Ganzy v. Allen Christian School

Decision Date02 March 1998
Docket NumberNo. 96-CV-5254.,96-CV-5254.
PartiesMichelle GANZY, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, and Elaine Flake, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Hans & Cerniglia, P.C. by Stephen D. Hans, Timothy M. Smith, Rego Park, NY, for Plaintiff.

Henry S. Halprin by Henry S. Halprin, New York, NY, Law Offices of Michael E. Pressman by Michael E. Pressman, Joseph L. Ruscito, New York, NY, for Defendants.

Amended Memorandum and Order

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

                Table of Contents
                 I. Introduction .................................................................. 344
                II. Facts ......................................................................... 344
                III. Procedural History ........................................................... 345
                IV. Law ........................................................................... 345
                      A. Summary Judgment Standard ................................................ 345
                      B. Sex Discrimination Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ....... 346
                         1. Statute ............................................................... 346
                         2. Title VII Burden Shifting ............................................. 346
                            a. Prima Facie Case ................................................... 346
                            b. Non-discriminatory Reason .......................................... 346
                            c. Pretext ............................................................ 349
                      C. New York Executive Law ................................................... 350
                      D. New York Civil Rights Law ................................................ 350
                      E. Historical Background .................................................... 350
                         1. Sexuality of Women .................................................... 350
                         2. Women in the Workforce ................................................ 354
                         3. Today's Women in the United States: Sexuality and Workforce
                            Participation ........................................................  358
                     F. Public Policy Accommodating Different Views of Fornication ................ 359
                 V. Application of Law to Facts in Light of Jury System ........................... 359
                     A. Ambiguity of Evidence ..................................................... 359
                     B. Jury as the Constitutional Institution for Resolving Ambiguity ............ 360
                VI. Conclusion .................................................................... 361
                
I. Introduction

An unmarried pregnant teacher in a church-affiliated school was fired. She sues the school, raising — apparently for the first time in this guise in this Circuit — difficult issues of conflicts between the rights to sexual freedom and against gender discrimination on the one hand, and to religious freedom to adopt and enforce different moral standards from those of the secular community on the other.

The First Amendment affords religious organizations and their members the right to practice in accordance with their beliefs, establish schools offering parents the opportunity to educate their children pursuant to their religious tenets by hiring those who hold the same religious views, and act in accordance with their own religious-ethical values. Nevertheless, limitations on sexual activity cannot be enforced unequally on male and female employees as a means of gender discrimination.

Fornication is not a crime in New York, and firing a public school teacher simply on this ground would not be justified. See In re Johnson, 292 F.Supp. 381, 384 (E.D.N.Y. 1968) (distinguishing between adultery and fornication; the latter has not been proscribed by New York criminal law); Edwards v. Roe, 68 Misc.2d 278, 279, 327 N.Y.S.2d 307, 308 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct.1971) (the "law of New York does not proscribe normal sexual intercourse carried out between unmarried consenting adults"). By contrast, a religious school, if its religious principles so dictate, can discharge a teacher merely because he or she engages in coition outside of marriage. (The rights of a private secular school are not now at issue.)

Women can become pregnant. Men cannot. It is therefore sometimes easier to enforce restrictions on sexual activity against a woman employee. Nevertheless, if a woman is dismissed from a teaching position in a religious school because she is pregnant, rather than because she had sexual relations, state and federal prohibitions on gender discrimination are violated.

As demonstrated below, the history and wide variations in public attitudes toward chastity and employment of women outside the home may give rise to varying inferences on whether pregnancy rather than premarital sexual intercourse is the cause for a particular dismissal. The jury, reflective of the differences in conclusions which can be drawn by people of varying backgrounds from the same evidence, provides the appropriate constitutional vehicle for sensibly evaluating the proof in the instant case. The claims of the Plaintiff of illegal discrimination under state and federal law must be tried by a jury.

II. Facts

In the fall of 1995, Plaintiff Michelle Ganzy was hired by the Defendant Allen Christian School (the "School") as an elementary school mathematics teacher. Ganzy received her B.A. from Hunter College. She is certified to teach in New York state. Her teaching abilities were never challenged.

When Ganzy joined the School, she indicated that she agreed with its "Statement of Belief" on the "Teacher's Application," which, in part, declared that "We firmly believe that the Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation, and is the supreme authority by which our lives are governed." She also agreed, on the "Religious Statement" portion of the application, that her "temperament and lifestyle are in accordance with the will of God and The Holy Scripture," and she stated that "daily I grow more gracefully and spiritually mature." In response to the question "Do you feel that you have been called by God to a TEACHING MINISTRY?," the Plaintiff replied "Yes. My first year of college at Bethune-Cookman College I attended a teacher's seminar where I became inspired by the testimony of others."

The School "puts a major emphasis on religious teaching and education:" It "expect[s] ... teachers to be role models for their students." According to the Defendant, "the Christian Principles advocated by the school includes an abolition [sic] against sexual relations outside of wedlock...."

