented by Wilford W. Kirton and Richard Boyle. Prior to the hearing, the court read carefully all memoranda of counsel. After the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement and has since reviewed the memoranda and depositions and has read all relevant authorities. Based on those materials and oral argument, the court renders the following decision and order.
The court is governed by its previous decision in this case, Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop, 594 F.Supp. 791 (D.Utah 1984) (). At that time, the court ruled on defendants' motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. That action was initiated when plaintiffs brought suit claiming violations of federal and state antidiscrimination laws. They claimed their termination from employment was based on their inability or refusal to satisfy worthiness requirements of the Mormon Church for temple recommends. Contending they were employees performing non-religious activities, they challenged the constitutionality of federal and state exemptions from antidiscrimination laws, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 and Utah Code Ann. § 34-35-2(5), respectively. In addition, plaintiffs claimed the defendants wrongfully and intentionally inflicted extreme mental and emotional injury and distress on the plaintiffs by requiring them to be interviewed by church leaders concerning their eligibility for temple recommends.
In Amos I, the court set forth an analytical framework for determining whether an activity is religious in religious discrimination suits. That framework consists of a three prong test. Because that test must be applied to defendants' activities in the present motions, the court reiterates it in full here.
First, the court must look at the tie between the religious organization and the activity at issue with regard to areas such as financial affairs, day-to-day operations and management. Second, whether or not there is a close and substantial tie between the two, the court next must examine the nexus between the primary function of the activity in question and the religious rituals or tenets of the religious organization or matters of church administration. If there is a substantial connection between the activity in question and the religious organization's religious tenets or matters of church administration and the tie under the first part of the test is close, the court does not need to proceed any further and may declare the activity religious.... However, where the tie between the religious entity and activity in question is either close or remote under the first prong of the test and the nexus between the primary function of the activity in question and the religious tenets or rituals of the religious organization or matters of church administration is tenuous or nonexistent, the court must engage in a third inquiry. It must consider the relationship between the nature of the job the employee is performing and the religious rituals or tenets of the religious organization or matters of church administration. If there is a substantial relationship between the employee's job and church administration or the religious organization's rituals or tenets, the court must find that the activity in question is religious. If the relationship is not substantial, the activity is not religious.
The court in Amos I applied that test to the activities of Deseret Gymnasium ("Deseret") and more specifically, to plaintiff Mayson's position there as a building engineer. The court concluded that the nature of Deseret's activities could not be considered to be religious. 594 F.Supp. at 802. Because the court concluded that Deseret's activities were not religious, the court considered the constitutionality of the exemption from Title VII, contained in Section 702, for employees performing secular, non-religious jobs. After a thorough review of the legislative history of that law and the Supreme Court pronouncements on the Religion Clauses of the first amendment, this court held that exemption to be unconstitutional. It found that "the direct and immediate effect of the exemption of religious organizations from Title VII for religious discrimination in secular, non-religious activities is to advance religion in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the United States Constitution." 594 F.Supp. at 828.
The court in Amos I also considered whether Beehive Clothing Mills ("Beehive") and the jobs of the plaintiffs Amos, Bawden, Kanon and Riding1 who were employed there, were religious in nature. The court determined that the issue could not be decided on the record that existed at that time. It therefore delayed ruling on Beehive until further discovery could be made.2 594 F.Supp. at 803. The court also dismissed plaintiffs' cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court determined that defendants' conduct regarding the worthiness requirements and subsequent firing did not rise to the level of "outrageous and intolerable conduct" required under Utah law. 594 F.Supp. at 831.
After the court's decision in Amos I, the parties stipulated that plaintiffs could file a Second Amended complaint adding Ralph L. Whitaker as a named plaintiff. Mr. Whitaker, a former employee of another of the defendants' divisions, Deseret Industries, was employed as a truck driver by Industries from October 1977 until March 1983, when he was fired for failure to satisfy the worthiness requirement.
At issue in plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is the application of the three-prong test to the activity of Beehive Clothing Mills, and to the activity of Deseret Industries. If the court determines that summary judgment is appropriate, it must determine whether the facts demonstrate that the activities at issue are religious in nature. The question of whether defendants violated Title VII when they terminated the plaintiffs from their employment will follow, of course, from the determination of the secular or religious nature of the activities.
The court must also determine the appropriate remedy for the unlawful employment discrimination of plaintiff Mayson as well as for other plaintiffs if it determines that other unlawful employment discrimination has occurred. Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled under Title VII to back pay.
Finally, plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the dismissal of their fourth claim for relief. That claim asserted a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs also move for attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).
The court must ascertain whether any genuine issues of material fact exist which would make the rendering of summary judgment inappropriate. The defendants have opposed the motion for summary judgment on the grounds that factual disputes remain. Each party has listed its statement of facts pursuant to U.S.Dist.Ct., D.Utah Civ.R. 5(e). Defendants have identified a number of facts which they believe remain in dispute.
The court has considered carefully both parties' statements of facts and the depositions, affidavits and answers to interrogatories. From this review, the court concludes that several genuine issues of material fact remain which preclude summary judgment as to Beehive. Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(d), however, the court has sifted the issues and has determined which material facts remain at issue for trial. The court has determined that many of those claimed to be in dispute by the defendants are not material to the issue at hand or are disputed by the defendants because the defendants seek to state legal conclusions as facts. In large measure, however, there is substantial agreement among the parties regarding many of the factual issues. The court therefore will state those facts which it has found established3 as well as specify those narrow areas of factual dispute which remain for trial.4
The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("CPB") and the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("COP") are corporations soles organized pursuant to the laws of Utah, Utah Code Ann. § 16-7-1 to 11 (1973). The COP is the incorporation of the office of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("the Mormon Church" or "the Church")5 and the CPB is the incorporation of the office of the Presiding Bishop of the Mormon Church.6 Beehive Clothing Mills ("Beehive") and Deseret Industries ("Industries") are unincorporated divisions of the Corporations.
Plaintiff Christine J. Amos ("Amos") was employed in the personnel department of Beehive from April 26, 1976 through August 25,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ Ofsaints v. Amos United States v. Amos, LATTER-DAY
...court concluded that disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment for the Beehive employees (see n. 5, supra ). 618 F.Supp. 1013, 1016 (Utah 1985). A plaintiff added by amendment of the complaint, Ralph Whitaker, claimed impermissible religious discrimination in his discharge......
-
Department of Housing and Urban Development Restrictions on Grants to Religious Organizations That Provide Secular Social Services
...Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 594 F.Supp. 791, 800-01 (D Utah 1984) (footnotes omitted), modified, 618 F.Supp. 1013 (D. Utah 1985), rev'd, 483 U.S. 327 (1987). The Supreme never disputed these findings of the district court Indeed, the only reference in the majo......
-
Leidel v. Ameripride Services, Inc.
...11 (E.D.Pa.1993), Miller v. Swissre Holding, Inc., 771 F.Supp. 56 (S.D.N.Y.1991), Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 618 F.Supp. 1013 (D.C.Utah.1985). 37. Although the Internal Revenue Service allows for daily compounding of interest, the......
-
EEOC v. FLC & Bros. Rebel, Inc.
...Cir.1986); Lattimore v. Oman Construction Co., 41 F.E.P. cases 776 (N.D.Ala.1985); Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 618 F.Supp. 1013 (D.C.Utah 1985), appeal pending, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 396, 93 L.Ed.2d 350 While defendant has argued......