缅北轮奸

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) has been found to have violated Maryland’s employment anti-discrimination law when it discriminated against an employee because of his sexual orientation.

U.S. District Judge Julie Rubin ordered CRS to pay $60,000 to married gay former employee, John Doe, for violating the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA) when it revoked the health insurance coverage for the employee’s husband.

While the MFEPA has an exemption for religious organizations, the Baltimore-based humanitarian agency is not entitled to the exemption because the employee discriminated against was not engaged in work that directly advanced the organization’s mission, the judge found.

The ruling represents the first application of the test for determining a religious exemption under the MFEPA since it was articulated by the Maryland Supreme Court in 2023.

The ruling is not the first in Doe’s favor. In an earlier proceeding in 2022, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake ruled in his favor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act, and under the Maryland Equal Pay Act. Judge Blake reasoned that religious organizations are not exempt from anti-discrimination statutes. Judge Blake also ruled that MFEPA is a neutral law and applicable to all entities and thus does not violate CRS’s First Amendment rights.

After that proceeding, the judge certified a question to the Maryland Supreme Court about the MFEPA and its religious exemption.

Under the MFEPA, an employer may not “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” or “limit, segregate, or classify its employees or applicants for employment in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the individual’s status as an employee” because of, relevant here, the individual’s sexual orientation.”

The law recognizes an exemption from the prohibition. The prohibition does not apply to “a religious corporation . . . with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular . . . sexual orientation . . . to perform work connected with the activities of the religious entity.”

There was no dispute that CRS terminated Doe’s spousal health benefits because he is a man married to another man. It was also undisputed that opposite-sex spouses of domestic employees of CRS are eligible for dependent health benefits.

Doe raised the question of whether the MFEPA exemption applies to the employment of individuals of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity who perform work connected with all activities of the religious entity or only those that are religious in nature.

The issue was certified to the Maryland Supreme Court. The parties argued their positions, with CRS espousing a broad view of its exemption, while Doe took a narrow view.

CRS defended its cancellation of the husband’s benefits, contending that, as a religious entity, it is exempt from MFEPA’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. CRS argued that “the exemption unambiguously exempts all claims for religious, sexual orientation, and gender identity discrimination against religious entities, because all work of every employee is ‘connected with’ the ‘activities’ of their employer.”

Doe argued the exemption should be read as “coextensive with the First Amendment’s ‘ministerial exception,'” which is to say, that it would “apply to any employee whose primary duties consist of teaching, spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or participation in religious ritual and worship.”

The Maryland Supreme Court (Doe v. Catholic Relief Services) rejected both arguments. The high court, acknowledging that the “language of the exemption is ambiguous,” addressed what type of work could be considered “connected” to the mission of a religious entity to trigger the exemption:

“Giving the exemption its narrowest reasonable reading, we conclude that the General Assembly 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.”

The Supreme Court also provided guidance for other courts to follow in implementing this new test. According to the guidance, focusing on the duties of the employee and the core mission(s) entails a fact-intensive inquiry; the reference to duties “directly” furthering the core mission means duties that are not one or more steps removed from actions that effect the goals of the entity; the size of the religious entity may be relevant; a religious entity may have both religious and secular core missions; and in determining the core mission, a court may consider the description of its mission. the services the entity provides, the people the entity seeks to benefit, and how the entity’s funds are allocated.

Following the state high court’s reasoning, U.S. District Judge Rubin, now presiding, examined each of the jobs Doe had at CRS as well as the mission and operations of CRS.

According to the record before the court, CRS works with local, national and international Catholic institutions to serve the poor and vulnerable overseas by responding to major emergencies, fighting disease and poverty, and nurturing peaceful and just societies. It assists people on the basis of need, not creed, race or nationality. CRS provides a number of humanitarian services throughout the world, including in areas of agriculture, capacity strengthening, education, emergency, health, justice and peacebuilding, microfinance, and water and sanitation.

As of 2023, CRS education programming consisted of 76 projects in 40 countries, serving eight million participants. CRS employs more than 8,000 people worldwide. CRS’s revenue is primarily derived from public sources, mostly from the federal government.

Doe was hired as data advisor in 2016 and moved into several other data, administrative and technical services positions during his tenure at the agency. According to the court, none of Doe’s positions were “ministerial,” “representational,” or “explicitly religious” in nature. Doe did not provide direct humanitarian relief in any of his CRS roles. Doe did not work directly with donors in any of his CRS roles. Doe did not make decisions about how to implement CRS relief projects in any of his roles.

Applying the state high court’s test, the federal district court found that none of Doe’s five full-time positions with CRS directly furthered a CRS mission, and that each of his positions was one or more steps removed from taking the actions that effect CRS goals. The court similarly concluded that CRS had not met its burden to show that MFEPA’s religious entity exemption applies in Doe’s situation.

Thus, the court concluded, the MFEPA religious entity exemption does not apply with respect to Doe, and CRS violated MFEPA in its termination of Doe’s spousal health benefits for his same sex spouse.