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Fontbonne discriminated against Barrett because of his same-sex marriage when an offer of employment was made and then rescinded when it was revealed that Barrett was in a same-sex marriage.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