Skip to main content

Catholic School Found to Have Discriminated Against Applicant in Same-Sex Marriage


Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy - Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court


Facts:  Matthew Barrett ("Barrett") applied for a job at Fontbonne Academy ("Fontbonne") in June 2013.  Fontbonne was a private Catholic school for girls in Massachusetts.  At the time Barrett applied for a position at Fontbonne, Barrett was married to his husband, Edward Suplee ("Suplee").  Barrett had several interviews at Fontbonne throughout June and July of 2013.  During one interview, he was told by the CEO of Fontbonne, Mary Ellen Barnes ("Barnes"), that every employee was regarded as a "minister of the mission".  Barnes went on to tell Barrett that he would be expected to model Catholic teachings and values and was asked if he could "buy into that."  Barrett stated that he could.  

On that same day that he was informed of the expectations at Fontbonne, Barrett accepted a position at the Catholic school.  Barrett filled out an employee new hire form and listed Suplee as his emergency contact.  Barrett indicated the relationship to Suplee as "husband."  Barrett was informed a few days later that there was a problem with his employment and was subsequently told that Fontbonne would not hire him because he had a same-sex spouse, which was inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Barrett filed suit against Fontbonne on the grounds of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender.  Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.

Holding:  The Court noted that it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or employ an individual because of their sex or sexual orientation.   In this case, the Court held that Barrett had established that was in a protected class, he was qualified to receive an offer of employment (and did in fact receive one), that he suffered a denial of employment, and the reason for the denial was his sexual orientation.  Fontbonne argued that a fact issue existed in regard to "the ultimate issue of discriminatory intent" which therefore should be decided by a jury.  The Court disagreed with this argument and held that in this case, there was direct evidence of discriminatory intent.  The undisputed facts demonstrated that Fontbonne discriminated against Barrett because of his same-sex marriage when an offer of employment was made and then rescinded when it was revealed that Barrett was in a same-sex marriage.  Consequently, this evidence amounted to a discriminatory intent by Fontbonne as a matter of law. 

Fontbonne further argued that it was entitled to an exemption as an educational organization "operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization" and therefore could lawfully take any action with respect to matters of employment to promote the religious principals for which the school was established.  However, the Court held that Fontbonne was not entitled to an exemption as it does not limit membership, enrollment, admission or participation to only Catholics.  The school has a policy of non-discrimination with respect to sexual orientation and even had a policy of welcoming students of all faiths to its student body.  Further, the position that Barrett was to be hired for did not require the employee to be Catholic.  Consequently, the Court held that Fontbonne was not entitled to an exemption in this case.

Judgment:  The Superior Court held that Barrett was entitled to summary judgment on his claims against Fontbonne on the grounds that the Catholic school unlawfully discriminated against him by offering him a position at the school and then rescinding the offer when it learned that Barrett was in a same-sex marriage.

The Takeaway:  Note to employers, be very careful in situations like this when an offer of employment is made and then subsequently rescinded because it becomes known that the applicant does not conform to the same values the employer has.  The school did itself no favors when the undisputed facts appeared to show that Barrett's interviews went well and the school seemed pleased enough with his abilities to offer him a position at the school.  From all appearances, the school found Barrett to be qualified for the position without any reservations.  However, once the school learned that Barrett was in a same-sex marriage and rescinded the offer as a result, things quickly went down hill.  As the Court pointed out, the undisputed facts demonstrated a discriminatory intent on behalf of Fontbonne.  

With no real issue as to the intent of Fontbonne's actions left in doubt, I think the Court got it right when it granted summary judgment in favor of Barrett.  This is an instance where the undisputed facts doomed Fontbonne and the defenses it raised.  Who knows how this would have played out before a jury...but I would be surprised if a jury reached a different conclusion, based upon the key facts in this case were not in dispute.  If Fontbonne had been able to put a few key facts into dispute, they might have been able to live to fight another day...unfortunately for them, that day was not today. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Wilkins

Date:  December 16, 2015

Opinion:  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjw1df_oJPKAhUE8CYKHem9BZMQFgglMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.glad.org%2Fuploads%2Fdocs%2Fcases%2Fbarrett-v-fontbonne-academy%2Fbarrett-v-fontbonne-summary-judgment.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEDBuv4_un5p3_jfV6mnCDFw3X0Og&sig2=FYLfrwN8XBNPnh_UY56nKg&bvm=bv.110151844,d.eWE&cad=rja

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more