Starkey v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 October 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1:19-cv-03153-RLY-TAB,1:19-cv-03153-RLY-TAB
• Citation: 496 F.Supp.3d 1195
• Parties: Lynn STARKEY, Plaintiff, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF INDIANAPOLIS, INC., and Roncalli High School, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

496 F.Supp.3d 1195

Lynn STARKEY, Plaintiff,

v.ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF INDIANAPOLIS, INC., and Roncalli High School, Inc., Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-03153-RLY-TAB

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Signed October 21, 2020

Christopher S. Stake, Kathleen Ann DeLaney, DeLaney & DeLaney LLC, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff.

Christopher C. Pagliarella, Daniel Howard Blomberg, Luke W. Goodrich, Joseph Charles Tucker Davis, The Becke Fund for Religiouss Liberty, Washington, DC, John S. Mercer, Wooten Hoy, LLC, Greenfield, IN, Paul Joseph Carroll, Mercer Belanger P.C., Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants.

ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

RICHARD L. YOUNG, JUDGE

This case places in stark relief the difficult questions that may arise when applying civil rights laws to religious institutions. At issue is a religious school's decision to not renew the contract of a guidance counselor because of her marriage to another woman. Plaintiff asserts various claims under Title VII, Title IX, and Indiana state law. Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing first that Title VII's exemption for religious employers bars her Title VII claims. Religious exemption aside, Defendants claim they had a neutral, nondiscriminatory reason for their decision. Defendants also argue that Title VII preempts Plaintiff's retaliation claim under Title IX. Alternatively, Defendants argue the First Amendment bars all of Plaintiff's state and federal claims.

For the reasons that follow, the court finds that Title VII's exemption for religious employers does not bar Plaintiff's claims for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, retaliation, or hostile work environment under Title VII. At this stage, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a claim that Defendants violated Title VII. The court also finds that it would be premature to bar Plaintiff's state and federal claims on First Amendment grounds. But the court agrees with Defendants that Title VII preempts Plaintiff's Title IX claim for retaliation. Therefore, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Factual Background

Lynn Starkey is a lesbian, and she has been married to a woman since 2015. (Filing No. 1, Complaint ¶ 26). Roncalli is a private Roman Catholic school operated by the Roncalli Board of Directors under the direction of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. (Id. ¶ 13). Starkey worked for the Archdiocese and Roncalli for 39 years and held several positions, including choral director and religion, music, and drama teacher.¹ (Filing No. 20, Answer ¶ 14). She also served as a guidance counselor from 1998 until 2007, and as co-Director of Guidance from 2007 until her termination in May 2019. (Id. ).

Starkey was employed pursuant to a "School Teacher Contract" subject to renewal on an annual basis. (Compl. ¶ 23). In 2017, the Archdiocese and Roncalli replaced the School Teacher Contract with a "School Guidance Counselor Ministry Contract" and an "Archdiocese of Indianapolis Ministry Description" for school guidance counselors. (Compl. ¶ 23; Answer ¶ 23; Filing No. 27-1, Archdiocese of Indianapolis Ministry Description, "Job Description"; Filing No. 27-2, School Guidance Counselor Ministry Contract, "Contract"). The job description specified that "[a]s role models for students, the personal conduct of every school guidance counselor ... must convey and be supportive of the teachings of the Catholic Church," which includes "the belief that all persons are called to respect human sexuality and its expression in the Sacrament of Marriage as a sign of God's love and fidelity to His Church." (Job Description ¶ V). Accordingly, an employee would be in default of her contract if she violated the Church's teachings on marriage. The contract provided:

6. Defaults. The School Guidance Counselor shall be deemed to be in default under this contract in the event of any breach of duty hereunder, including, but not limited to the following:

...

i. Relationships that are contrary to a valid marriage as seen through the eyes of the Catholic Church; and

j. ... any personal conduct or lifestyle at variance with the policies of the Archdiocese or the moral or religious teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

(Contract, at 2). The Catholic Church instructs that marriage is a "covenant" between a "man and a woman." Code of Canon Law, Canon 1055. The Catholic Church also believes that homosexual acts are "contrary to natural law" and "do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity." Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 2357. "Under no circumstances can they be approved."² Id.

