Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Soc'y, Inc. v. Bridgewater ex rel. Bridgewater

• Decision Date: 29 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. 93A02–1202–EX–145.,93A02–1202–EX–145.
• Citation: 990 N.E.2d 29
• Parties: FISHERS ADOLESCENT CATHOLIC ENRICHMENT SOCIETY, INC., Appellant–Respondent, v. Elizabeth BRIDGEWATER o/b/o Alyssa BRIDGEWATER, Appellee–Complainant.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

990 N.E.2d 29

FISHERS ADOLESCENT CATHOLIC ENRICHMENT SOCIETY, INC., Appellant–Respondent,

v.Elizabeth BRIDGEWATER o/b/o Alyssa BRIDGEWATER, Appellee–Complainant.

No. 93A02–1202–EX–145.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

May 29, 2013.

David L. Swider, Bryan H. Babb, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Patrick T. Gillen, Naples, FL, Thomas Brejcha, Peter Breen, Thomas More Society, Chicago, IL, Attorneys for Appellant.

Nelson A. Nettles, Cynthia E. Lasher, Norris Choplin Schroeder LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

Michael C. Healy, State of Indiana Civil Rights Commission, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Amicus Curiae.

OPINION

VAIDIK, Judge.

Case Summary

Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society, Inc. (“FACES”), is a private, non-profit organization with religious, educational, and social features.¹ FACES was formed in 2006 to provide enrichment opportunities for homeschooled children. Its founders are Catholic parents and the majority, though not all, of the members are Catholic. When this dispute arose, FACES offered a number of educational courses to its high-school-aged members, none of which related to religion. FACES also sponsored social events. In fall 2008, FACES sponsored a dance, and one FACES parent, Elizabeth Bridgewater, requested special dietary accommodations for her child, Alyssa, who planned to attend. Alyssa suffers from a dietary condition that can cause a life-threatening allergic reaction if she eats certain foods. The Bridgewaters were unhappy with FACES' response to their request and filed an accommodation complaint with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission (“ICRC”). The following month, the family was expelled from FACES. They filed an additional complaint with the ICRC, alleging that FACES had retaliated against them because they filed the accommodation complaint.

FACES moved to dismiss the accommodation and retaliation complaints, arguing that the ICRC did not have jurisdiction over FACES, which it characterized as a religious organization. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) ultimately ruled that the ICRC had jurisdiction under Indiana's Civil Rights Law (“the civil rights law”) because FACES “relates to” education. The same ALJ later ruled on the merits of the Bridgewaters' complaints and concluded that FACES did not commit an unlawful discriminatory practice because it accommodated Alyssa's dietary needs, but did commit an unlawful discriminatory practice by expelling the Bridgewater family after they filed the accommodation complaint. The ALJ awarded the Bridgwaters $5000 in damages and ordered FACES to: (1) cease and desist from retaliating against persons because they filed a complaint with the ICRC; (2) post a link to the ALJ's order on all websites on which they communicated information about the case; and (3) offer reinstatement of the Bridgewater family to full membership, including all benefits. Both parties appealed the order to the ICRC. The order was affirmed in all respects, except the amount of damages was decreased.

Both parties now appeal. The main issues raised on appeal relate to the ICRC's jurisdiction over FACES and the corrective action FACES was ordered to undertake. In addition, the parties challenge the ALJ's conclusions as to accommodation, retaliation, and damages. We conclude that the nature and features of FACES make the organization sufficiently related to education such that the ICRC's jurisdiction is proper, and we uphold the ALJ's conclusions, with one exception. We find the ALJ's order that FACES post its decision on all websites on which they communicated information regarding the case to be unconstitutional compelled speech, and we reverse this portion of the order. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Facts and Procedural History

FACES was formed in 2006 by two Catholic mothers, Virginia Zender and Vanessa Alexander. It is a private, non-profit organization incorporated in Indiana since 2007. See Appellant's App. p. 43–45. FACES receives charitable funding from organizations such as the United Way and is recognized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

FACES has religious, educational, and social features. According to FACES' founders, the organization was created to provide “a group where teenagers could get together to learn and socialize in an environment consistent with their Catholic faith,” Appellant's Br. p. 8, and

to implement the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, more specifically: (1) the teaching that parents have primary responsibility for the education of their children; and (2) the teaching that members of the church should demonstrate solidarity and fraternal charity as they endeavor to live their vocation by educating children in their faith and preparing them to serve the common good.

Id. at 9. FACES has both Catholic and non-Catholic members.

