Brief defends freedom of religious schools to choose religion teachers based on religion
Mar 25, 2005
Urges Court of Appeals to preserve church autonomy and avoid entanglement
The First Amendment requires dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a former religion teacher against Ursuline Academy and the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Delaware, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty reiterated today in a brief filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Last year, the trial court threw out the religion teacher’s suit challenging the school’s decision to dismiss her after she literally advertised her opposition to the Church’s teaching on abortion.
The Becket Fund--a nonpartisan, interfaith, legal and educational institute dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions--filed the brief on behalf of defendants Bishop Michael A. Saltarelli and the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington. The Becket Fund is Of Counsel to all defendants.
Plaintiff Michele Curay-Cramer taught Religion and English at Ursuline Academy, a Catholic independent school in Wilmington, Delaware. On January 22, 2003, her name appeared among the signers of a statement endorsing abortion rights in a full-page ad in The News Journal, Wilmington's daily newspaper. After she refused to back down from her public opposition to the Church’s teaching on abortion, the school dismissed her from her position. A few months later, she filed an employment discrimination suit in federal court against Ursuline Academy, two Ursuline employees, the Diocese of Wilmington, and its Bishop, Michael Saltarelli. She lost that suit, but has now appealed to the Third Circuit.
“Just as the First Amendment protects Planned Parenthood’s right to fire employees who oppose abortion rights, so too does it guarantee a religious school’s right to fire teachers who oppose the Church’s position on abortion,” declared Becket Fund President Anthony Picarello.
The Becket Fund’s brief explains that the “church autonomy” doctrine of the First Amendment prohibits the state from regulating the relationship between a religious institution and its leaders, and from interfering with matters of church discipline and governance. “In short, if the government could preclude any religious group from disciplining those who renounce its doctrines—especially teachers at its own schools—the government would eviscerate the ability of all religious groups to maintain the integrity of their belief systems,” The Becket Fund’s brief argues.
In his November decision, District Judge Kent Jordan called Curay-Cramer’s argument that Ursuline was not a religious institution “patently absurd” and “illogical.” Applying federal employment law in this case would raise “substantial constitutional questions” that courts must avoid. Judge Jordan wrote: “Short of a declaration that the Pope should pass draft encyclicals through the courts for approval, it is hard to conceive of a more obvious violation of the free exercise rights of the Catholic Church or a clearer case of inappropriate entanglement of church and state.”Resources & Documents
Relevant Cases