GAIL A GORALSKI, Complainant
ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE, Respondent A
ST ADALBERT SCHOOL, Respondent B
An administrative law judge for the Equal Rights Division of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.
The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the administrative law judge. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the administrative law judge, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.
The decision of the administrative law judge (copy attached) is affirmed.
Dated and mailed
February 27, 2015
goralga_rsd . doc : 164 : 126.3
BY THE COMMISSION:
/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Chairperson
/s/ C. William Jordahl, Commissioner
/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Freedom of Conscience Clauses in Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution preclude employment discrimination claims under sex. 111.31 to 111.395 of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act for employees whose positions are "important and closely linked to the religious mission of a religious organization." Coulee Catholic Schools v. LIRC, 2009 WI 88, 320 Wis. 2d 275, 768 N.W.2d 868 (2009). This is known as the "ministerial exception." Id., 320 Wis. 2d 275, ¶ 39. The question presented in this appeal is whether the complainant's job as a kindergarten teacher in a Catholic school is considered to be a "ministerial" position, such that the department lacks jurisdiction over her complaint that she was discriminated against by the respondents based upon her age. The administrative law judge found that it was, and the commission agrees.
Prior to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's issuance of its decision in Coulee Catholic, cited above, the commission would have applied the "primary duties" test, articulated in Jocz v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 273, 301, 538 N.W.2d 588 (Ct. App. 1995), under which it is possible that, based on an analysis of the primary duties of her job, the complainant would not have been considered to occupy a ministerial position. However, under the "functional" approach articulated by the Court in Coulee Catholic, which focuses on whether a position is "important to the spiritual and pastoral mission of the church," Id., 320 Wis. 2d 275, ¶45, the commission is compelled to find otherwise, for the reasons set forth below.
In Coulee Catholic, the Court explained that the "functional" analysis has two steps. The first step is an inquiry into whether the organization, in both statement and practice, has a fundamentally religious mission. On this point, the Court suggested that there would be a distinction between a religious school that has some affiliation with a church, but does not attempt to ground the teaching and life of the school in the religious faith, and a similar school that is "committed to life and learning grounded in a religious worldview." Coulee Catholic Schools v. LIRC, 320 Wis. 2d 275, ¶48. It is clear from the record that the school in this case, whose mission statement refers to providing a quality education "as an expression of the mission Jesus entrusted to the church He founded," and whose school philosophy includes "accept[ing] the Gospel as the foundation of our Catholic educational structure," (1) falls into the latter category.
The second step articulated in Coulee Catholic, is an inquiry into how important or closely linked the employee's work is to the fundamental mission of the organization. Coulee Catholic Schools v. LIRC, 320 Wis. 2d 275, � 49. According to the Court, this is a highly fact-specific inquiry and will include an analysis of factors such as hiring criteria, the job application, the employment contract, actual job duties, performance evaluations, and the understanding or characterization of a position by the organization. The Supreme Court found that the employee in Coulee Catholic, a first grade teacher, obviously had a role of high importance that was closely linked to the mission of the school, noting that she led prayers with her students, incorporated religious symbols and examples into other subjects, and helped her students celebrate religious holidays. In addition, the employee was a "catechist," who taught Catholic doctrine and practice to her students, and took her students to weekly mass. Id., 320 Wis. 2d 275, ¶77. The Court also considered that the employee was required to obtain basic and advanced certifications in religious instruction, and that the first responsibility in her job description was to maintain a "religious atmosphere." Id., 320 Wis. 2d 275, ¶78. The Court concluded that the employee was required to perform "quintessentially religious tasks" as a central part of her job, and that her role was an essential part of the Catholic Church's educational ministry to its youth. Id., 320 Wis. 2d 275, ¶79. It, therefore, decided that her position should be considered "ministerial," and thus exempt from the strictures of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act.
As with the employee in Coulee Catholic, the complainant in this case, a kindergarten teacher, had a job that was closely linked to the mission of the school: she provided religious instruction to her students, led her students in daily prayers, displayed religious symbols in her classroom, took her students to mass on holy days and feast days, and planned a yearly school prayer service. Like the employee in Coulee Catholic, the complainant was required to obtain basic religious certification before she could teach, and during her employment obtained intermediate religious certification. Given those facts, as well as the other facts included in the administrative law judge's findings which indicate that the complainant had an essential role in the Catholic Church's educational ministry to its youth--including but not limited to the fact that the complainant's job description and her annual employment contract included specific references to that role--the commission concludes that the complainant must be considered a ministerial employee, with whose hiring and firing decisions the state may not interfere.
In her petition for commission review the complainant takes issue with the fact that the administrative law judge made a general finding that she attempted in a variety of ways to distinguish her situation from the facts in Coulee Catholic, but without discussing the various dissimilarities that she presented. However, the complainant has not elaborated on this assertion and has not explained what dissimilarities between her case and Coulee Catholic she believes would warrant a different result. The commission notes that the alleged dissimilarities cited in the complainant's post-hearing brief--most of which relate to the reasons behind the discharge and not to the nature of the position itself--do not demonstrate that the complainant's position as a kindergarten teacher for the respondent was sufficiently different in terms of its importance to the religious mission of the school from the employee's job in Coulee Catholic to support a conclusion that the ministerial exception found to apply in Coulee Catholic should not be applied to the complainant.
The complainant also argues that her discharge had nothing to do with religion and was related to her age. However, the alleged reason for the discharge has no bearing on the outcome of this case. A decision that the ministerial exception applies to her position means that the complainant may not pursue a claim of discrimination under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, no matter what the basis. It is the role of the employee, and not the reason for her dismissal, that matters. Coulee Catholic Schools v. LIRC, 320 Wis. 2d 275, n.32, citing Rayburn v. Gen. Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164, 1169 (4th Cir. 1985).
Finally, the complainant makes an argument that she was not given a fair hearing. The complainant contends that the administrative law judge repeatedly stopped her from talking at the hearing and that she felt intimidated. She therefore requests an opportunity to sit down with the commission and tell her story. However, the commission does not hold its own hearings or conferences with the parties. The commission's review is based solely upon the record of the hearing before the administrative law judge, with consideration given to the arguments raised in the briefs submitted by the parties. In this case, the commission's review of the hearing record does not indicate that the complainant was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her evidence. Although the administrative law judge did direct and regulate the hearing, which included limiting some of the evidence the complainant sought to present, it was necessary that he do so in order to prevent the introduction of a great deal of material that was not relevant to the issue at hand. The commission can see no reason to believe that the complainant was estopped from presenting any testimony or documentary evidence that may have been material to the decision.
The commission has considered the remaining arguments raised by the complainant in her petition, but finds them similarly unpersuasive. The Wisconsin Supreme Court repeatedly stated in Coulee Catholic that there is no coverage under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act for employees "whose positions are important and closely linked to the religious mission of a religious organization." Id., 320 Wis. 2d 275, �� 3, 55, 67, 71. Applying the standards articulated by the Court to the facts in this case, the commission agrees with the administrative law judge that the complainant's complaint cannot proceed. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
NOTE: In her petition for commission review the complainant states that she is requesting review of both the administrative law judge's decision and the preliminary determination issued by the investigator on December 16, 2013. However, the complainant already appealed the preliminary determination when she filed her request for a hearing, and received a decision on that appeal from the administrative law judge. The commission's review is only of the administrative law judge's decision.
cc:
Attorney Ashley E. Fale
Editor's Note: affirmed Goralski v. LIRC, No. 2015CV0689 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Waukesha Cnty. Oct. 2, 2015).
[ Search ER Decisions ] - [ ER Decision Digest ] - [ ER Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]