Gen. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Horton

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: THEODORE D. CHUANG, United States District Judge
• Citation: Gen. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Horton, 787 F.Supp.3d 99 (D. Md. 2025)
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 24-2866-TDC
• Decision Date: 18 June 2025
• Parties: GENERAL CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS and Adventist Risk Management, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Cleveland L. HORTON, II, in his official capacity as Acting Executive Director of the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, et al., Defendants.
• topic: Civil Rights,Administrative Law,Constitutional Law,Employment Law

787 F.Supp.3d 99

GENERAL CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTSand Adventist Risk Management, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Cleveland L. HORTON, II, in his official capacityas Acting Executive Director of the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 24-2866-TDC

United States District Court, D. Maryland

Signed June 18, 2025

Eric S. Baxter, Andrea R. Butler, Pro Hac Vice, Kelsey Baer Flores, Pro Hac Vice, Nicholas Robert Reaves, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, Todd R. McFarland, General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, Silver Spring, MD, for Plaintiffs.

Jeffrey Luoma, Joshua Morris Segal, Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THEODORE D. CHUANG, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and Adventist Risk Management, Inc. have filed suit against the Acting Executive Director, General Counsel, and members of the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, as well as the Attorney General of Maryland, challenging the religious exemption of the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Maryland in Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, 484 Md. 640, 300 A.3d 116 (2023). Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss, both of which are fully briefed. On February 20, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction will be DENIED, and the Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

I. Plaintiffs' Hiring Practices

The Seventh-day Adventist Church ("SDAC") has 22 million members worldwide. In addition to religious beliefs commonly held with many Protestant denominations of Christianity, such as the belief in salvation through Jesus Christ, SDAC also holds specific beliefs that distinguish its faith. For example, Seventh-day Adventists observe a Saturday sabbath and consider it to be "a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom." Compl. ¶ 21, ECF No. 1. They also believe that the body is a living temple of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, SDAC members practice healthy living through adequate exercise and rest and abstention from unclean foods as identified in Scripture.

Plaintiff General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists ("the General Conference") is a religious nonprofit organization located in Silver Spring, Maryland that serves as the "highest ecclesiastical and administrative body" of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Id. ¶ 2. Among other functions, the General Conference organizes a General Conference Session every five years, at which SDAC members elect officers and make changes to SDAC's constitution, and it adopts or modifies SDAC policies and manages SDAC business between such sessions. Plaintiff Adventist Risk Management, Inc. ("ARM") is a religious nonprofit organization that provides insurance and risk management services to SDAC's ministries, schools, and hospitals worldwide.

Plaintiffs believe that all of their employees are "representatives of [SDAC] and are responsible for sharing [SDAC's] faith with the world," and that as part of their religious exercise, their employees must "embrace [SDAC's] faith, support its religious mission, and share the faith with others." Id. ¶ 3. In practice, Plaintiffs' employment policies require all of their employees to be baptized, tithe-paying members of SDAC in regular standing who conduct themselves in accordance with SDAC's religious beliefs, including by adhering to SDAC's teachings relating to the use of substances such as alcoholic beverages, tobacco, illegal drugs, and caffeine; marriage and sexual conduct; modest dress; and healthful living. The General Conference employee handbook states that:

Seventh-day Adventist denominational employees are to be models in every facet of their lives. Church members must see in church workers a fidelity to basic principles which is unequivocal. Such employees will demonstrate an exemplary commitment to the Lord and the teaching of His Church.

Gen. Conference Employee Handbook at 29, Compl. Ex. B, ECF No. 1-3. ARM's employee handbook states that its employment practices "reflect religious preferences in harmony with anti-discrimination laws" and that employment considerations include "[m]embership in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in regular standing" and "[a]dherence to Bible-based teachings, lifestyle, standards, and beliefs as reflected by Seventh-day Adventist Church theology and practice." ARM Employee Handbook at 5-6, Compl. Ex. C, ECF No. 1-4. In order to ensure that all employees remain committed to SDAC's teachings, SDAC issues licenses and credentials to all full-time employees, which must be renewed regularly. A failure to practice SDAC teachings, such as engaging in remarriage without "Biblical grounds." is considered grounds for termination. Compl. ¶ 38.

Plaintiffs' religious beliefs permeate their workplaces. Each workday begins with employee worship services, which may involve interactive prayer, singing and musical worship services, and Bible study. Employees plan and lead the worship services and often open internal meetings with prayers. Plaintiffs have set a four-day work week to allow employees time to prepare for each Sabbath, which begins Friday at sundown. All organizational decisions, regardless of whether the issue relates to faith or doctrine, are guided by SDAC teachings.

II. MFEPA

The Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act ("MFEPA"), Md. Code Ann., State Gov't §§ 20-601 to 20-1203 (West 2021), was first enacted in 1965 and generally prohibits employment discrimination based on protected characteristics, including religion. See Doe v. Cath. Relief Servs., 484 Md. 640, 300 A.3d 116, 126 & n.5 (2023). Specifically, the MFEPA provides that:

An employer may not: (1) fail or refuse to hire, discharge or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the individual's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of: (i) the individual's race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, military status, or disability unrelated in nature and extent so as to reasonably preclude the performance of the employment[.]

Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-606(a)(1)(i). An employer also "may not print or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by the employer . . . that indicates any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or military status." Id. § 20-606(e)(1).

Pursuant to an exemption in the statute ("the MFEPA religious exemption"), the MFEPA does not apply to a "religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or military status to perform work connected with the activities of the religious entity." Id. § 20-604(2). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, after which the MFEPA was modeled, see Doe, 300 A.3d at 126, includes a comparable exemption that states that Title VII "shall not apply . . . to a religious corporation, association. educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a). The Title VII provision has been interpreted as exempting religious institutions from claims by any employees of discrimination based on religion. Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 329-30, 107 S.Ct. 2862, 97 L.Ed.2d 273 (1987).

In 2023, in Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, 484 Md. 640, 300 A.3d 116 (2023), the Maryland Supreme Court interpreted the MFEPA religious exemption in a case involving the denial of health care benefits to a gay employee of a religious institution. Id. at 121-22. The case arose from the certification of certain questions by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to the Maryland Supreme Court, see Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-603 (West 2020), one of which related to the MFEPA religious exemption:

Whether, under Md. Code Ann., State Gov't § 20-604(2), the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act applies to a religious corporation, association, education institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity to perform work connected with all activities of the religious entity or only those that are religious in nature.

Doe, 300 A.3d at 121. In answering that question, the Maryland Supreme Court analyzed the statutory language and its legislative history and ultimately gave the MFEPA religious exemption "its narrowest reasonable reading." Id. at 132. The court held that the term "work connected with the activities of the religious entity" is to be read "as limiting the application of the exemption based on the type of work performed by the employee" and concluded that the Maryland legislature "intended to exempt religious organizations from these kinds of MFEPA claims brought by employees who perform duties that directly further the core mission (or missions) of the religious entity," whether the mission is religious or secular. Id. Thus, a position focused on secular activities, such as "the executive director of a medium-sized religious charity, which has as its core mission the raising of funds to build new schools in underserved communities," would...