Catholic High Sch. Ass'n of Archdiocese v. Culvert

• Decision Date: 08 November 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82 Civ. 396 (MEL).,82 Civ. 396 (MEL).
• Citation: 573 F. Supp. 1550
• Parties: CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF the ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. Edward R. CULVERT, Individually, and in his capacity as Chairman of the New York State Labor Relations Board, and the New York State Labor Relations Board, an Agency of the Department of Labor of the State of New York, Defendants, and Lay Faculty Association, Intervenor-Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

573 F. Supp. 1550

CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF the ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. Edward R. CULVERT, Individually, and in his capacity as Chairman of the New York State Labor Relations Board, and the New York State Labor Relations Board, an Agency of the Department of Labor of the State of New York, Defendants, and Lay Faculty Association, Intervenor-Defendant.

No. 82 Civ. 396 (MEL).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

November 8, 1983.

Clifton, Budd, Burke & DeMaria, New York City, for plaintiff; Edward J. Burke, Robert A. Wiesen, Richard K. Muser, New York City, of counsel.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., State of N.Y., New York City, for defendants; Evelyn Tenenbaum, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, of counsel.

Suozzi, English & Cianciulli, P.C., Mineola, N.Y., for intervenor-defendant; Robert M. Archer, Stephen C. Glasser, Leonard J. Shore, Mineola, N.Y., of counsel.

LASKER, District Judge.

This case poses the question whether the New York State Labor Board ("SLRB") may oversee labor relations involving parochial schools and lay teachers without violating the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.¹ Both defendants and plaintiff move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's summary judgment motion is granted and defendants' cross-motion is denied.²

I.

The Catholic High School Association ("Association") manages and operates eleven Roman Catholic secondary schools within the Archdiocese of New York. It is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the New York State Education Law. The Association is governed by ten trustees, all of whom are officials in the Archdiocese of New York. In addition, the Association's officers are all Roman Catholic priests.

There is much evidence of the religious character of the schools operated by the Association. The parties have agreed that they are "church-operated" as that term was applied by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago,³ and the faculty handbooks of the schools are filled with references to their religious missions. For instance, the handbook for Cardinal Spellman High School describes Cardinal Spellman as:

"a Roman Catholic school dedicated to serving young men and women through a program of learning which emphasizes the essentials: personal Christian development as exemplified in the life and mission of Jesus mediated by the Church; the stimulation of innate creativity; the development of emotional maturity; and a sense of commitment to the Church, the community, the nation, the world."⁴

Similarly, among the objectives described in the Moore High School handbook is the following:

"We realize our philosophical beliefs within the framework of a Catholic environment. Thus we hold as important:

1. to provide our students with a knowledge of their religious heritage by offering a course of study based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

2. to make available religious services and observances.

3. to accept the sharing of corporate responsibility in implementing our philosophy and objectives."⁵

The faculty of the Association's schools consists of both lay and religious teachers. For example, there are three priests, thirteen Sisters of the Divine, and twenty-four lay teachers on the John F. Kennedy High School Faculty.⁶ Lay faculty teach both secular and religious subjects, as do the priests and religious teachers, and they are intimately involved in the fulfillment of the pervasive religious purpose of the Association's schools.

The Lay Faculty Association ("LFA") is a labor organization which represents 343 lay teachers employed by the Association as their exclusive certified bargaining representative. Its members are lay faculty only, and its by-laws preclude religious teachers from joining the union.⁷

In November 1980, the LFA filed with the SLRB charges alleging that the Association had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the New York State Labor Relations Act ("SLRA")⁸ because it had allegedly discouraged membership in the LFA by writing letters to individual teachers and by suspending 226 teachers for protesting the Association's implementation of a new teacher substitution policy. Following an SLRB investigation into these allegations, the Association was served with a formal unfair labor practice complaint on December 11, 1981. The Association then commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction against the SLRB on the grounds that the SLRA's assertion of jurisdiction over the Association violates the First Amendment's religion clauses and that the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA")⁹ preempts state action in this area.

