Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine's Inc
| Decision Date | 30 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No. PWG-09-3021 (WDQ). |
| Citation | 709 F.Supp.2d 404 |
| Parties | Lori KENNEDY, Plaintiff,v.VILLA ST. CATHERINE'S, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Michael Joseph Hoare, Dennis Chong, Michael J. Hoare PC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Leslie A. Powell, Law Offices of Leslie A. Powell, Frederick, MD, for Defendant.
This Memorandum and Order addresses the Motion for Summary Judgment, Paper No. 16, that Defendant Villa St. Catherine's Inc. d/b/a St. Catherine's Nursing Center (the “Nursing Center”) filed; Plaintiff Lori Kennedy's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Paper No. 25; and the Nursing Center's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Paper No. 28. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This Memorandum and Order disposes of Paper Nos. 16, 25, and 28.
Plaintiff was employed as a geriatric nursing assistant at the Nursing Center from 1994 until May 2007. 1st Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6-7, Paper No. 4. At work, she wore long skirts and covered her head. Id. ¶ 9. According to Plaintiff, her clothes were a “function of her religion” as a member of the Church of the Brethren, and they “did not interfere with her professional responsibilities.” Id. ¶¶ 8 & 17. Yet, Plaintiff claimed that the Nursing Center's Assistant Director of Nursing Services, later promoted to Director of Nursing Services, repeatedly commented on Plaintiff's garb. Id. ¶ 11. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that the Director told her that her clothes were “inappropriate in a Catholic institution ... made the residents' family members uncomfortable, ... and that Plaintiff should conform to a more traditional mode of dress.” Id. ¶ 12. The Director purportedly made these comments in front of Defendant's Administrator/CEO, who took no action. Id. ¶ 13. Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment on May 17, 2007 Id. ¶ 18.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint in federal court on November 13, 2009.1 Paper No. 1. As amended, the Complaint alleged unlawful harassment, retaliatory discharge and discriminatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (2003), 1st Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24, 26 & 27, claiming that Defendant's Director's misconduct was “pervasive and rendered Plaintiff's work environment hostile and/or abusive,” and “caused Plaintiff to lose income and other monetary benefits of employment .... and to experience emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life.” Id. ¶¶ 15 & 19-20. Plaintiff also claimed that Defendant's Director's misconduct was “outrageous, malicious, wanton, reckless and/or in willful disregard for Plaintiff's rights,” entitling Plaintiff to attorney's fees and litigation costs. Id. ¶¶ 21, 22.
Defendant Nursing Center moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the Nursing Center because the Nursing Center “is a religious organization [that] is exempt from Title VII's prohibition against employment discrimination based on religious beliefs under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a).” Def.'s Mot. 1. In opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and II, Plaintiff insists that Title VII's religious organization exemption does not extend to harassment or retaliation for complaints about harassment. Pl.'s Opp'n 6, 10. While conceding that the Supreme Court concluded that “[w]orkplace harassment was ... within the ambit of Title VII,” id. at 2, Plaintiff alleges: “A review of the history of [the exemption] does not reveal that Congress was interested in protecting a religious organization's ability to harass its employees, only the organization's ability to hire and fire persons in accordance with its religious principles.” Id. (citing 110 Cong. Rec. 2585-90 (1964)). Plaintiff notes that Senator Erwin, who sponsored the 1972 amendment to the religious organization exemption (which extended the exemption to all activities of a religious organization, not just “religious activities”), said that “ ‘the only effect’ ” that the amendment would have “ ‘would [be] to exempt religious corporations, associations, and societies from the application of [Title VII] insofar as the right to employ people of any religion they see fit is concerned.’ ” Id. at 7 (quoting 118 Cong. Rec. 4503 (1972)). However, Plaintiff conceded that the Nursing Center is a religious institution and that summary judgment should be granted to Defendant on Count III. Id. at 1 & n. 2.