Prior to August 2018, Starkey's fellow co-Director of Guidance was Shelly Fitzgerald. (Compl. ¶ 27). Fitzgerald is also a lesbian married to a woman. (Id. ¶ 28). Roncalli officials confronted Fitzgerald about her marital status on August 10, 2018 after a parishioner at a local church had obtained a copy of Fitzgerald's marriage license and gave it to a priest. (Id. ¶ 29). Two days later, on August 12, 2018, Roncalli placed Fitzgerald on paid administrative leave and "requested that she not return to the campus without the permission of the school administrators." (Answer ¶ 32). On August 13, 2018, Starkey attended a meeting with Archbishop Charles Thompson, Superintendent of Archdiocesan Schools Gina Fleming, Roncalli's leadership, and a priest specializing in canon law. (Compl. ¶ 36). At the meeting, the canon law specialist outlined what constituted a "valid marriage" according to "Catholic Church teachings." (Id. ¶ 37). Starkey asked why gay marriage was such a "hot button issue," compared with other sins. (Id. ¶ 38). The next day, August 14, 2018, Starkey drafted and shared written remarks with Roncalli's principal, Chuck Weisenbach. (Compl. ¶ 39). Starkey asked whether it would be "useful for her to read [the remarks] at the upcoming Administrative Council meeting, so they could understand what it was like to work at Roncalli as a gay person." (Id. ). Principal Weisenbach asked if Starkey was in a civil union. (Id. ). Starkey asked if he really wanted her to answer that question. (Id. ) He answered affirmatively, so she said, "yes." (Id. ).

After Fitzgerald was placed on administrative leave, Starkey assumed much of Fitzgerald's work responsibilities. (Id. ¶ 41). Starkey felt that Defendants’ treatment of Fitzgerald meant she and other gay employees were not welcome, and she feared she would be targeted next. (Id. ¶ 42). On November 16, 2018, Starkey filed Charges of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against the Archdiocese and Roncalli. (Id. ¶ 43).

Starkey informally learned in March 2019 that her contract would not be renewed for the 2019-2020 academic year. (Id. ¶ 44). In May 2019, Roncalli officially notified Starkey by letter that her contract would not be renewed for the following school year. (Id. ¶ 45). The letter stated that Starkey's "civil union is a violation [of her] contract and contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church." (Id. ). Starkey filed amended Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC against the Archdiocese and Roncalli on March 25, 2019 and May 9, 2019. (Id. ¶ 8).

On July 29, 2019, Plaintiff sued the Archdiocese and Roncalli asserting six claims: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under Title VII; retaliation under Title VII; hostile work environment under Title VII; retaliation under Title IX; tortious interference with a contractual relationship under Indiana state law; and intentional interference with employment relationship under Indiana state law. Plaintiff asserts the state law claims against the Archdiocese only.

II. Standard of Review

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is governed by the same standards as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Adams v. City of Indianapolis , 742 F.3d 720, 727-28 (7th Cir. 2014). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. "To analyze the sufficiency of a complaint we must construe it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept well-pleaded facts as true, and draw all inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Carlson v. CSX Transp., Inc. , 758 F.3d 819, 826 (7th Cir. 2014).

III. Analysis

Defendants present both statutory and constitutional arguments against application of Title VII, Title IX, and Indiana state law to its employment decisions. The discussion begins with Defendants’ Title VII arguments. The court then proceeds to the First Amendment, which Defendants argue bars all of Starkey's claims. Finally, the court considers whether Starkey's retaliation claim under Title IX is preempted by Title VII or otherwise barred by Title IX's exemption for religious institutions.

A. Title VII Does Not Bar Starkey's Federal Claims.

The court begins with Title VII. First, Defendants’ argue they are entitled to judgment on the pleadings because Title VII's exemption for religious institutions bars Starkey's Title VII claims. Religious exemptions aside, Defendants next argue that they had a neutral, nondiscriminatory reason for their hiring decision: Starkey violated her employment contract by entering a same sex marriage.

1. Section 702

The court first considers Defendants’ argument that Title VII does not apply to decisions by a religious employer when the decisions are based on religion. Defendants claim Title VII's religious exemption bars Starkey's claims because Starkey's same sex marriage violated Catholic teachings.

The court...