PITTSBURGH – A sixth-grade teacher allegedly fired from Aquinas Academy once his employer learned of his same-sex marriage rejected the Diocese of Greensburg’s attempt to dismiss his case via its perceived exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
Kenneth Ference first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 1 versus the Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg. Both parties are of Greensburg.
“Ference began working at defendant’s Aquinas Academy as a sixth-grade teacher on Aug. 23, 2021. As part of the new-hire orientation, Ference had to complete several standard employment forms. He completed most of them on Aug. 25, 2021, during a meeting with Maria Cochenour, Aquinas’s Business Manager. Cochenour indicated that he would receive the medical insurance election forms in an email from defendant’s main office. 10. Unbeknownst to Ference, defendant sent those forms to his Aquinas email address, which he did not have access to until Sept. 2, 2021,” the suit said.
“Once Ference had access to his email, he completed an election to waive group medical insurance on Sept. 2, indicating that he is covered under his husband's medical insurance. Also, as part of his orientation, Ference completed Virtus training, which included a program called Protecting God’s Children. Those trainings concerned the prevention of child sexual abuse. As a sixth-grade teacher, Ference reported to Kelly Watkins, Principal of Aquinas Academy. Because Ference is Lutheran, Watkins said that the defendant prohibited him from providing religious education to its students.”
According to Watkins, Ference’s job responsibilities were to be purely secular, with all matters of religious education and rituals for the sixth-grade students to be handled by Jennifer Davis, Aquinas’s other sixth-grade teacher.
Watkins also asked Ference if he would be comfortable chaperoning the students to church services, to which Ference agreed, with the understanding that he would be at the services only to monitor the students’ behavior.
“Watkins accepted that arrangement, and Davis took the lead at church services with any rituals and religious materials. As part of a standard school day, Aquinas started and ended with prayers. Cochenour led the students in prayer over Aquinas’s PA system. Ference had no role in facilitating these prayers. As per Watkins’s instructions, Ference taught secular subjects to his students for the duration of his employment with Aquinas,” the suit stated.
“Davis handled all religious matters for the sixth-grade students. On Sept. 28, 2021, Dr. Maureen Marsteller, defendant’s Superintendent of Catholic Schools, informed Ference that defendant terminated his employment because he is in a same-sex relationship. Defendant learned of that fact from Ference’s disclosure on his election to waive group medical insurance. As a result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff has suffered substantial mental anguish, emotional distress, and economic damages.”
The Diocese filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Aug. 1, charging that it was well within its rights to terminate Ference’s employment, once it learned of his same-sex relationship.
“Plaintiff signed multiple documents acknowledging that, as a Catholic school teacher, he: was considered church personnel; recognized the religious nature of his employer and position; could be terminated for violating Catholic doctrine, including Catholic beliefs regarding homosexuality and marriage; would serve the purpose of Catholic ministry within classroom and extracurricular instruction; and would have to comport his behavior with canon law and the code of pastoral conduct. Plaintiff waived his ability to receive medical benefits from Diocese. In doing so, he disclosed that he was married to a man. The Diocese then terminated plaintiff,” per the motion to dismiss.
“Plaintiff claimed that Diocese wrongfully terminated him under Title VII due to his sexual orientation. If Diocese was a secular school, plaintiff’s claim would be colorable. But Diocese’s religious status exempts it from Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination based on failure to comport with Diocese’s religious views. Two doctrines connected to the First Amendment also preclude plaintiff’s suit: church autonomy and the ministerial exception. Finally, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act forbids plaintiff from using the federal judiciary as a coercive instrument to overcome Diocese’s sincerely held religious beliefs on sexuality and marriage.”
The Diocese added that the plaintiff “contradictorily recognized Diocese’s anti-homosexuality and anti-same-sex-marriage religious beliefs when he signed his professional services agreement and acknowledgment of receipt of the code of pastoral conduct.”
“If the Court rules in plaintiff’s favor, it will force Diocese to employ teachers in its Catholic schools whose conduct violates Catholic religious precepts or will penalize Diocese for not employing such teachers. Such a result would eviscerate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” the motion to dismiss said.
UPDATE
Ference’s counsel filed a brief in opposition to the dismissal motion on Aug. 22.
“Defendant’s attempt to frame Ference’s termination as an act of religious discrimination must fail given the admitted role his sex played in the termination decision defendant’s ‘labels and additional intentions’ do not change the outcome. The flaws in defendant’s argument are especially obvious when its interpretation of Title VII is played out to its fullest. Under defendant’s interpretation, it is permitted to fire a secular employee for any discriminatory reason, such as an interracial marriage, by using the cover of religious discrimination. That interpretation far exceeds the plain reading of Title VII mandated by the Third Circuit,” the opposing brief stated.
“Defendant’s reliance on forms signed by Ference related to complying with its views on homosexuality does not cure the discrimination in this case. An employee cannot prospectively waive their right to be free from discrimination under Title VII. Also, given that defendant relies on documents outside the complaint and outside the public record, defendant actually seeks summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) rather than to dismiss the claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
For a count of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the defendant’s conduct was unlawful and an intentional violation of plaintiff’s rights; wage loss damages, including back pay, front pay, and lost future earnings, damages associated with the increased tax burden of any award, and lost fringe and other benefits of employment; compensatory and punitive damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; costs and attorney’s fees and such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Nicholas W. Kennedy of Quatrini Law Group, in Greensburg.
The defendant is represented by Bernard P. Matthews Jr. and Alexander W. Brown of Meyer Darragh Buckler Bebenek & Eck in Greensburg, plus Philip J. Murren, David R. Dye and Katherine Fitz-Patrick of Ball Murren & Connell, in Camp Hill.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-00797
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com