Our Lady's Inn v. City of St. Louis

Decision Date30 September 2018
Docket NumberCase No. 4:17-CV-01543-AGF
Citation349 F.Supp.3d 805
Parties OUR LADY'S INN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

Sarah Elizabeth Pitlyk, Thomas More Society, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.

Robert M. Hibbs, Nolan Ryan Sharkey, St. Louis City Counselor's Office, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Our Lady's Inn, the Archdiocesan Elementary Schools of St. Louis, O'Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, and Frank O'Brien, Jr. (ECF No. 13), and the cross motion for summary judgment filed Defendant City of St. Louis (ECF No. 20). The matter has been extensively briefed and is ready for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion will be granted in part and denied in part, and the City of St. Louis' motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

For the purposes of the motions before the Court, the facts as established by the record are as follows. On February 10, 2017, the City of St. Louis Board of Alderman approved St. Louis Ordinance No. 70459 ("Ordinance"), which prohibits discrimination based on a person's reproductive health decisions1 or pregnancy. ECF No. 20-5. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge provisions contained in Section Two, subsections B and C of the Ordinance:2

SECTION TWO. Prohibited Discriminatory Practices.
(A) Discriminatory practices, as defined and established by this section, are prohibited. Any person engaging in a prohibited discriminatory practice shall be guilty of an ordinance violation, which shall be punishable in the manner set out in this ordinance.
(B) DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT. It shall be a prohibited discriminatory practice:
(1) For an employer to fail or refuse to hire, to discharge or otherwise to discriminate against any individuals with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of their reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition). However, nothing in this ordinance shall require a religious institution, corporation, association, or society to provide reproductive health benefits of any kind;
(2) For an employer to take any adverse employment action against an employee based on a reproductive health decision by an employee or employee's dependent. However, nothing in this ordinance shall require a religious institution, corporation, association, or society to provide reproductive health benefits of any kind;
(3) For a labor organization to exclude or expel from membership, or otherwise to discriminate against any applicants or members, because of their reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition);
(4) For an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against any individuals because of their reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition);
(5) For an employer, labor organization or employment agency to print or circulate or cause to be printed or circulated, any statement advertisement or publication, or to make any inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses directly or indirectly any preference, limitation, specification or discrimination because of reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition), unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.
* * *
(C) DISCRIMINATION IN PROVISION OF HOUSING OR REALTY.
(1) Prohibited Discriminatory Housing or Realty Practice. It shall be a prohibited housing or realty practice and shall constitute a discriminatory housing practice:
(a) For any person, including, without limitation any real estate broker, salesman or agent, or any employee thereof, to discriminate against any individuals because of their reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition), with respect to the use, enjoyment or transfer, or prospective use, enjoyment, or transfer, of any interest whatsoever in realty, or with respect to the terms, conditions, privileges or services granted or rendered in connection therewith, or with respect to the making or purchasing of loans for the purchase or maintenance of residential real estate or loans in the secondary market, or the provision of other financial assistance, or with respect to the terms, conditions, privileges or services granted or rendered in connection with any interest whatsoever in realty, or with respect to the making of loans secured by residential real estate;
(b) For any person, including, without limitation, any banking, money lending, credit securing or other financial institution, or any officer, agent or employee thereof, to discriminate against any individuals because of their reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition), with respect to the granting or withholding of credit or financial assistance, or the extending or renewing of credit or financial assistance, or modifying of rates, terms, conditions, privileges or other provisions of credit or financial assistance, or services retained or rendered, in connection with the transfer or prospective transfer of any interest whatsoever in realty, or in connection with the construction, repair, improvement or rehabilitation of realty;
(c) For any real estate broker, salesman or agent, or any employee thereof, or any other person seeking financial gain thereby, directly or indirectly to induce or solicit, or attempt to induce or solicit, the transfer of any interest whatsoever in realty, by making or distributing, or causing to be made or distributed, any statement or representation concerning the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of person based on said person's reproductive health decision or pregnancy status (including childbirth or related medical condition);
(d) For any person to refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any persons because of their reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition);
(e) For any person to discriminate against any other person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of that person's reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition);
(f) For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition) or an intention to make any such preference, limitation or discrimination;
(g) For any person to represent to another person because of reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition) that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is, in fact, so available;
(h) For any person to deny any other person access to or membership or participation in any multiple-listing service, real estate brokers' organization or other service, organization or facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings, or to discriminate against him in the terms or conditions of such access, membership, or participation on account of reproductive health decisions or pregnancy status (including childbirth or a related medical condition).

(ECF No. 20-5). The Ordinance also includes a provision stating the following:

Nothing in this ordinance shall prohibit a religious institution, corporation, association, society, health care facility or educational institution with historic religious affiliation from:
i. Prohibiting the provision of any reproductive health service on property owned or leased by it;
ii. Refusing to provide or pay for any reproductive health service to any patient, student or employee; or
iii. Refusing to provide health insurance coverage to any employee for any reproductive health service.

Sec. 2(B)(6); Sec. 2(C)(1)(j). Lastly, the Ordinance contains an enforcement provision as follows:

SECTION THREE . Complaints, Proceedings and Enforcement. An aggrieved person may, not later than one hundred eighty (180) days after an alleged prohibited discriminatory practice has occurred or terminated, file a complaint with the Director of the Civil Rights Enforcement Agency pursuant to the procedures set forth in Ordinance 67119. Such complaints shall be taken, investigated, processed and enforced according to the terms and provisions of Ordinance 67119.

Id.

Plaintiff Our Lady's Inn is a Missouri nonprofit corporation that provides housing for pregnant, low-income women seeking an alternative to abortion. Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts ("PSOF") at ¶ 1. Our Lady's Inn also operates a four-family flat that provides transitional housing for women who have completed their stay in a residential shelter and are either working, attending school, or enrolled in a job-training program. Id. at ¶ 2. It leases living space to women who are employees of Our Lady's Inn and serve as supervisors of residents. Id. at ¶ 3. One criterion for employment with Our Lady's Inn is that the applicant support the pro-life mission of the organization; if an applicant does not support that mission, Our Lady's Inn does not consider the applicant to be a good candidate for employment. Id. at ¶ 10. Our Lady's Inn actively engages...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Marianist Province of the U.S. v. City of Kirkwood
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 13, 2019
    ...a Missouri state court—that discuss the Missouri RFRA statute. None is particularly instructive here. See Our Lady’s Inn v. City of St. Louis , 349 F. Supp. 3d 805 (E.D. Mo. 2018) (holding that an abortion and contraceptives coverage law that did not exempt employers with religious objectio......
  • HM Compounding Servs., LLC v. Express Scripts, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • October 26, 2018
    ... ... Christopher A. Smith, Jason Husgen, Sarah C. Hellmann, Husch Blackwell LLP, Saint Louis, MO, Eric C. Lyttle, Pro Hac Vice, Meghan Ann McCaffrey, Michael John Lyle, Quinn and Emanuel, LLP, ... ...

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