Around the time of the events in this case, FACES offered courses for its high-school-aged members in subjects such as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, computer programming, speech, drama, biology, and French. Members had to pay a fee and sign a waiver of liability to enroll in the courses. See Appellant's App. p. 78. Once enrolled, FACES members “me[t] once per week for some thirty weeks during the school year” in public spaces such as local libraries and bookstores. Id. at 40, 81–82. The weekly meeting would begin at 9:00 a.m. and last until approximately 4:00 p.m. Id. at 77. Some weekly meetings would end after 4:00 p.m., when students were given tests at the end of the day. Id. The courses offered by FACES were taught by volunteer teachers, and, at other times, by Zender and Alexander. Id. at 79. Some of the courses, like French and biology, were taught using textbooks, while others were taught using teacher-generated materials. Id. at 67, 79–80. FACES did not offer any religious courses when this dispute arose. FACES did not issue grades, transcripts, or diplomas. In addition to providing educational courses, FACES sponsored social activities.

The Bridgewater family joined FACES in 2007. Elizabeth Bridgewater and her daughter Alyssa were particularly involved in the group. In fall 2008, FACES planned to host an “All Souls' Masquerade Ball” to coincide with the Catholic feast day of All Souls' Day. Elizabeth was assigned the task of planning the ball, which was to be held at the Ritz Charles in Carmel. Elizabeth frequently communicated with Ritz Charles staff to plan the event, including the menu. Because Elizabeth's daughter Alyssa suffers from eosinophilic esophagitis (“EE”), a condition that requires Alyssa to adhere to a strict diet to avoid a life-threatening allergic reaction in which her ability to breathe and swallow is impaired or even stopped altogether, Elizabeth told Ritz Charles staff that she and Alyssa would need to eat different meals from the other attendees.² When Elizabeth told Zender and Alexander of this plan, Alexander told Elizabeth that she would take over the planning duties and told Elizabeth to stop contacting the Ritz Charles.

Months later, when speaking with Alexander about the ball, Elizabeth learned that the menu for the ball included chicken. Elizabeth told Alexander that Alyssa could not eat chicken and would need beef instead. Alexander rejected this idea, telling Elizabeth that the boys attending the ball would be jealous if Alyssa received steak and they did not. Some time later, Elizabeth followed up on the issue in an email to Alexander and Zender, again requesting that Elizabeth be allowed to order steak, and offering to pay the price difference. If steak was offensive, Elizabeth asked if Alyssa could order a hamburger. Alexander and Zender rejected Elizabeth's proposed solutions. Elizabeth responded by asking if the Bridgewaters could supply their own dinner for Alyssa, and, if so, whether they would receive a discount on the ticket price for the ball. Alexander and Zender said that the Bridgewaters could bring Alyssa's meal, but told Elizabeth that there would be no ticket-price adjustment.

The dispute continued. In October 2008, the Bridgewaters wrote to the FACES board—which consisted of Zender, Alexander, and a third woman, Margaret Beard—that Alyssa would be humiliated if her mother were to bring her meal to the ball. The Bridgewaters said that the Ritz Charles was willing to prepare a special meal for Alyssa, and renewed their request that this be allowed. They did not receive a response from the board. On October 9, 2008, the Bridgewaters filed a discrimination complaint with the ICRC, alleging that FACES had discriminated against Alyssa by refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation for her medical condition at the ball. FACES responded, stating that reasonable accommodations had been provided and Alyssa had not been prohibited from attending the event.

Ultimately, the Bridgewaters ordered Alyssa a separate meal from the Ritz Charles, which they paid for. Alyssa attended the ball on November 2, 2008, without incident.

Four days after the ball, the Bridgewaters received a letter from FACES telling them that they were being expelled from the organization. The letter gave four reasons for the expulsion: (1) Elizabeth had voiced concerns about a FACES class to a teacher rather than to the FACES board; (2) Elizabeth had, on one occasion, refused to leave a classroom when asked; (3) Alyssa brought a tape recorder to one of her classes; and (4) Elizabeth made contact with the Ritz Charles after Alexander had told her not to do so. Id. at 531–32. FACES' decision came as a surprise to the Bridgewaters, who had never before been told of any complaints about their behavior.

Elizabeth responded in writing to the reasons for the family's expulsion. She explained that her discussion with a teacher was not related to instruction, but rather the dispute about Alyssa and the ball. Elizabeth denied having stayed in the classroom after being asked to leave, and she stated that there was no rule...