9th Circuit Holds 'Ministerial Exception' Bars Seminarian Employment Case

Rosas v. Corp. of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, Case No. 09-35003 (C.A. 9, Mar. 16, 2010)

EXCERPT:

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947). The interplay between the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses creates an exception to an otherwise fully applicable statute if the statute would interfere with a religious organization's employment decisions regarding its ministers. Bollard v. Cal. Province of the Soc'y of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 944, 946-47 (9th Cir. 1999). This "ministerial exception" helps to preserve the wall between church and state from even the mundane government intrusion presented here. In this case, plaintiffA person who brings a lawsuit or action; the party who complains or sues in a civil action. Cesar Rosas seeks pay for the overtime hours he worked as a seminarian in a Catholic church in Washington. The district court correctly determined that the ministerial exceptionThe ministerial exception is a legal doctrine in the United States intended to protect the freedom of religion by exempting religious institutions from anti-discrimination laws in hiring employees and prevents ministers from filing civil rights lawsuits against religious employers. bars Rosas's claim and dismissed the case on the pleadingsWritten statements filed with the court that describe a party's legal or factual assertions about the case.. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cesar Rosas and Jesus Alcazar were Catholic seminarians in Mexico. The Catholic Church required them to participate in a ministry training program at St. Mary Catholic Church in Marysville, Washington as their next step in becoming ordained priests. At St. Mary, Rosas and Alcazar allegedly suffered retaliation for claiming that Father Yanez sexually harassed Alcazar, and they eventually sued Father Yanez and the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle ("defendants") under Title VII. In addition, Rosas and Alcazar sued under supplemental jurisdiction for violations of Washington's Minimum Wage Act for failure to pay overtime wages. See Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130. The district court dismissed the overtime wage claims on the pleadings, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), and Rosas's overtime wage claim is the only issue1. The disputed point between parties in a lawsuit; 2. To send out officially, as in a court issuing an order. on appealA request made after a trial by a party that has lost on one or more issues that a higher court review the decision to determine if it was correct. To make such a request is "to appeal" or "to take an appeal." One who appeals is called the "appellant;" the other party is the "appellee.".

Because the judgment was on the pleadings, the pleadings alone must be sufficient to support the district court's judgment. We thus base our decision on the very few allegations in Rosas's complaint. Rosas alleges as follows:

1.3 . . . The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle hosted [Rosas] as [a] participant[ ] in a training/pastoral ministry program for the priesthood. 2.2 Cesar Rosas entered the seminary to become a Catholic priest in 1995 in Mexico.

2.3 As part of [his] preparation for ordination into the priesthood, the Catholic Church required [Rosas] to engage in a ministerial placement outside [his] diocese, under the supervision of a pastor of the parish into which [he was] placed. The Archdiocese of Seattle sends seminarians to Mexico and has Mexican seminarians come to its parishes. [Rosas was] placed in St. Mary Parish in Marysville, Washington under the supervision of defendantIn a civil case, the person or organization against whom the plaintiff brings suit; in a criminal case, the person accused of the crime. Fr. Horatio Yanez.

2.10 . . . [Rosas] was hired to do maintenance of the church and also assisted with Mass. He . . . worked many overtime hours he was not compensated for.

Read the full decision which includes a primer on the 'ministerial exception' at http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0310%2F09-35003