On April 9, 2010, Defendant filed its reply to Plaintiff's opposition, contending that “[t]he religious organization exemption bars Kennedy's claims for retaliation and harassment in the same manner as her claim for discrimination.” Def.'s Reply 2. As Defendant sees it, excluding harassment from the religious organization exemption “undermines the very purpose of the religious organization exemption to eliminate government interference with religious organizations with respect to religion.” Id. at 4. Alternatively, Defendant claims that “if harassment claims were not included in the statute, there would be no basis for this Court's jurisdiction” over Count I Id. at 4 n. 3.
Summary judgment is only proper when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Meson v. GATX Tech. Servs. Corp., 507 F.3d 803, 806 (4th Cir.2007) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine dispute exists as to material facts. Pulliam Inv. Co. v. Cameo Props., 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir.1987). The Court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ricci v. DeStefano, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 2677, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009); George & Co., LLC v. Imagination Entm't Ltd., 575 F.3d 383, 391-92 (4th Cir.2009); Dean v. Martinez, 336 F.Supp.2d 477, 480 (D.Md.2004).
If the party seeking summary judgment demonstrates that there is no evidence to support the nonmoving party's case, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to identify specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. The existence of only a “scintilla of evidence” is not enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Instead, the evidentiary materials submitted must show facts from which the finder of fact reasonably could find for the party opposing summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
Under Title VII, it is “an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Further, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) provides that it is unlawful for an employer “to discriminate against any individual ... because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII], or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII].” The aggrieved employee may file a civil action against his or her employer, after taking the appropriate steps before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f).
To be actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), discrimination need not be “economic” or “tangible.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Rather, “[w]hen the workplace is permeated with ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult’ that is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment,’ Title VII is violated.” Id. at 21, 114 S.Ct. 367 (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted)). Thus, religious harassment that creates a “hostile working environment” is actionable under Title VII if the plaintiff shows that “the harassment was (1) unwelcome, (2) because of religion, (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive atmosphere, and (4) imputable to the employer.” E.E.O.C. v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 521 F.3d 306, 313 (4th Cir.2008).
In this regard, federal courts and the EEOC have viewed religious harassment as “a form of religious discrimination prohibited under Title VII.” Fontana v. Johnny's Pizza House, No. 07-2046, 2009 WL 1491182, at *3 ; see Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.2002) (Hug, J., dissenting) (); Guidelines on Harassment Based on Race, Color, Religion, Gender, National Origin, Age, or Disability, 58 Fed.Reg. 51266, 51267 (Oct. 1, 1993) (proposed 29 CFR §§ 1609.1 & 1609.2) 2 ( that “harassment based upon race, color, religion, gender, age, or disability is egregious and prohibited by [T]itle VII” and that “the Commission believes it important to reiterate and emphasize that harassment on any of the bases covered by the Federal antidiscrimination statutes is unlawful”) (footnote omitted); see also EEOC Compliance Manual § 12 Religious Discrimination (July 22, 2008) available at http:// www. eeoc. gov/ policy/ docs/ religion. html (“Some charges of religious discrimination may raise multiple claims, for example...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. St. Joseph's Ministries Inc.
...court denied summary judgment as to those two claims, concluding that the exemption did not apply. See Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine's, Inc., 709 F.Supp.2d 404 (D.Md.2010). Nevertheless, the court granted St. Catherine's request for certification of a § 1292(b) interlocutory appeal. See Ke......
-
Goodman v. Archbishop Curley High Sch., Inc., Civil Action No. RDB-15-0627
...of Title IX's religious organizations exemption in its February 26, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order. They rely heavily on Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine's, Inc. , discussed supra , in which this Court held that a "substantial ground for difference of opinion" existed as to "whether [Title......
-
Goodman v. Archbishop Curley High Sch., Inc., Civil Action No. RDB-15-0627
...that were a " 'function of her religion' as a member of the Church of the Brethren." See Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine's, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 404, 406 (D. Md. 2010), rev'd in part sub nom. Kennedy v. St. Joseph's Ministries, Inc., 657 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2011). "Plaintiff alleged that the......
-
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Gkn Driveline North Am. Inc
...19. Other courts have granted deference to the EEOC Compliance Manual in deciding issues. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine's, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 404, 411 (D. Md. 2010). 20. At one point, the EEOC's brief uses the term "disparate treatment religious accommodation case." (Docket E......