II.

The Association initially asserts that because secular and religious aspects of education intermingle in its schools, the SLRA requirements of mandatory and good faith collective bargaining over a wide variety of subjects burden its free exercise of religion. The argument is that the mandatory bargaining provision¹⁰ burdens religion because it limits the Association's power to make religious decisions that affect the administration of its schools.¹¹ Furthermore, it is claimed that the SLRB's power to investigate the good faith motives of Association decisions affecting lay teachers also burdens religion. The Association argues that while state interests in public health and safety have on occasion been held sufficiently compelling to justify burdening religion, the state interests found here supporting the SLRA, namely, furthering peaceful labor relations and maintaining continuity in parochial school education, are insufficient to legitimize infringement of the Association's First Amendment rights.

The SLRA is also unconstitutional as applied to parochial school teachers, in the Association's view, because of the likelihood that the Act will produce excessive church-state entanglement contrary to the demands of the establishment clause. The kinds of inquiries that the SLRB will be called upon to make in order to determine whether the Association's actions have been taken in good faith will create an entangling relationship between church and state, according to the Association. One illustration which the Association provides, in support of its assertion that the SLRA burdens its conduct but which arguably also supports an excessive entanglement claim, is that of a lay teacher LFA member who might be discharged for advocating birth control or abortion in the classroom. According to the Association, this discharge could lead to an SLRB inquiry into Catholic Church doctrinal matters in order to ascertain whether the discharge was motivated by genuine religious belief or whether religion was simply being used as a pretext for discouraging LFA membership.¹²

The Association further argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because the NLRA preempts states from acting in this area unless Congress or the NLRB has specifically ceded jurisdiction. Since this has not occurred, the Association asserts that preemption ought to apply.

In furtherance of their own summary judgment motion, the SLRB and its Chairman contend that the SLRA is not unconstitutional as applied to parochial school teachers because the Act's procedures, requiring simply that the employer bargain in good faith, and SLRB practices, which entail only an examination of the secular issue of whether the Association has engaged in anti-union conduct, collectively impose merely incidental burdens upon religion and are justified by compelling state interests.¹³

Defendants further claim that this case presents no establishment clause difficulties because the SLRA possesses a secular purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. They also argue that the Act does not produce excessive church-state entanglement because, in contrast to Supreme Court cases finding state aid to parochial schools unconstitutional, "the application of the SLRA to parochial schools neither involves the payment of funds nor obliges the SLRB to monitor the schools' religious activities."¹⁴

Finally, defendants assert that this case does not meet the case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Constitution and is not ripe for federal judicial review.¹⁵ They state that the SLRB has never processed a claim involving parochial school teachers in which religion clause issues have been raised and that the pending SLRB proceedings that have led to this action do not involve religious issues or defenses. Accordingly, the mere possibility that a religious issue might arise in a future case, it is claimed, does not justify deciding First Amendment issues here.

The LFA, as intervenor-defendant, argues that this case presents no establishment clause problems because the collective bargaining agreement between the LFA and the Association specifically limits the range of negotiable issues to secular matters. As a result, according to the LFA, there is no possibility of excessive entanglement between church and state.

III.

A. Justiciability

At the outset, it is necessary to address the threshold question whether a case or controversy ripe for judicial review exists. The case or controversy clause of Article III of the Constitution requires the plaintiff (Association) to raise concrete legal issues by showing that its injury, or the threat of injury, is "real and immediate" and not simply "conjectural" or "hypothetical."¹⁶

The Association has met the required burden in this case through its assertions that application of the SLRA to parochial school teachers is proscribed by the religion clauses. In NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago,¹⁷ the Supreme Court forcefully articulated the reality of the threat of constitutional injury presented here. In that case, the Catholic Bishop of Chicago and the Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend challenged the National Labor Relations Board's ("NLRB") assertion of jurisdiction over...