The School is promoted as providing a "Christ-centered education," fostering the "pursuit of spiritual values." In its brochure for parents, the School states that it presents all of its curriculum "in the light of the Word of God." "[T]eachers provide Bible instruction in varied forms on a daily basis, seeking to establish the Word of God as the foundation of the student's way of life." Students participate in prayer, worship, and religious education. Each grade level offers a structured curriculum in spiritual and biblical principles. Parents applying for admission of their children must affirm that they agree to have them trained in accordance with the doctrinal creed outlined in the "Statement of Belief."

In early 1996, the School learned that Ganzy, then unmarried, was pregnant. Because, according to the Defendant, sexual activity outside of wedlock violated the religious views of the School, and because Ganzy's pregnancy was clear evidence that she had engaged in coitus while unmarried, Defendant Reverend Elaine Flake, co-founder and Educational Director of the School, discharged Ganzy from her teaching position. Flake offered Ganzy assistance in finding a non-teaching position with an affiliated corporation of the School for the duration of her pregnancy, with reinstatement as a teacher after giving birth. Ganzy did not accept the non-teaching position, nor did she contact the School to re-obtain her teaching position after giving birth.

The Plaintiff was, according to her submission, never informed prior to her pregnancy of any policy against her having sex outside of marriage. While chastity before marriage was not referred to at the time of hiring, it is implied, defendant urges, on theological grounds.

The Plaintiff contends that she was told, "I was terminated due to the fact I was pregnant and unmarried and therefore a bad role model." Defendant denies that pregnancy rather than sexual activity was the basis for dismissal. It contends that it would apply its policy against nonmarital sex to both males and females even though this is apparently the first occasion when this activity was the reason for a dismissal.

That it was the pregnancy that caused the transfer or dismissal arguably might be inferred from the affirmation of counsel for the Defendant that Plaintiff was re-assigned "in order that Plaintiff not set a bad example to students," who "are taught that abstinence is the acceptable course of conduct with respect to sexual activity outside of wedlock." (emphasis added). Ganzy's swelling body had already been observed by her students; as one defense affidavit states: "We learned of her pregnancy from students at the School, one of whom told us there was a sketch/picture of a `fat lady' in the Boys Bathroom, with her name under the sketch...."

III. Procedural History

Plaintiff alleges that her termination as a teacher is employment discrimination based on gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 296 of New York's Executive Law, and Section 40-c of New York's Civil Right's Law. A Right to Sue letter was issued by the Equal Employment Commission. Plaintiff and the School have moved for summary judgment. These motions are now denied.

The Plaintiff had named Reverend Elaine Flake as a co-defendant in all of her state and federal claims. Flake independently moved for summary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Emilee Carpenter, LLC v. James
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • December 13, 2021
    ...with the Human Rights Law and does not require separate analysis. See ECF No. 3-1 at 11 n.1; see also Ganzy v. Allen Christian Sch. , 995 F. Supp. 340, 350 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (collecting cases).By her own admission, Plaintiff is currently refusing requests to photograph same-sex weddings, whil......
  • Karam v. Cnty. of Rensselaer, 1:13-cv-01018 (MAD/DJS)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • January 4, 2016
    ...F. Supp. 3d 214, 222 (N.D.N.Y. 2014) (applying the same standard to § 1981 discrimination claims); see also Ganzy v. Allen Christian Sch., 995 F. Supp. 340, 346-50 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (applying the same standards to Title VII, NYHRL, and Civil Rights Law § 40-c discrimination claims). Defendant......
  • Gallagher v. Delaney
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 19, 1998
    ...Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998) (same sex discrimination); Ganzy v. Allen Christian School, 995 F.Supp. 340 (E.D.N.Y.1998) (history of female sexuality and of women in the workforce); What Is Sexual Harassment? passim (Karin L. Swisher e......
  • Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • July 26, 2006
    ...or having knowledge of a woman's pregnancy — is evidence of pretext. See, e.g., Cline, 206 F.3d at 667; Ganzy v. Allen Christian Sch., 995 F.Supp. 340, 344, 349 (E.D.N.Y.1998). "This is because a school violates Title VII if, due purely to the fact that `[w]omen can become pregnant [and] en......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Sexual harassment & discrimination digest
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination Cases Trial and post-trial proceedings
    • May 6, 2022
    ...against sectarian church-a൶liated school with implied policy against premarital sexual relations. Ganzy v. Allen Christian School , 995 F. Supp. 340 (E.D.N.Y. 1997). See digital access for the full case summary. VIII. SUITS BY ALLEGED HARASSER A. Against Employer 310.00 Wrongful discharge ......
  • Religion, the public square, and the presidency.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 24 No. 2, March 2001
    • March 22, 2001
    ...213 F.3d 795 (4th Cir. 2000). (193.) EEOC v. Catholic University, 83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996). (194.) Ganzy v. Allen Christian Sch., 995 F. Supp. 340 (E.D.N.Y. (195.) Weissman v. Congregation Shaare Emeth, 38 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 1994). (196.) 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993). (197.) Compare Li......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT