2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-19-2007 

# LeB o on v . L anc a s t e r J ewi sh

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-2073

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" L eBoon v . L a ncas t e r J ewi sh " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 332. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/332P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 2073

L I NDA L E BO ON,
A p p e llan t.

v. LAN CA STER J EW I SH CO M M UN I TY C ENTER

AS S OC I AT I ON

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C i v. N o. 04- cv- 00430) M ag istrate Ju d g e: H o n . Jac o b P

. H art

A r gued on Sept ember 26, 2006

B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed Sept ember 19, 2007 )

J

. M i chae l C ons i di ne, J r . , E s qui r e ( ARGUE D) Sui t e 100 12 E as tB ar nar d St r eet W es tC hes t er , PA 19382

A t t or neyforA ppel l ant

### 2 D an iel J. B ren n an , E sq u ir e C hr i s t i ne N

. Schul t z, E s qui r e ( ARGUE D) S u s a n i n , W i d ma n & Br e n n a n , P

. C. 455 Sout h G ul ph R oad Sui t e 240, E xecut i ve Ter r ace K i ng of Pr us s i a, PA 19406

A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

O P I N I O N

RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge:
I n t h is e m pl oy m entdi s cr i m i nat i on cas e, a for m er empl oy ee of

t he Lancas t erJ ew i s h C om m uni t yC ent ercl aim ed d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o n t h e b a s i s o f r e l i g i o n ( e v a n g e l i c a l C h r i s t i a n i t y) an d retali ati o n fo r pro tected E E O ac ti v ity . T h e D istri ct C o u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e e m p lo y e r. W e fi r s tfi nd t hat w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o hear t he appe al al t hough i tw as fi l ed over30 day s aft er t he docke t i ng of t he D i st ri ct C ou rt ’s sum m aryj ud gm ent opi nion and order; becau se t he D i s t r i ctC ourt d id notcompl yw i t h t he s epar at e- document ru le, th e e m p lo y e e h a d 1 8 0 d a y s fr o m th e d a te o f d o c k e tin g to fi l e her app e a l

. S econ d, w e affir m t he D i st ri ct C ou rtbecau se (a ) d u rin g th e re lev a n t p e rio d th e L a n c a ste r Je w ish C o m m u n ity C ent erqual i fi ed as a “r el i gi ous corpor at i on, or gani zat i on, or i ns t i t ut i on” exe m pt ed fr om t he r el i gi ous di s cr im i nat i on pr ovi s i ons of Ti t l e V I I ; and ( b) t he empl oy ee ha s notpr oduced s u f f i c i e n te vi de n c e o f

a c a u s a l l i n k b e t wee n h e ra l l e g e d EEO a c tiv ity a n d h e r t e rm in a t i o n . Fi nal l y , w e hol d t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscretio n in d en y ing the e m p loy ee ’s m ot i on t o r eopen di s coveryafte rs he had f i l ed a mot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t.A tt he begi nni ng of 2004, t he LJC C m er ged w i t h t he 1 L ancast er J ew i sh F ederat i on ; t he re su l t i ng enti t yi s t he Jew i sh C o m m u n ity A llia n c e o f L a n c a s te r. L eB oon at t empt s to arg u e tha tt he LJC C w as i n bet t er 2 fi nanci al condi ti o n t han i ts ay s i tw as bypoi nt i ng t o y earend fi nanci al num ber s . T he r ecor d r efl ect s , how ever , t hatt he 

### 3 I . Fac t ual and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound Pl a i n t i f f

- a p p e l l a n tLi n d a Le Boo n , a n e v a n g e l i cal C hr i s t i an, w as empl oy ed as a bookkeepe r by t h e L anca s t er Jew ish C o m m u n ityC ent erA s s oci at i on (L JC C ) fro m N o v em b er, 1998, unt i l A ugus t30, 2002, w hen s he w as t er m i nat ed. 1

T h e L JC C w a s a n o n -p ro f it co rp o ra tio n lo c a ted in L a n c a ste r C o u n ty , P e n n sy lv a n ia . Its sta ted m iss io n w a s to “enhance and pr om ot e J ew i s h l i fe, i dent i t y , and cont i nui t y . ” D u ri ng t he r el evantt i m e per i od i tw as m anage d bya B oar d of T ru ste e s, a n u m b e r o f

c o m m itt e e s, a n d a n e x e c u tiv e d ire c to r. Its by l aw s pr ovi ded t h att he r abbi s of t he t hr ee a r ea s y nagogues s er ve ex o

ffi c io a s n o n -v o tin g m e m b e rs o f th e B o a rd

. T he LJC C oper at ed a va r i etyof pr ogr ams, i ncl udi ng a s um m ercamp and pr es chool , and publ i s hed a ne w s paper , t he L an cast er Jew ish N

ew s. Itheld e v ents for vari ou s Jew i sh hol i day s , i ncl udi ng a H anukkah di nner . I t s fundi ng came fr om a v a rie tyo f s o u rc e s, in c lu d in g a n a v e ra g e o f 1 6 .5 % a n n u a lly fr om the L ancas t erJ ew i s h Feder at i on dur i ng t he t i m e of L eB oon’s e m pl oy m ent

. I tal s o r ece i ved ai d fr om t he U ni t ed W a yf o rc e r t a i n p r o g r a ms . Th e r e ma i n i n g s o u r c e s o f r e v enue w er e mem ber s hi p dues , pr ogr am fees , r ent s , and donat i ons fr om i ndi vi dual s and synagogues . M ember s hi p w as open t o J ew s and G ent i l es al i ke.
A t th e b e g in n in g o f

2 0 0 2 , the L J C C h ire d N a talie F e a th e rm a n a s th e n e w in ter im E x e c u tiv e D ire c to r. It is essent i al l yundi s put ed t hatt he LJC C w as i n s er i ous fi nanci al t r oubl e w hen F eather m an t ook over – j us tone mont h l at er , t he L JC C h e ld a re tre a t to d isc u ss m o n e y iss u e s. L e B o o n a d m its to 2n u mb e r s l o o k e d b e t t e rt h a n t h e yr e a l l y we r e b e c a u s e t h e LJ CC recei ved an ad van ce on t he sub sequen ty ear’ s fund s. 

### 4 n o t tru stin g F e a th e rm a n a n d a lso sta ted th a t h e r re lationship w ith F eat herm an b egan t o d et eri orat e i n the spr i ng of 2 00 2 b ecause o f a me mo F e a t h e r ma n wr o t e d i r e c t e d a t t w o ot he rLJ CC empl oy ees. LeB oon fur t hers t at ed t hatFeat her m an had gener al l ypoorr el at i ons w i t h t he ent i r e LJC C s t aff

. I n M ar ch, 2002, a cust o d ian nam ed TroyR ol l m an w as t er m i n ated. L eB oon t es t i fi ed s he oppos ed hi s t er m i nat i on beca us e s he bel i eved i tw as m o ti v at ed bya di s abi l i t yt hat r e s u l t e d i n a s p e e c h i mpe d i me n t

. On M a y 3 0 , 2002, Fe a t h e r ma n t e r mi n a t e d Sa n d ySi mms , a n Afr i c a n - Am e r i can empl oy ee a tL anca s t er ’ s O ffi ce of A gi ng, w ho per for m ed r ece pt i oni s tdut i es att he LJC C

. Si m m s had fa i l ed t o ar r i ve at w or k t he pr evi ous dayand neve ral er t ed t he LJC C t hats he w oul d be abs ent

. L eB oon cl ai m s , w i t h t he su ppor tof a c ow or ker ’ s aff

i davi t , t hats he compl ai ned t o Feat her m an t hat S im m s w a s f

ir e d b e c a u s e o f

h e r r a c e . A s the s p ri n g o f 2 0 0 2 turn ed to su m m er, th e L JC C ’s fi nan cial pr os pect s di d notgetanyw ar m er . A ccor di ng t o t he L JC C , F e a th e rm a n c o n c lu d e d th a t L e B o o n ’s p o sitio n (a f u llt i m e bookkee per ) w as unnece s s ar yand coul d be per form ed by anot herco- w or ker

. O n A ugus t30, 2002, t hr ee mont hs aft er Si m m s ’ di s char ge and s i x m ont hs aft erR ol l m an’ s , Feat her m an f ir e d L e B o o n . L eB oon fi l ed s ui ti n fede r al cour tal l egi ng r el i gi ous di s cr i m i nat i on, r et al i at i on, and w r ongful di s char ge i n vi ol at i on of P enn sy l van i a’s pu bli c po l i cy . A s r el evan tfor ou r purposes, s he cl ai m ed t hats he w as t er m i nat ed beca us e s he i s a C hr i s t i an and F eather m an l earned t hatL eB oon had at t ended a J ew s for Jesu s co n ce rt a fe w d ay s b ef o re he r term ina tio n , o r, al t er nat i vel y , in reta l i at i on forL eB oon’ s compl ai nt s aboutt he te rm in a tio n s o f

R o llm a n a n d S im m s .

### 5 W i t h t he cons entof t he par t i es , t he D i s t r i c tCour tr efe r r ed t hi s cas e t o t he M agi s t r at e J udge t o conductal l proc eedi ngs p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S. C. § 6 3 6 ( c ) a n d F e d

. R. Ci v . P

. 7 3

. On D ec em b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , the M a g is tr a te Ju d g e g ran ted th e L JC C ’s m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent an d d enied L eB oo n’s cr oss m ot i on fors um m ar yj udgm ent

. A s t o L eB oon’ s cl ai m of r el i gi ous di s cr i m i nat i on, t he M agi s t r at e J udge found that i tw as pr ecl uded byT i t l e V I I ’ s exempt i on of r el i gi ous corpor at i ons fr om t he pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tr el i gi o u s d i s cr i m i nat i on. T he M a g istra te J u d g e a lso d ism iss e d L e B o o n ’ s re talia tio n c laim becau se she fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h evi dence fr om w hi ch a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld in f e r c a u sa lit y . F in a lly , the M a g istra te J udge di s m i s s ed t he s t at e l aw clai m forl ack of fede r al ju ri s d ic tio n . O n D ece m ber 2 3 , L eB oon fi l ed a mot i on for r econs i der at i on. I n i t s r es pons e, t he LJC C conce ded t hatt he deci s i on h ad been ba s ed i n par ton a mani fes ter r orof fa ct r egar di ng t he per cent age of t he LJC C ’ s fundi ng t hatcame fr om t he L anca s t erJ ew i s h Feder at i on C ampai gn. O n J anuary14, 2005, t he M agi s t r at e J udge ent er ed an or der vaca t i ng t he or der o f D e c e m b e r 1 6 , “ s o th a t th e C o u rt m a yre c o n s id e r t h is m a tte r.” Aft e r r e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c a s e i n l i g h t o f t h e c o r r e c t f a c t s , t he M agis t rat e Judg e on ce aga i n d et erm in ed thatt he L JC C w as a r el i gi ous or gani zat i on exe m p te d fr om t he r el i gi ous di s cr i m i nat i on pr ovi s i ons of Ti t l e V I I and r ei s s ued an or deron Febr uar y 17, 2005, gr ant i ng t he L J C C t he s ame r el i ef i tpr ovi ded in it s D ec em b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , o rde r. A ppr oxi m at el ya w eek l at er , L eB oon fi l ed a s econd m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. T he m ot i on w as a verbat i m copyof the m o ti o n fo r re co n side rati o n fil ed af ter the M ag istrate Ju d g e’s D e c e m b er 16, 20 04 , rul i ng . T he M agis t rat e Judg e den i ed this s econd m ot i on for r econs i der at i on on M ar ch 11, 2005. L eB oon f ile d h e r n o tic e o f

a p p e a l o n A p ri l 4 , 2 0 0 5

.

### 6 I I . D i s cus s i on A . Juri s di ct i on T he t r i al cour th ad juri s di ct i on pur s uantt o T i t l e V I I of t h e Ci v i l Ri g h t s Ac t o f 1 9 6 4 a n d 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 3 3 1

. Th e LJ CC cont es t s ourj ur i s di ct i on of t he appe al , how ever , on t he gr ounds t hatL eB oon’ s not i ce of appea l w as unt im ely

. W e have ju risd ictio n to re v iew o u r o w n ju risd ictio n w h e n it i s in d o u b t, s ee Const i t ut i on B ank v. Tubbs , 6 8 F

. 3 d 6 8 5 , 6 9 1 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ), a n d f in d th a t w e h a v e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1291.
T h e L JC C arg u es that w e lack juri sd ict ion o f L eB o o n ’s appea l beca us e LeB oon di d notfi l e a not i ce of appea l w i t hi n 30 day s of t he M agi s t r at e Judge’ s Febr uar y17, 2005, or der g ra n tin g , fo r a se co n d ti m e, t h e L JC C ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary jud g m e n t. See Fed. R

. A pp. P. 4. L eB oon r es ponds t hather appea l i s t i m el ybeca us e hers econd mot i on forr econs i der at i on, fi l ed on Februar y25, 2005, t ol l ed t he 30- dayl i m i tto f i l e an ap p e a l ; s i n c e t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e d i d n o tr u l e o n t h a ts econd m ot i on unt i l M ar ch 11, 2005, herA pr i l 4, 2005, not i ce of appe al w as w i t hi n t he 30-da y deadl i ne. A l t hough w e ques t i on w het her a l i t i gantcan t ol l t he t i m e forappea l byfi l i ng a s econd, esse n ti all yiden ti ca l m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n o f a fin al ord er, w e nee d notdeci de t he i s su e. T he r eas on fort hi s i s t he M agi s t rate Judge’ s fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h t he s epar at e- or der r equi r ement of Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 58. U nder R ul es 58( b) and 79( a) , L eB oon had 180 ( not30) day s t o appea l fr om t he or derof Februar y17, 2005; t hus herappea l , not i ced on A p ri l 4 , w a s tim e ly.
U n d er F ed era l R u le of

A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 4 (a)(1)(A ), not i ces of ap p ea l mustgener al l ybe fi l ed “w i t hi n 30 day s aft er t he .

. . or derappea l ed fr om i s ent er ed. ” H ow ever , “i f Feder al R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 8 (a )( 1 ) re q u ir e s a s e p a ra te d o c u m e n t,” t he j udgm enti s cons i der ed ent er ed “w hen t he j udgm ent oror der is e n ter e d in th e c iv il d o c k e t u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 79( a) and w hen t he ea r l i erof t hes e eve nt s occur s : [1] t he j udgm entor or der i s s etfor t h on a s epar at e document , or[2]

### 7 150 day s have run fr om ent r yof t he j udgm ent o r orde ri n t he ci vi l docketunderFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 79( a)

. ” Fed. R . A p p . P . 4 (a )(7 )(A )(ii). T h u s, if a c e rta in o rd e r is s u b

jec t to th e se p a ra te- d o c u m e n t re q u ir e m e n t o f F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il Pr ocedur e 58 and no s epar at e documentexi s t s , an appe l l anthas 180 day s t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l – 150 fort he j udgm entt o be cons idere d “ent er ed, ” pl us t he us ual 30 day s fr om t he entr yof ju d g m e n t.
F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 5 8 (a)(1) req u ir es e v ery ju d g m ent and am end ed judgm ent t o b e setfort h in a separa te document unl es s i ti s “an or derdi s pos i ng of a mot i on . . . ( D ) for a new t r i al , ort o al t eror amend the j udgm ent , underR ul e 59; or ( E) f o rr e l i e f u n d e rRul e 6 0

. ” Fed. R. Ci v . P. 5 8 ( a ) ( 1 )

. To s um m ar i ze the convol ut ed pr ocedur al hi s t or yagai n, t he M ag istrate Ju d g e init ial ly ruled o n cro ss-m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary j udgm ent on D ece m ber 16, 2004. O n D ece m ber 2 3 , L eB oon f iled a m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , p o in tin g o u t a f a c tu a l er ro r in t he cour t ’ s opi ni on; i n i t s r es pons e, t he LJC C conce ded t hatt he d e c isio n h a d b e e n b a se d in p a rt o n a m a n if e st e rro r o f

f a c t. C ons equen tl y , on J anuary14, 2005, t he M agi s t r at e J udge ent er ed an or dervaca t i ng t he or derof D ece m ber16, “s o t hatt he C our tm ayr econs i derthis m at t er . ” O n Febr uar y17, 2005, t he M agi s t r at e J udge i s s ued an O pi ni on and O r der t hatagai n deni ed L eB oon’ s m ot i on fors um m ar yj udgm ent a n d gr ant ed t he L J C C ’s

. A l t hough atfirst bl us h t he Februar y17 O r dercoul d be under s t ood as m er el yr ul i ng on L eB o on’ s R ul e 59 mot i on for r econside rat i on, i ti s cl eart hati n fac ti t s pr i m ar yfunct i on w as t o di s pos e of the cr o s s - m ot i ons fors um m ar yj udgm ent , w hi ch w er e agai n pendi ng beca us e t he ear l i er or der r ul i ng on t hem had been va cat ed. T hus the F ebrua r y17 O r derw as s ubj ectt o t he s e p a ra te -o rd e r r u le

. See F ed

. R

. C iv. Pro

. 5 8 ad v isory comm i t t ee not es ( 2002 amendm ent ) ( w hen t he di s pos i t i on of a pos t

-j u d g me n tmot i o n r e s u l t s i n a n a me n d e d j u d g me n t , t he sep ara te-do cu m e n t ru le ap p li es to the a m en d ed jud g m en t) ; E m pl oyer s I ns
. of W aus au v. Ti t an I

nt ’ l , I nc. , 400 F. 3d 486, 489 ( 7t h C i r . 2005) ( w hen a pos t

- j udgm entm ot i on i s gr ant ed, andT h e L JC C c o n c e d e s th is. L e B o o n , ine x p lica b ly , co n tes ts it. 3
T he F ebruary17 O rderreads: 4

a . P l a i n t i f

f ’ s M o t i o n f

o rS u mm a r yJ u d g me n ti s DE NI E D; b. D efen dan t ’s M oti on for S um m ary Judg m ent i s G R A N T E D w i t h r egar d t o Pl ai nt i ff’ s C l ai m s under42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 (e ); c. T hi s ca se i s O R D E R E D D I SM I SSE D forl ack of f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . J UDGMENT I S E NT E RE D in this c ase in fa v o r o f D ef en d an t. T h e C lerk o f C o u rt is h e re b yd ire c ted to c lo se th is c a se f o r sta tistica l p u rp o s e s . 

### 8 t her efor e pr oduce s an am ended j udgm ent , t he amended jud g m en t m u st be set fo rt h o n a se p ara te do cu m en t)

. 3
Si nce t he Febr uar y 17 O r der w as s ubj ectt o t he s epar at eor derr equi r ement of R ul e 58, w e next as k w het heri tcompl i ed w i t h R ule 58. If i tdid not, L eB oo n’s appeal i s t i m el y , becau se s he fi l ed a not i ce of appea l w i t hi n 180 day s fr om t he docke t i ng o f th e in a d e q u a te o rd e r. N o m a g ic w o rd s a re n e c e ss a ryto sa tisf yth e se p a ra te document r ul e; fori ns t ance , an “or der ’ s denomi nat i on as an ‘o rd e r,’ ra th e r th a n a ‘ju d g m e n t,’ d o e s n o t m e a n th a t itf a ils to sa tisf yth e se p a ra te d o c u m e n t re q u ire m e n t. ” LocalU ni on N o. 1992, I B E W v. O koni t e C o. , 3 5 8 F

. 3 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). R at her , an or deri s t r eat ed as a s epar at e documenti f i ts at i s fi es t hr ee c r i t er i a: ( 1) i tm us tbe s el f- cont ai ned a n d sep ar at e fr om t he o pini on , (2) i tm ust no t e t he rel i ef granted, a n d (3 ) i tm ust om i t ( or at l eas t s ubs t ant i al l y om i t ) t he t r i al cour t ’ s r eas ons for d i s p o s in g o f

th e c la im s . I

d. ; I n r e Ce n d a n tCor

p
. S e c u r i t i es Li t ig. , 4 5 4 F .3 d 2 3 5 , 2 4 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).
T he Februar y17 O r dereas i l ys at isfi es t he s econd a nd th ird c riter ia. B e c a u se it i s n o t “s e lf -c o n ta in e d a n d se p a ra te 4 fro m the o p in ion , ” h o w ev er, i t do es n o t sat isfythe f ir st. In C endant , w e expl ained t hatal t hough t he s epar at e- document re q u ire m e n t d o e s n o t m e a n th a t th e ju d g m e n t m u st n e c e ss a rilyA l t hough L eB oon’ s appea l w as fi l ed bef or e 150 day s had 5 elap sed (an d thu s b ef

o re the fo rm al en tryo f ju d g m en t) , w e a re n o t p re v e n ted f

ro m e n ter tain in g it. See Fed. R

. A pp. P. 4( a) ( 2) ( “Fi l i ng B efor e En t r yof J udgm ent

. A not i ce of appea l fi l ed aft erthe cour tannounce s a dec i s i on oror der– butbefor e t he ent r yof t he j udgm entof orde r – i s t r eat ed as fi l ed on t he dat e of a n d a f ter th e e n try ” ); F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )(7 )(B ) (“ A f a ilu re to s etfor t h a j udgm ento r o rde ron a s epar at e documentw hen r equi r ed byFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 58( a)( 1) does not af fe ct t h e v ali d ityo f a n ap p ea l from that jud g m en t or o rde r. ”) 

### 9 be d i st i nct fr om ano t her doc um ent, i tm eans “t he judgm ent m ust b e se t fo rt h in a d o c u m e n t th at i s ind ep en d en t of the c o u rt ’s opi ni on ordeci s i on, r egar dl es s w het hert hatopi ni on t akes w r i t t en for m . ” Id

. at 24 2

. T o b e in d ep en d en t of the c o u rt ’s opi ni on, an or derm ust b e s epar at el yt i t l ed and c apt i oned, not pagi nat ed cons ecut i vel yt o t he opi n ion orm emora ndum , not s t apl ed or ot her w i s e at t ache d t o t he opi ni on, and m u st be d o c k e te d s e p a ra te ly. See i d. a t 2 4 1 ; LocalU ni on N o. 1992 , 358 F. 3d at284- 85. T h e F ebruar y17 O r deri s s etfor t h i n a docum en t ti t l ed “O R D E R A N D O PI N I O N

. ” The docum ent c o n tain s o n lyo n e c a p tio n a n d o n e sig n a tu re lin e a n d is cons ecut i vel ypagi nat ed t hr oughout

. T he j udgm entpor t i on of i tappea r s aboutt hr ee- quar t er s of t he w ay dow n page 14 of t he 15- page doc um entand i s s epar at el yheade d “O R D E R

. ” T he e n t i r e d o c u m e n t w a s d o c k e te d a s “ O P IN IO N A N D O R D E R .” T hus t he or derdoes nots at i s fyt he s epar at e- do cu m en tr ul e. C ons equent l yt he j udgm ents etfor t h i n i t s houl d be cons i der ed

“ e n t e r e d ” u n d e r Fe d

. R. App

. P. 4 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A) ( i i ) 1 5 0 d ay s aft er Febr uar y17, 2005 ( t he day i t w as docket ed) , and L eB oon had 30 d ay s af ter t h at t o fil e h er a p p ea l. F ed

. R

. A p p . P

. 4 (a)(1)(A ). 5

T h e f inal q u esti o n reg ard ing the tim eli n ess of L eB o o n ’s a p p e a l is w h e th e r sh e w a s e n tit led to th e a d d iti o n a l 1 5 0 d a y s to fi l e an app ea l or w het her , as t he LJC C ar gues , s he l os tt he pr ot ect i ons of th e s epar at e- document r ul e bycl ear l ys i gnal i ng t hats he under s t ood t he Februar y17 O r der a s a fi nal j udgm ent s ubj ect t o appea l

. T he L J C C cont ends t hatL eB oon w ai ved t he appl i cat i on of t he s epar at e- document r ul e by fi l i ng a mot i on for

### 10 r econs i der at i on of t he Februar y 17 O r der , eventual l yappea l i ng t he or der , and bys t at i ng ator al ar gum ent , t hr ough couns el , t hat sh e u n d e rsto o d th e F e b ru a ry 1 7 O rd e r to b e th e f in a l ju d g m e n t. W e di s agr ee. I ti s cl ear t hat a l i t i gantcan w ai ve the appl i cat i on of t he se p a ra te- d o c u m e n t ru le in th e se n se th a t sh e m a yf ile a v a lid appea l w i t houtw ai t i ng fort he l aps e of 150 da y s fr om t he d o c k e tin g o f

a f a u lty ju d g m e n t, i

. e. , befor e t he fa ul t yj udgm ent has been f

or m al i zed byt he pas s age of t he t i m e per i od co n tem p lat ed b yR u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 4 (a)(7)(A ). B a n k e rs T

ru st C o . v. Ma llis , 4 3 5 U

. S

. 3 8 1 (19 7 8 ) ( percur i am ). T h e L JC C ’s p o sitio n , h o w e v e r, is th a t w h e n a lit ig a n t sig n a ls th a t sh e u n d e rsta n d s th a t a f in a l ju d g m e n t h a s b e e n f iled d e sp ite t he or der ’ s fai l ur e t o compl y w i t h t he s epar at e- document r ul e, s he must fi l e an appea l w i t hi n 30 day s of t he fa ul t yj udgm entor lo se h e r ab ili ty to a p p e a l a lto g e th e r. T h is i s a d u b io u s a rg u m e n t. See U ni t ed St at es v. I

ndr el unas , 4 1 1 U. S. 2 1 6 , 2 2 1

- 2 2 ( 1 9 7 3) ( percur i am ) (a lth o u g h th e G o v e rn m e n t h a d c lea rlysig n a led its under s t andi ng t hata s t i pul at i on fordamage s w as t he fi nal j udgm ent , t he s epar at e- document pr ovi s i on m us tbe

“ m e c h a n ica lly a p p lied in o rd e r t o a v o id n e w u n c e rta in ties a s to t he dat e on w hi ch a j u d g m enti s ent er ed” a nd t her efor e t he G o v e rn m e n t’s a p p e a l w a s tim e ly ); G r e gs on & As s ocs. A r chi t ect s v. G ov’ tof

t he Vi r gi n I s l ands , 6 7 5 F

. 2 d 5 8 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 2 ) ( percur i am ) ( hol di ng appea l w as t i m el yal t hough t he appel l antad m it ted i thad under s t ood a fa ul t yj udgm entt o be fi nal ) ; Fed. R

. A pp. P. 4( a) advi s or ycomm i t t ee not es ( 2002 amendm ent s ) ( “[i ] n dr aft i ng new R u le 4(a ) ( 7) ( B ) [w hi ch pr ovi des t hatappea l s fi l ed bef or e t he l aps e of t he 150 day s t hat co n v ert a faul t yj udgm enti nt o a fi nal one ar e val i d] , t he C om m i t t ee has been careful t o av oid phrases s uch as ‘ other w i se tim e lya p p e a l’ th a t m ig h t im p ly a n e n d o rse m e n t” o f th e ru le in a mi nor i t yof t he ci r cui t s t hatappel l ant s w ho w ai ve t he s epar at edocument r equi r ement m us t fi l e an appea l w i t hi n 30 day s of t he e n tr yo f th e “ f a u lty” ju d g m e n t)

. E ven i f i tw er e pos s i bl e t o w ai ve t he pr ot ect i ons of t he se p a ra te- d o c u m e n t ru le, L e B o o n d id n o t d o so h e re . W a iv e r is

“ t h e i n t e n t i o n a l r e l i n q u i s h m e n to ra b a n d o n m e n to f a k n o wnL eboon’ s N ot i ce of A ppeal r efe r s onl yt o t he O r derof 6 M a rch 1 1, 20 05 , and no tt o the Feb ruar y17 O rder

. T his t echni cal i nadequa cy , how ever , does noti n i t s el f depr i ve us of j ur i s di ct i on overthe appeal fr om t he under l y i ng or deron t he s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n s . See M at ut e v. P r ocoas tN

av. Ltd. , 928 F. 2d 627 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( al t hough appel l ant fi l ed not i ce of a p p e a l f ro m h is m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n a n d d id n o t sta te h is in ten tio n to a p p e a l f

ro m th e u n d e rly in g d ism iss a l, th e f o rm a lly d e f icie n t f ili n g d id n o t re su lt in a lo s s o f th e rig h t to a p p e a l; i t w as cl ear i n cont ext t hat appel l ant i nt ended t o appea l fr om the u n d erl y i ng or derand nots i m pl yfr om t he deni al of hi s m ot i on f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n ), over r ul ed on othergro u n ds by N eel y v. C l ub Med M

gm t

. Svcs

. , I

nc ., 6 3 F .3 d 1 6 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); T o wn of N or w ood, Mas s
. v. N

ew E ngl and P ow erC o. , 202 F. 3d 408, 415 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) ( i f t he post

- j udgm entm ot i on addr es s ed t he s ame i s s ues deci ded i n t he under l y i ng j udgm ent and t he di s t r i ct cour tr el i ed on t he j udgm enti n r ul i ng on t he pos t

- j udgm ent m o ti o n , the issu es d ec id e d in the u n d erly ing jud g m en t are pr oper l ybefor e t he cour tof appe al s , even i f t he not i ce of appea l fa il s to d esig n ate the u n d erly ing jud g m en t)

. 

### 11 r i ght

. ” U

ni t ed St at es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 3 (1 9 9 3 ). It is all too o b v iou s fro m L eB o o n ’s plea d ing s that sh e w as u n aw are s he coul d avai l her s el f of a n addi t i onal 150 day s beca us e of the f o rm a l in a d e q u a c yo f

th e F e b ru a ry1 7 O rd e r. A t m o st, sh e c o u ld have f or f ei t ed h e r r i g h t, s ee i d. ; w e d ec li n e to h o ld, ho w ev er, t hatt hi s cour t i s depr i ved of j ur i s di ct i on overan appe al t hr ough a l i t i gant ’ s unknow i ng for fei t ur e of t he addi t i onal t i m e gr ant ed herbyt he R ul es of C i vi l and A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, and fi nd i n s t e a d t h a tL e B o o n ’ s A p r i l 4 n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w a s t i m e l y. 6

B . R el i gi ous O rgani zat i on E x em pt i on T he M agi s t r at e Judge gr ant ed sum m ar y j udgm ent t o t he L JC C o n L e b o o n ’s c laim o f re lig io u s d isc rim in a tio n b e c a u se it found t hatt he LJC C w as a “r el i gi ou s o r gani zat i on” exe m pt ed fr om compl i ance w i t h t he r el i gi ous di s cr i m i nat i on pr ovi s i ons of T i t l e V I I bySecti o n 702 of t he C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964. L eboon ar gues t he L J C C w as not a re l i gi ous or gani zat i on under

### 12 t he s t atut e at the r el evantt i m e bec aus e i tl acke d fi nanci al or admi ni s t r at i ve t i es w i t h a synagogue and i t s natur e and purpos es w er e pr i m ar i l ycul t ur al , notr el i gi ous . T he L J C C r es ponds t hat al t hough s om e of i t s act i vi t i es m ay have be en s ecul ari n natur e, i t s J e wi s h mi s s i o n a n d o r i e n t a t i o n q u a l i f i e d i ta s a r e l i g i ous or gani zat i on. W e hol d that the LJC C w as ent i t l ed t o t he pr o tect i on of Sect i on 702 dur i ng t he per i od unders crut i ny b e c a u s e its s tr u c tu re a n d p u rp o s e w e re p ri m a ri ly re lig io u s . S e c tio n 7 0 2 o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e-1 (a), “ e x em p ts r eli g iou s o rga n izati o n s fro m T it le V II’ s pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tdi s cr i m i nat i on i n empl oy m en to n t he bas i s of r el i gi on. ” C or

p. of t he P r es i di ng B is hop of t he C hur ch of

Jes us C hr is tof Lat t er - D ay Sai nt

s v. A m os , 4 8 3 U

. S

. 3 2 7 , 3 2 9 (19 8 7 ). I tpr ovi des t hatT i t l e V I I “s hal l notappl y. . . to a re l i gi ous c o rp o ra tio n , as so c iatio n , ed u c a tio n a l in stitu tio n , o r so c ietyw ith r es pectt o t he empl oy m entof i ndi vi dual s of a par t i cul arr el i gi on t o per for m w or k connec t ed w i th t he ca r r y i ng on bys uch c o rp o ra tio n , as so c iatio n , ed u c a tio n a l in stitu tio n , o r so c ietyo f its ac ti v it ies. ” 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 2 0 0 0 e-1 (a).
T he s t atut e does not defi ne w hat cons t i t ut es “a r el i gi ous corpor at i on, as s oci at i on, educa t i onal i ns t i t ut i on, ors oci et y ”; as t he N i nt h C i r cui t C our t of A ppeal s has puti t , “[a ] l l s i gni fi cant re lig io u s a n d se c u lar c h a ra c ter istics m u st b e w e ig h e d to d eterm ine w h ethe r th e co rpo rati o n ’s p u rpo se an d ch ara cter are pr i m ar i l yr el i gi ous . ” EE O Cv. Tow nl ey Eng’ g & M f g. C o. , 859 F. 2d 610, 618 ( 9t h C i r . 1 9 8 8 ). O vert he y ear s , cour t s have l ooked att he fol l ow i ng fac t or s : ( 1) w het hert he ent i t yoper at es fora pr ofi t , ( 2) w het heri tpr oduce s a s ecul arpr oduct , ( 3) w het her t he ent i t y ’ s ar t i cl es of i ncorpor at i on orot herper t i nent document s s t at e a r el i gi ous purpos e, ( 4) w het heri ti s ow ned, aff i l i at ed w i t h orfi nanci al l ys uppor t ed bya for m al l yr el i gi ous e n titysu c h a s a c h u rc h o r syna g o g u e , (5 ) w h e th e r a f o rm a lly r el i gi ous ent i t ypar t i ci pat es i n t he m anage m ent , fori ns t ance by havi ng r epr es ent at i ves on t he boar d of t r us t ees , ( 6) w het hert he ent i t yhol ds i t s el f outt o t he publ i c as s ec u lar or s ect ar i an, ( 7) w het h er the ent i t yr egul ar l yi ncl udes pr ay erorot herfor m s of w or s hi p i n i t s act i vi t i es , ( 8) w het her i t i ncl u d es re l i gi ous i ns t r uct i on i n i t s cur r i cul um , t o t he ext enti ti s an educ at i onal

### 13 i ns t i t ut i on, and ( 9) w h et heri t s m ember s hi p i s m ade up by c o re lig io n is ts

. See Sam

f or d v. K i l l i nger , 1 1 3 F

. 3 d 1 9 6 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ); EE OC v
. Ka m e h a m e h a S c h o o ls / B ish o p Esta te , 990 F. 2d 4 5 8 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); To wnl ey , 8 5 9 F

. 2 d at 61 8 -19 (9th C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ); EE O Cv. Mis s is s i ppi C ol l ege , 6 2 6 F

. 2 d 4 7 7 (5th C ir

. 1 9 8 0 ).
I t i s appar ent fr om t he st ar t t hat t he deci s i on w het heran or gani zat i on i s “r el i gi ous ” forpurpos es of t he exe m pt i on cannot be bas ed on i t s confor m i t y t o s om e pre conce i ved not i on of w hat a re lig io u s o r g a n iza tio n sh o u ld d o , b u t m u st b e m e a su re d w ith r efe r ence t o t he par t i cul arr el i gi on i dent i fi ed b yth e o r g a n i z a t i on. T hus notal l fac t or s w i l l be r el evant i n al l cas es , and t he w ei ght gi ven ea ch fa ct orm ayvar y fro m case t o cas e. For i ns t ance , al t hough t he abs ence of a pr os el y t i zi ng eff or tm aybe a f

act or undercer t ai n ci r cumst ance s , i t w i l l have no si gni fi canc e w i t h a non- pr os el y t i zi ng r el i gi on – ort hus w i t h a det er m i nat i on w h e th e r a J e w is h o rg a n iz a tio n is re lig io u s . C f

. Kam eham eha , 990 F. 2d at463 ( l i s t i ng as a fa ct orl eadi ng t o t he conc l us i on t hat defe ndants chool s w er e notent i t l ed t o t he r el i gi ous exem p ti on t hatt h e yh a d “ e x p l i c i t l yd i s a v o wed a n ye f f o r tt o c o n v e r tn o nP ro te s ta n t stu d e n ts” ). W ith th is c a v e a t in m in d w e p ro c e e d to t he an al y si s. T he LJC C i s a non- pr ofi t o rga n iz at i on. I t s A r t i cl es of I ncorpor at i on and i t s B y l aw s s t at e t hati t s m i s s i on i s “t o enhanc e and pr om ot e J ew i s h l i fe, i dent i t y , and cont i nui t y . ” D ur i ng t he r el evantper i od ( defi ned by L eB oon her s el f as 1998 t o 2002) , t he w al l s of t he LJC C ’ s l obby carr i ed i t s m i s s i on s t at ement , w hi ch w as t o “d evelop, i nv olve, and sust ai n a co hesi ve Jew i sh c o m m u n ityth ro u g h id e n tity , ed u c a tio n , an d c o o p e ra tio n f o r a ll ages . ”
Th e LJ CC’ s c o rp o r a t e d e s i g n e e t e s t i f i e d t h a tt h e LJ CC

“ e s p o u se [ d ] Je w ish v a lu e s” a lth o u g h “ th e Je w ish v a lu e s [ it] e s p o u s e [ d ] a re u n iv ers a l.” T h e s e v a lu e s in c lu d e “ T ik k u n o la m ,” m eani ng heal i ng t he w or l d, “Tzadaka h, ” meani ng doi ng t he ri gh tt hing, and “R acham i m , ” m eaning t oler ance of o t her fai t hs. T he LJC C at t empt ed t o t eac h t hes e val ues i n var i ous w ay s ; for i ns t ance , a ce r t ai n char i t ydr i ve i nvol vi ng t he col l ect i on of

### 14 penni es w as des cr i bed as bei ng “des i gned t o getchi l dr en i nvol ved i n t zada kah. ”
T he r abbi s fr om t he t hr ee l ocal s y nagogues pl ay ed an ad v isoryrole in th e L JC C ’s m an ag em en t. U n d er the L JC C ’s by l aw s , t heys er ved as honor ar y , non- vot i ng m embe rs o f t he B o ard o f T rustee s. W h en the L JC C h eld a retreat i n F eb rua ry 2002 t o di s cus s i t s fi nanci al t r oubl es , al l t hr ee r abbi s at t ended. M i nut es of t he Execut i ve C om m i t t ee a nd Per s onnel C om m i t t ee m eet i ngs s how t hat N at al i e Feat her m an’ s cont r actas E xecut i ve D i r ect orw as notr enew ed fort he r eas on, among ot her s , t hats he di d not“have t he confi dence of t he l eade r s of t he s y nagogues and ot heror gani zat i ons . ” T he ra bbi s and pr es i dent s of t he t hr ee l oca l sy nagogues w er e i nvol ved i n t he s ear ch fora new e x e c u tiv e d ir e c to r. A l t hough th e LJC C w as fi nanci al l yi ndepende ntfr om t he l ocal s y nagogues ( as t he maj or i ty o f i t s budgetcame fr om “pr ogr amm i ng s er vi ces and r ent al s ”) , bot h t he s y nagogues and l ocal J ew i s h or gani zat i ons gave i ti ns t r um ent al fi nanci al s u p p o r t

. Th e s y n a g o g u e s a s s i s t e d wi t h f u n d r a i s i n g a n d t he L anca s t er J ew i s h Feder at i on campai gn cont r i but ed bet w een 15 and 1 7 % o f

t h e LJ CC’ s b u d g e ta n n u a l l y . Th e e x t e n tt o whi ch t he LJC C expec t ed t o be suppor t ed by cor el i gi oni s t s i s s how n by t he fa ctt hati tnamed t he di ffe r en tdonorl evel s w i t h H ebr ew w or ds

. I n or der t o be cons i der ed a “Zahav” ( “gol d”)

- l evel donor to the L JC C , a p erso n h ad to co n tr ibu te $6 1 3 – as m an yd o ll ars a s th e c o m m a n d m e n ts in th e H e b re w B ib le

. See C e c il R o th , The S ta n d a rdJ

e w ish E n c

y c lo p e d ia 1 3 31 ( 1959) ( ent r yfor “M it zv ah ”).
W hi l e ende avor i ng nott o be i dent i fi ed w i t h anyone of t he t hr ee l ocal sy nagogues , t he LJC C m ai nt ai ned cl os e and a c t i v e t i e s wi t h t h e m a n d o t h e r J e wi s h o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Th e LJ CC s t r ove t o s er ve as a “cl ear i ng hous e” f orl ocal J ew i s h peopl e and keptl i t er atur e fr om al l t hr ee ar ea s y nagogues . R eci pr ocal l y , t he s y n a g o g u e s d is tr ib u te d th e L J C C ’s in f o rm a tio n . T he s y nagogues , and par t i cul ar l yt he r abbi s , al s o pr ovi ded p rog ram m ing inp u t and w ere inv o lved in the L JC C ’s cel ebrat i on s of Jew i sh ho l i day s. O ne l oca l s y nagogue,

### 15 C o n g reg ati o n S h aa rai S h o m ay im , b u il t a S u k k ah (a tem p o rary s tr u c ture u sed d u ri n g the h o li d ay o f S u k k o t) in the L JC C ’s fami l ypar k and w as invol ved i n a H anukkah di nneri n 1999. T he J ew i s h w om en’ s or gani zat i on H adas s ah hel d i t s an n ual R abbi ’ s For um att he L J C C at l eas t unt i l 2003, w hen i tdeci ded to h o ld it at o n e o f

th e lo c a l sy n a g o g u e s b e c a u se o f its d e ter io ra tin g re latio n sh ip w ith N a talie F e a th e rm a n . In e a rly 2 0 0 2 th e L J C C h o s te d a m e e tin g o f th e “ M e s s ia h T ru th P roje c t,” a n o rg a n iza tio n th a t aim s to c o m b a t th e c o n v e rsio n o f Je w s to C h ri s tia n ity.
J ew i s h r el i gi ous bel i ef pl ay ed a s i gni fi cantr ol e i n t he l i fe of t he LJC C

. I n 1 9 9 8 , atH anukkah, t he LJC C ’ s bui l di ng w as r ededi cat ed byt he r abbi s of t he t hr ee l ocal s y nagogues , and t he r abbi s “ce r emoni al l y at t ache d [a] m ezuz ah t o t he doorof t he Soci al H al l

. ” A m ezuz ah i s a s cr ol l i ns cr i bed w i t h cer t ai n ver s es f ro m th e T o ra h w h ich th e Je w s ar e c o m m a n d e d b y th e T o ra h to a f f ix o n e v e ry d o o rw a y . S ta n d a rdJ e w ish E n c

y c lo p e d ia 1314. T he LJC C al s o obs er ved t he J ew i s h Sabbat h and, on atl eas tone occa s i on, s t ood b y this r el i gi ous dut yagai ns ti t s fi nanci al i nt er es t– att he end of 2001, des pi t e i t s fi nanci al w o es, t he B oar d unani m ous l y deci ded not t o al l ow a ce r t ai n or gani zat i on to re n t th e f

a c ili ties f o r a ho lid a y f

a ir b e c a u se it d id n o t w ish to hos ta pr ofi t

- m aki ng act i vi t y o n t he Sabbath. B oar d m eet i ngs fr om 1998 al s o des cr i be pl ans for a “M el avveh M al kah, ” w hi ch i s the “c oncl udi ng Sabbat h m eal

. ” Standa rd Jew ish E n c y c lo p e d ia 1292.
Sever al of t he L J C C ’ s act i vi t i es i nvol ved obs er vance of t he J ew i s h r el i gi ous cal endar , al t hough t hes e ac ti v it i es di d not nece s s ar i l y invol ve hol ys er vi ces . D ur i ng t he r el evantt i m e, B oar d m eet i ngs fr equent l y began w i t h a r eadi ng fr om t he Tora h re late d to th a t w e e k in th e H e b re w c a len d a r. T h e c e n ter h e ld e v e n ts f o r S u k k o t, P u ri m , H a n u k k a h , a n d Y o m H a S h o a h , a h o li d ay in r em em b ran ce o f t h e H o loca u st, w h en p ray e rs w e re s a id f o r t h e d e a d

. T he LJC C kep t a kos herki t chen, al t hough non- kos her fo o d s co u ld b e b rou g h t into the b u il d ing

. In 1 9 9 9 , the L JC C ’s m as hgi ach , o r pe rso n in c h a rg e o f su p e rv isin g c o m p lian c e w ith

### 16 k o s h e rl a ws , r e s i g n e d

. I ti s u n d i s p u t e d t h a ta n e w m as hgi ach w as nothi r ed. H ow ever , t he LJC C w or ked w i t h one of the r abbi s t o cr eat e a kos hercomm i t t ee t o s uper vi s e t he ki t chen, and at t empt ed t o ens ur e t hatfunct i ons w oul d be keptkos herfort he c o m f o rt o f th o s e w h o s tr ic tly o b s e rv e d th e k o s h e r m a n d a te

. T o t he ext ent t hat t he L J C C al s o s er ved as an educ at i onal in stitu tio n , the b a lan c e o f Je w ish , as o p p o se d to o th e r c o n ten t, i n t h e c u r r i c u l u m w a s i n f l u x d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d u n d e rs c r u t i n y. I ndeed, w hen t he new di r ect or , N at al i e F eather m an, w as hi r ed, a partof h e r m a nd at e w as t o “p ut[] an em ph asi s on the Jew i sh i n J ew i s h C om m unit yC ent er . ” Fori ns t ance , Feat her m an i n t r o d u c e d a J u d a i c c u r r i c u l u m i n t o t h e p r e s c h o o l p r o g r a m, w hi ch had be en non- denomi nat i onal pr i or to m i d- 2002, and su p p lem e n ted it b ya p a ra llel e n ric h m e n t p ro g ra m w ith a Ju d a ic b a s e . T he LJ CC’ s c o rp o r a t e d e s i g n e e t e s t i f i e d t h a tt he pr es chool hel d “Tot

- Shabbat , ” a w eekl ycel ebr ati o n of t he S abbat h for t oddl er s , i nvol vi ng t he di s t r i but i on of chal lah (a tra d iti o n a l b re a d ) a n d th e re c itatio n o f b les sin g s. T h e N o tes to the F inan cial S tat em en ts fo r 2 0 0 1 an d 2 0 0 2 stat e th a t “ [i]n k ee p ing w ith the p h il o so p h y o f the Jew ish C o m m u n ityC en ter, [t he pr es chool ] i nt egr at e[d] t he J ew i s h hol i day s as t hey[ar os e] t h r o u g h o u tt h e y e a r . [ I t ] a l s o e x p l o r e [ d ] mul t i c u l t u r a l t h e m es and ea ch chi l d’ s uni que cul t ur al backgr ound. ”
J udai c pr ogr amm i ng w as avai l abl e fora dul t s t hr ough t he H ol ocaus tM emori al L i br ar yand C ent erfor D ivers i t yand T ol er ance E ducat i on. T he C ent eral s o hel d B ei tM i dr as h ( s t udy hal l ) m eet i ngs w i t h r abbi s and ot herJ ew i s h educa t or s . I n 1999, t he LJC C r an a pr ogr am cal l ed “J ew i s h U , ” a J ew i s h educa t i on s er i es . T he r ecor d does notcl ar i fyt he cont entof t hi s s er i es . For a t i m e, t he B ’ nai B ’ r i t h Y ou th O r gani zat i on, a w or l d- w i de or gani zat i on for J ew i s h t eens , m et at t he LJC C

. I ts t opped doi ng s o w hen t he gr oup’ s advi s orr es i gned fr om t he pos i t i on. T o s um m ar i ze, t he L J C C s aw i t s el f as a ce nt erfort he l ocal J ew i s h comm uni t y , i dent i fi ed i t s el f as J ew i s h t hr ough t he m ezuz ah on i t s door w ay , r el i ed o n cor el i gi oni s t s forfi nanci al

### 17 supp ort , and off

ered in stru ct i on al program s w i t h a Jew i sh cont ent

. T he J ew i s h r el i gi ous cal endarpr ovi ded t he r hy t hm for t he LJC C ’ s y ear ly (and even w eekl y ) act i vi t i es ; t he t hr ee a r ea r abbi s w er e i nvol ved i n m anage m entdeci s i ons , i ncl udi ng t he s ear ch foran exe cut i ve di r ect or ; and t he B oar d of Trust ees b e g a n m e e tin g s w ith B ib lica l re a d in g s a n d re m a in e d a c u tely con sci ou s of t he Jew i sh charact er of t he o rgani z a tio n . T hese char act er i s t i cs of t he LJC C , t aken t oget her , cl ear l y poi nt t o t he concl us i on t hatt he LJC C w as pr i m ar i l ya r el i gi ous or gani zat i on. L eB oon ar gues t hatdesp i t e al l t hi s t he LJC C i s not s uffi ci ent l yr el i gi ous t o qual i fy for Sect i on 702 pr ot ect i on. She poi nt s o u t t hati tengage d i n s ecul aract i vi t i es , s uch as l ectur es and i ns t r uct i ons w i t h no r el i gi ous cont ent , and once even r ent ed sp ac e to a H ind u g rou p fo r m ee ti n g s , that it s em p loy ee s w ere o v e rw h e lm in g lyG e n til e , tha t ita c c e p ted U nit e d W a yf u n d s w ith t he pr om i s e t hati tw oul d notd i s cr i m i nat e i n t he funde d pr ogr ams, and t hati tfai l ed t o ban non- kos herfoo d s . N one of th e s e f a c to rs is d e c is iv e . Fi r s t , r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons m ayengage in s ecul ar a c tiv itie s w ith o u t f

o rf e itin g p ro te c tio n u n d e r S e c tio n 7 0 2

. See Ha ll v. B apt is tMem or i alC ar e C or p. , 215 F. 3d 618 ( 6 C i r. th 2000) ( w here a co ll ege ha s cl earr el i gi ous over t ones , t he fa ct t hati tt r ai ns i t s s t udent s forheal t h car e, a s ecul aract i vi t y , does n o t d e p riv e it o f

S e c tio n 7 0 2 p ro tec tio n ); F elds t ei n v. C hr is t i an Sci ence Moni t or , 5 5 5 F

. S u p p . 9 7 4 , 9 7 7 -78 (D

. M ass.19 8 3 ) (a new s paperw i t h a cl os e r el at i ons hi p w i t h t he C hr i s t i an Sci ence C h u rc h w a s a llo w e d to d isc rim in a te in f a v o r o f c o -re lig io n ists al t hough i thel d i t s el f out as an obj ect i ve and unbi as ed r epor t er of w or l d new s )

. O f cour s e t he r el i gi ous or gani zat i on exempt i on w oul d not ext end t o an ent erpr i s e i nvol ved i n a w hol l ys ecul ar a n d f o r- p ro f it a c tiv ity. S e e T

o w n le y , 859 F. 2d at610 ( decl i ni ng t o ext end Sect i on 702 pr ot ect i on t o a corpor at i on m anufa ctur i ng i ndus t r i al equi pm ent t hat cl ai m ed a r el i gi ous exempt i on on t he b a sis of it s ow ners’ i ntentt o p ervade the act i vityw i t h the ir re lig io u s b e lie f

).
S ec o n d , reli g iou s o rga n izati o n s n ee d n o t adh ere abs ol ut el yt o t he s t r i ct es tt ene ts of t hei rfai t hs t o qual i fyforA l t ho ug h t he L JC C i t sel f ackn ow l edg es t hat s om e of these 7 p r i n c i p l e s e x i s to u t s i d e J u d a i s m, t o t h e e x t e n tt h a tt h e LJ CC fol l ow ed t hem as J ew i s h pr i nci pl es t hi s does not m ake them any le s s s ig n if

ic a n t. 

### 18 S e c tio n 7 0 2 p ro te c tio n . See Hern a n d ez v
. C o m m 'r , 49 0 U

. S. 680, 699 ( 1989) ( “[i ] ti s notw i t hi n t he j udi ci al ken t o ques t i on t he ce nt r al i t yof part i cul arbel i efs orpr act i ces to a fa i t h, ort he val i di t yof par t i cul arl i t i gant s ' i nt erpr et at i ons of t hos e cr eeds ”) ; Thom as v. R evi ew B d. o f In di ana E m

pl oym ent

Sec. D i vis i on , 4 5 0 U .S . 7 0 7 , 7 1 5 -1 6 (1 9 8 1 ) (d e c lin in g to h o ld th a t a c e rta in i ndi v idu al ’ s bel i ef w as not“r el i gi ous ” forpurpos es of a f r ee exer ci s e cl ai m beca us e t her e exi s t ed i nt er fai t h di ffe r ence s of i nt erpr et at i on)

. For exampl e her e, t he LJC C ’ s t ol er ance of nonkos herfoods on i t s pr emi s es i s bal ance d by i t s cont i nued at t empt t o m ai nt ai n a kos herki t chen.
T hi r d, r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons m ay decl ar e t hei ri nt ent i on n o t to d isc rim in a te, a s th e L JC C d id to th e U n ited W a ya n d in its empl oy ee ha ndbook, w i t houtl os i ng t he pr ot ect i on of Sect i on 7 0 2

. See H

a ll , 2 1 5 F .3 d a t 6 2 5 (S e c tio n 7 0 2 e x e m p tio n c o u ld not be w ai ved, even i f t he ent i t y i nvoki ng i t had “re pr es ent ed i t s el f as bei ng an equa l oppor t uni t yempl oy erand .

. . r ece i ved f e d e ra l f u n d s ” ).
Four t h, t he or gani zat i on need not enfor ce a n acr os s - t heb o ard p o li cy o f hiri n g o n ly co reli g ion ists. L i t t l e v. W uerl , 929 F .2 d 9 4 4 , 9 5 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); Sam f or d v. K il li nger , 113 F. 3d 19 6 , 1 9 9 -200 ( 11t h C i r . 1997) ( no need f oran educ at i onal i ns t i t u ti o n t o engage i n a “s t r i ctpol i cyof r el i gi ous d is c ri m in a tio n ” to b e e n title d to th e e x e m p tio n ).
W e disag ree w ith L eB o o n ’s co n tention that the L JC C ’s w i l l i ng ness t o w el com e G enti l e m em bers and e v e n t o h ost H i ndu s er vi ces i s i ncompat i bl e w i t h t he vi ew t hatt he LJC C w as a re lig io u s o rg a n iza tio n . In d eed, th e se c h a ra c ter istics a re c lea rly t i e d t o s o me o f

t h e J e wi s h p r i n c i p l e s t h a tg u i d e d t he LJ CC – t ol er ance t ow ar d ot herfai t hs , heal i ng t he w or l d, and doi ng t he r i ghtt hi ng. W e w i l l notdepr i ve t he LJC C of t he pr ot ect i on of

7

### 19 Sect i on 702 because i ts oughtt o abi de byi t s pr i nci pl es of

“ to ler a n c e ” a n d “ h e a lin g th e w o rld ” th r o u g h e x ten d in g its w e lc o m e to n o n -J e w s . W e al s o decl i ne LeB oon’s i nvi t at i on t o hol d t hatt he L J C C i s a ce nt erforJ ew i s h cul t ur e r at hert han r el i gi on fort he re a so n s e x p lain e d b yth e M a g istra te Ju d g e , n a m e ly , b e c a u se to e n g a g e in su c h a n a n a ly sis w o u ld risk p re c ise lyth e so rt o f sta te ent angl ement w it h r el i gi on t hatt he Supr eme C our thas re p e a te d ly w a rn e d a g a in s t. S e e Am os , 4 83 U

. S. at343 ( B r ennan, J

. , concurr i ng) ( not i ng t hat t he det er m i nat i on w het her a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y o f a r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n i s r e l i g i o us or s ecul ar “r es ul t s i n con side rab le on g o ing g o v ernm ent e n tan g lem e n t in re lig io u s a f f a irs” ); Lem on v. Kur t

z m an , 403 U .S . 6 0 2 , 6 1 3 (1 9 7 1 ); L ebo on v. L an cast er Jew ish C m t y. C t r. A ss’n , 04- cv- 430, 2005 W L 387642 at*3 n. 3( E

. D

. Pa. Feb. 17, 2005) . F inally , w e are n o t p ersu ad ed b y the N inth C ir cu itC o u rt of A ppeal s ’ s ugges t i on, on t he bas i s of l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y , t hat Sect i on 702 s houl d be under s t ood t o coverl i t t l e more t han f o rm a l h o u s e s o f

w o rs h ip

. Tow nl ey , 8 5 9 F

. 2 d at 61 8

. T h e c o u rt bas ed t hi s as s er t i on on one of t he congr es s i onal debat es t hatl ed to th e p a ss a g e o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , w h ich it sum m ari zed as fo l l ow s:

I n 1963, t he H ous e J udi ci ar yC o m m i t t ee dr aft ed H

. R

. 7152, t he bi l l w hi ch w as t he bas i s of m u ch o f th e C ivil R igh ts A ct of 1 9 6 4

. T it le V II o f th e b ill in c lu d e d a se c tio n th a t sta ted th e ti tle w oul d notappl yt o a “r el i gi ous corpor at i on, asso c iati on , or soci et y . ” .

. . [D uri ng t he H ou se debat e] R epr es ent at i ve Pur cel l pr opos ed amendi n g H

. R

. 7152 t o al l ow an educ at i onal i ns t i t ut i on t o di s cr i m i nat e on t he bas i s of r el i gi on i f t he i ns t i t ut i on w as w hol l yorpar t l ys uppor t ed or m a n a g e d “ b y a p a r t i c u l a rr e l i g i o n o rb y a par t i cul arr el i gi ous corpor at i on, associ at i on, or s oci et y , ” ori f t he i ns t i t ut i on’ s cur r i cul um w as di r ect ed t o w ard t he pr opagat i on of a pa r t i cul ar

### 20 re lig io n . EE O CL eg isla ti ve Hist o ry o f Tit les V

II and X I I of t he C i vi lR ight

s A ct of 1964 , at3197 (1 9 6 8 ). . . . [A ] n i s s ue i n t he debat e w as w het hers uch i ns t i t ut i ons w er e al r eadypr o t ect ed byt he “r el i giou s co rpor at i on” exe m pt i on. T he cons ens us w as t hat t hey w er e notpr ot ect ed i f t hey w er e mer el y“af

fi l i at ed” w i t h a re l i gi ous o rg a n iz a tio n . . . . C ongr es s ’ s conce pti on of t he s cope of s ect i on 702 w as not a br oad one. A l l as s um ed t hat o n lyth o se in stitu tio n s w ith e x tre m e lyc lo se ties to organized rel i gions w ou l d b e cov ered. C hu rches, and ent it ie s s i m i l art o chur ches , w er e t he p a ra d ig m . Tow nl ey , 8 5 9 F .2 d a t 6 1 7 -1 8

. T he amendm e n twas i n tr o d u c e d a n d e v e n tu a l l yappr oved. W e do not , how eve r, bel i eve thatt hi s one bi tof l egi s l at i ve hi s t or ys uppor t s t he as s er t i on i n Tow nl ey t hatC ongr es s as s um ed onl y“[c ] hur ches , and ent i t i es s i m i l art o chur ch es” w oul d be p r o t e c t e d b y t h e “ r e l i g i o u s c o rp o ra tio n , a s s o c i a t i o n , a n d s o c i e t y” l anguage ( i

. e. , byw hati s now Sect i on 702) w i t houtt he p r o p o s e d a m e n d m e n t to th e b ill. I d. at 61 8. F i rs t , as Tow nl ey its e lf a c k n o w le d g e s , “ [ th e ] d e b a te is f a r f ro m c o m p re h e n s iv e ,” and al t h o u g h s o me c o n g r e s s me n e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n t h a tt he cour t s w ou ld i nt erpr ett he exi s t i ng “r el i gi ous corpor at i on, as s oci at ion , ors oci et y ” l anguage nar r ow l yand notext end t he exempt i on t o r eli gi ous l yaff i l i at ed col l eges and s chool s , t he p e rc e p ti o n th a t th e lan g u a g e w a s in su f f icie n t w a s h a rd ly unani m ous . I ndeed, t he di s cus s i on w as s o farfr om enl i ght eni ng on t he i nt ended benef

i ci ar i es of t he pr ot ect i on as t o pr om ptone C ongr es s m an t o comm ent tha t“i f t her e eve rw as a l egi s l at i ve h is to ry w h ic h b e c a m e c o n f u s e d in le s s th a n a n h o u r, t h is is it. .

. . [E]ve r ys hade of

opi ni on has been ventur ed on t hi s l anguage w hi ch i s conce i vabl e. ” EE O C Legis l at i ve Hist or y at3204. Second, t he deba t er s ’ conce r n over w hel m i ngl yr egar ded t he

### 21 abi l i t yof a s eculareduca t i onal i ns t i t ut i on t eac hi ng s ecular s ubj ect s , butaff

i l i at ed w i t h orow ned bya r el igiou s or deror or gani zat i on, t o h ir e pre fer ent i al l yper s ons of t he s ame fai t h. See, e. g. , EE O CL egis l ati ve Hist ory at 31 99 (O uach i t a B apti st C ol l ege) , 3202 ( C at hol i c col l eges and s chool s )

. I t i s a l ar ge l eap fr om acknow l edgi ng t hi s conce r n, w het herornotw el l

- founded, to c o n c lu d in g th a t th e C o n g re ss m e n b e liev e d th e e x istin g b ill to p rotec t v irtu all yn o thing b ey o n d fo rm al ho u ses o f w o rship

. In f a c t, th e c o n c e rn e x p re ss e d d u rin g th e d e b a te is lar g e ly irre lev a n t to th e q u e stio n w e f a c e to d a y , sin c e th e L JC C is r eadi l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om t he exa m pl es of s ch ool s and coll eges t hat pep p e r th e t ranscr i pt. T he L JC C ’s m ai n p urpose w as t o “enha nce a nd pr om ot e J ew i s h l ife, i dent i t y , and cont i nui t y , ” nott o t eac h cal cul us or chemi s t r y , w het herornot i n a r el i gi ous at m os pher e. T hus w e do not f ind t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yhel pful and dec l i ne t o fol l ow t he conc l us i on dr aw n fr om i ti n Tow nl ey . B eca us e, dur i ng t he per i od undercons i der at i on, t he L J C C ’ s pr i m ar ypurpos e w as re l i gi ous , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s d ism is s al of LeB oon’ s cl ai m of r el i gi ous di s cr i m i nat i on. C . R e ta lia tio n C la im
L eB oo n arg ues t he M agi s t r at e J udge err ed i n gr ant i ng s um m ar yj udgm entfort he LJC C on hercl ai m of r et al i at i on under Ti t l e VI I

. Th e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e h e l d t h a ta l t h o u gh L e B o o n ’s e v id e n c e , co n sid e r e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to her , s uppor t ed t he conc l us i on t hats he had oppos ed conductby t he LJC C t hats he bel i eved t o be unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on, s he h a d n o t p ro d u c e d e n o u g h e v id e n c e to a llo w a re a so n a b le f a c tfi nd er t o find t hat s he w as fi red becau se of h er com plai n ts. L eB oo n co n te nds t hats he has pr oduced s uffi ci entevi dence of a ca us al connec t i on. W e agr ee w it h the M agi s t r at e J udge t hat L eB oon can n o t sur vi ve s um m ar yj udgm enton hercl ai m of r et al i at i on. T o e sta b lish a p rim a f

a c ie c a se o f

re talia tio n u n d e r T itl e V II , a pl ai nt i ff musts how t hat( 1) s he enga ged i n pr ot ect edI n or dert o s how t hats he w as t er m i nat ed becau s e of he r 8 compl ai nt s about t he fi r i ng of hercow or ker s , L eB oon need not p r o v e t h a t r e t a l i a t i o n was t he so le rea so n fo r t h e L JC C ’s d eci s i on; s he mustpr ove, how ever , t hati tw as a det er m i nat i ve f act or of t he empl oy m ent deci s i on, m eani ng t hats he w oul d not h a v e b e e n te rm in a te d b u t f o r h e r p ro te c te d a c tiv ity. W at s on v. SEPTA , 2 0 7 F .3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 5 ( 3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); C averv. C i t y of Tre nt on , 4 2 0 F .3 d 2 4 3 , 2 6 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Pr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yforpurp o ses of a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of 9 retali ati o n d o es n o t m ea n a f o rm al ac ti o n ag ains t th e e m p loy er. “O ppo s i t i on” t o di s cr i m i nat i on undert he r et al i at i on pr ovi s i on “c an take the f

o rm o f in fo rm al pro test s o f d iscri m inato ry e m p lo y m e n t p ra c tice s, in c lu d in g m a k in g c o m p lain ts to m anage m ent

. ” Mo o re v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 461 F. 3d 331, 343 (3d C i r . 2006) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on and quot at i on m ar ks om i t ted.) I n addi t i on, t he pl ai nt i ff m ak i ng a r et al i at i on cl ai m need not pr ove t he m er i t s of t he under l y i ng di s cr i m i nat i on compl ai nt , but onl y t hat a r eas onabl e per s on i n t hes e ci r cumst ance s w oul d have co n clud ed that the e m p loy er w as e n g ag ing in d iscri m inato ry c o n d u c t. I

d. a t 3 4 4 . H e re , L e B o o n ’s b e lief w a s n o t cle a rly unr eas onabl e, al t hough t he t er m i nat ed co- w or kerhad t aken a n u n a u th o ri z e d d a yo f

f im m e d ia te ly b e f

o re b e in g f

ir e d

. L eB oon al s o cl ai m s t hats he compl ai ned t o Feat her m an and ot her s abouts i x m ont hs befor e her term inat i on aboutt he f irin g o f a n e m p lo y e e w h o m a yh a v e h a d a sp e e c h im p e d im e n t,



### 22 act i vi t y , ( 2) the em pl oy ert ook a mat er i al l yadver s e ac t i on agai ns t her , and (3) t her e w as a caus al connec t i on bet w een the p ro te c te d a c tiv it y a n d t h e e m p lo y e r’ s a c tio n . Moor e v. C i t y of P h ila d e lp h ia , 4 6 1 F

. 3 d 3 3 1 , 3 4 1 -42 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). 8

L eB oon cl ear l ys uffe r ed a mat er i al l yadver s e act i on, s i nce s he w as t er m i nat ed fr om herj ob. She has al s o pr offe r ed ev iden ce that sh e e n g ag ed in ac ti v ityp ro te c ted b yT it le V II ( namel y , cow or k er D ebor ah B r ow n’ s aff i davi tt hats he w i t nes s ed LeB oon compl ai ni ng t o Fe athe rm an, att he end of M ay , 2002, t hata cer t ai n A fr i can- A m er i can em pl oy ee ha d been t er m inated beca us e of he rr ace )

. T he ques t i on i s w het her 9cus t odi an Troy R o ll m an . T her e i s no s uppor tfort hi s i n t he re c o rd b e y o n d L e B o o n ’s o w n tes tim o n y ; in a n y e v e n t, a n yc laim of r et al i at i on bas ed on t hi s al l eged compl ai ntw oul d fai l fort he sam e re aso n s as th e c lai m related to the term ination o f L eB o o n ’s A frican -A m erican co w o rke r. 

### 23 L eB oon has pl aced enough evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o cr eat e a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tas t o w het hert her e w as a ca us al l i nk bet w een he rcompl ai nt s and hert er m i nat i on. W e hol d t hat sh e h a s n o t.
L eB oon ar gues t hat t he caus al l i nk i s es t abl i s hed byt he t empora l pr oxi m i t yof hercompl ai ntt o hert er m i nat i on ( t hr ee m ont hs ) and bys ever al epi s odes i n t he i nt er veni ng per i ods t hat s h o w t h a th e rr e l a t i o n s h i p wi t h Fe a t h e r ma n d e t e r i o r a t e d a f t er h e r c o m p la in t. T h e L J C C d is a g re e s . W e cons i der“a br oad ar r ay of evi dence ” i n det er m i ni ng w het hera s uffi ci entcaus al l i nk exi sts to sur vi ve a mot i on for s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Far r el lv. P l ant ers Li f es aver s C o. , 206 F .3 d 2 7 1 , 2 8 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). W h e re th e tem p o ra l p ro x im ity b e tw e e n th e p ro te c ted a c tiv itya n d th e a d v e rse a c tio n is

“ u n u su a llysu g g e stiv e ,” it is su f f icie n t sta n d in g a lo n e to c re a te a n in f e r e n c e o f

c a u s a lity a n d d e f

e a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See Cl a r k Cou n t y S c h o o lDi s t

. v
. Br eede n , 532 U

. S. 268, 273- 74 (2 0 0 1 ) (te m p o ra l p ro x im itya lo n e , w h e n “ v e ryc lo se ,” c a n in so m e in sta n c e s e sta b lish a p rim a f a c ie c a se o f

re talia tio n ); J

a lil v. A vdel C or p. , 873 F. 2d 701, 708 ( 3d C i r . 1989) (r ev er s i ng s um m ar yj udgm ent i n favorof t he def endantw her e pl ai nt i ff ha d b e e n d isc h a rg e d tw o d a y s a f ter h is e m p lo y e r’s r e c e ip t o f h is E E O C c laim ). W h e re th e tem p o ra l p ro x im ityis n o t “u n u su a lly s ugges t i ve, ” w e as k w het her“t he pr offe r ed evi dence , l ooked at as a w hol e, m ays uffi ce to raise the i nfer ence . ” Fa rr e ll , 206 F

. 3 d at 28 0 (i n tern a l cit ati o n an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m it ted). A m o n g the k ind s o f e v iden ce that a p lai n ti ff ca n p rof

fe r are in ter v e n in g a n tag o n ism o r re talia to ry a n im u s, in c o n sis ten c ies in t he empl oy er ’ s ar t i cul at ed r eas ons fort er m i nat i n g the empl oy ee, oranyot herevide n ce in the r ecor d s uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he inf ere n ce o f retal iat o rya n im u s . I d. a t 2 7 9 -8 1

. See a l so

### 24 A nders on v. Li ber t

y Lobby, I

nc. , 477 U

. S. 242, 252 ( 1986) ( “The m er e exi s t ence of a s ci nti ll a of evi dence i n s uppor tof t he pl ai nt i ff' s po sit i on w i l l be i ns uffi ci ent ; t her e mustbe evi dence o n w h ich th e juryco u ld rea so n ab lyfin d fo r t h e p lai n ti ff

. ”).
A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s n o b r i g h tl i n e r u l e a s t o what cons t i t ut es undul y s ugges t i ve t empora l pr oxi m i t y , a gap of t hr ee m ont hs bet w een t he pr ot ect ed act i vi t y and t he adver s e act i on, w i t houtm or e, cannot cr eat e an i nfer ence of ca us at i on and def eat s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See C l ark C ou nty Sch oo lD ist

. 532 U

. S. at 2 7 3 ( c i t i n g f

a v o r a b l y R i chm ond v. O N E O K , I nc. , 120 F. 3d 205, 209 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) , w hi ch r ej ect ed s uch an i nfer ence w her e t he ev en ts w ere three m o n th s ap art); A ndr eol i v. G at es , 482 F. 3d 641, 650 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( fi ve- m ont h t i m e per i od b etw een empl oy ee’ s compl ai ntand fi r s tadver s e act ion w as , w i t hout addi t i onal evi dence , i ns uffi ci entt o r ai s e an i nfer enc e of c a u sa tio n ). T h u s w e a sk w h e th e r th e re is s u f f icie n t ev id e n c e in t he r ecor d fora r eas onabl e fa ct

- fi ndert o det er m i ne t hat L eB oon’ s t er m i nat i on w as caus ed b y hercompl ai ntaboutt he te rm in a tio n o f

h e r c o w o rk e r. L eB o o n has pr es ent ed evi dence of hers t r ai ned r el at i ons hi p w i t h Feat her m an dur i ng t he l as t s ever al m ont hs of herempl oy m ent

. I t i s undi s put ed, how ever , t hatL eB oon s t ar t ed havi ng di ffi cul t i es w it h Feat herm an al m os ti m m edi at el yupon F e a t h e r m a n ’ s a p p o i n t m e n ta s E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r . I n J a n u a r y, 2002, s he expr es s ed herdi s agr eement w i t h t he LJC C ’ s hos t i ng of a M es s i ah Truth Pr oj ectm eet i ng; i n Febr uar y , s he compl ai ned t o Feat her m an aboutacc ount i ng i r r egul ar i t i es ( and a l s o r e p o r t e d t h e m t o a P e n n s yl v a n i a h o t l i n e ) ; a l s o i n F e b r u a r y, sh e w as r el i eved of

t he fa ci l i t ym anage m entas pect s of her po si t i on ; i n A p ril o r M ay , 20 02 , t he secu ri t yof the bu si ness offi ce, forw hi ch LeB oon w as r es pons i bl e, w as compromi s ed, and as a r es ul t L eB oon es t abl i s hed a hom e off i ce; L eB oon and F eat herm an d i sagreed as t o w hetherF eat herm an au t ho ri zedthi s. In M a y , L e B o o n re p o rte d to th e B o a rd F e a th e rm a n ’s d e c isio n to offe ranot h erempl oy ee, St efa n D abr ow s ki , addi t i onal c o m p e n sa tio n in th e f

o rm o f a “ re im b u rse m e n t” o f

th e h e a lth i nsurance p rem i um t hat the L JC C did not h a v e t o p aybecau se he had opt ed outof i ns ur anc e , and al s o Feat her m an’ s backda t i ng

### 25 of a mem o t o t he per s onnel fi l e aboutt hi s deci s i on. Feat her m an wa s f o r c e d t o e x p l a i n h e r s e l f t o t h e Bo a r d i n a me mo r a n d u m. A ls o in M a y , the Jo in t P e rso n n e l C o m m itt e e se n t a m e m o ra n d u m to th e B o a rd e x p re ss in g its c o n c e rn w ith Feat her m an’ s act i ons , s ever al of w hi ch w er e r epor ted by L eB oon. T he mem or andum m emori al i zes anot heri ns t ance of confl i ctbet w een Feather m an and LeB oon, ar i s i ng fr om L e B o o n ’s r e q u e st th a t F e a th e rm a n f o rm a lize a re p rim a n d to anot herempl oy ee. A gai n i n t he s ame m ont h, t he LJC C r ece i ved paym entof a gr ant m eant for an el evat ori n r es pons e t o i nvoi ces s entbyFeat her m an, and L eB oon cal l ed t he gr ant ort o s t at e t he el evat or w or k had not y et begun. T he gr ant or w r ot e Feather m an to return the m o n ey o n Ju n e 3 , o n ly a fe w d ay s af ter L eB o o n ’s A fr i can- A m er i can c ow or kerw as termi nat ed; L eB oon t es t i fi ed t hatFeat her m an musthave know n L eB oon had ca us ed t he r eques tfort he gr antt o be r etur ned.
N one of t h e e v e n t s a f

t e rLe Boo n ’ s c o mpl a i n ta b o u tt he t e r m i n a t i o n o f h e r c o w o r k e r i n l a t e Ma y , 2 0 0 2 , s h o w a qual i t at i vel ydi ffe r entr el at i ons hi p bet w een LeB oon and Feat her m an. T he re cord i ncl udes evi dence t hatFeat her m an ask ed L eB o o n to rep o rt to D ab rosk i rathe r than d ir ec tl y to her (a c h a n g e w h ich , a c c o rd in g to L e B o o n h e rse lf , w a s in re sp o n se to heri ns i s t en ce on r epor t i ng Feat her m an’ s i r r egul ar i t i es t o t he B oar d) ; t hatL eB oon agai n compl ai ned t o an off ici al of t he L JC C abo ut an i rr egu l ari t y i nv olvi ng an em ploy ee’s t i m e sheet s, w hi ch ca us ed Feather m an to t el l L eB oon t o s t op “s noopi ng ar ound her empl oy ees ”; and t hat , t w o w eeks befor e bei ng fi r ed, L eB oon w r ot e a m emo t o Feat her m an re cor di ng hercompl i ance w i t h F eather m an’ s r eques tt hatD abr ow s ki be pai d as y et u n ea rned vaca t i on pay . T he r ecor d al s o s how s t hatanot her empl oy ee, D ebor ah B r ow n, r es i gned i n J une, expl ai ni ng i n her lette r o f re sig n a tio n th a t F e a th e rm a n h a d to ld B ro w n sh e c o u ld no l ongert r us therbeca us e B row n r epor t ed hergr i evanc es re g a rd in g F e a th e rm a n to th e P e rs o n n e l C o m m itte e . T h u s , a l t h o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d c l e a r l ys h o ws a t ens e r el at i ons hi p bet w een LeB o o n and Feather m an, i tdoes n o t su stai n the i n fe ren ce that it w as ca u sed b y L e B o o n ’s p rotec ted a cti v ity . R athe r, there is a clea r pa tt ern o f L eB o o n ’sA l t hough an exa m i nat i on o f t he empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed 10 l egi t i m at e r eas on fort he adve r s e ac t i on is f requent l ydel ay ed unt i l t he s econd a nd t hi r d par t s of t he fa m il iar Mc D o n n e ll D ougl as bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k i n pr et extcas es , “evi dence s uppor t i ng t he pr i m a fa ci e ca s e i s oft en hel pful i n t he pr et ext s t age a nd nothing aboutt he McD onnel lD ougl as f o rm u la r equi r es us t o r at i on t he evi dence b et w een one s t age ort he ot her

. ” Fa rr e ll , 206 F. 3d at286. 

### 26 compl ai ni ng t o B oar d m ember s about Feat her m an o r i ns i s t i ng on res pect for form al i t i es and F eat herm an’s d i spl easure att hese r epor t s and l i m i t at i ons on heraut hor i t yeven befor e anym ent i on o f p o s s i b l e d i s c r i mi n a t o r yc o n d u c to n t h e p a r t of t h e LJ CC; th e re a re a lso c lea r in d ica tio n s th a t L e B o o n w a s n o t th e o n ly per s on w ho s uffe r ed t he cons equenc es of compl ai ning t o t he B oar d aboutFeat her m an. L eB oon ar gues that s he ca n s how caus at i on beca us e of i n c o n s i s t e n c i es i n t he LJC C ’ s expl anat i ons forhert er m i nat i on. 10 She cont ends t hatt he LJC C di d nots ave a nym oneyby term inating h er, sinc e it p aid tho se w h o too k o v er h er task s m o re th a n it s a v e d

. T h ere ca n b e n o seriou s d ispu te th at th e L JC C w as in d ir e fi nanci al s t r ai t s dur i ng t he r el evantper i od. T he B oar d m i nut es r efl ectan i ncr eas i ng pr eocc upat i on w i t h t he L J C C ’ s chanc es of su rviv al; at the B o ard m ee ti n g h eld fo u r d ay s b ef o re L eB o o n ’s t er m i nat i on, t he t r eas ur err eport ed t he LJC C di d not“have enough t o getthro u g h anot herm ont h, ” and the pos s i bi l i t yof de c l a r i n g b a n k r u p t c ywas c o n s i d e r e d

. As t o t h e r e d i s t r i b u t i on of Le Boo n ’ s d u t i e s , a f

t e rLe Boo n ’ s t er m i nat i on t he bookkee pi ng w as done by Feat her m an, D abr os ki , and s om e vol unt eer s ; i tw as notunt i l the m erge rcr eat i ng t he J ew i s h A l l i ance of Lancas t er t hatt w o di ffe r entempl oy ees t ook over t he dut i es t hathad bee n L eB oon’ s . A l t hough fi nanci al di ffi cul t i es i n t hemsel ves do not ex p lai n w h y L eB o o n in parti cu lar w as fired , the L JC C ’s expl anat i on i s not s o i ncons i s t entori ncongruous , i n t he abs ence o f an yot herevi dence , as t o gi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence t hat L e B o o n w a s t e r m i n a t e d b e c a u s e o f h e rp r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y.

### 27 W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt that n o rea so n ab le j u ry coul d fi nd t hatL eB oon’ s t er m i nat i on w as caus ed byher c o mpl a i n ta b o u tt h e t e r mi n a t i o n o f a n Afr i c a n - Am e r i c an cow or ker , and w i l l aff

i r m the g r antof s um m ar yj udgm enton Le Bo o n ’ s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. D . T h e D ist rict C o u rt’s D en ial o f L eB o o n ’s M o ti o n to R eopen D i s cover y T h e fina l q u esti o n b ef

o re us i s w h ethe r the D istri ct C o u rt er r ed bydeny i ng L eB oon’ s m ot i on t o r eopen di s coveryt o al l ow t he depos i t i on o f D avi d G oodm an, a per s on aff i l i at ed w i t h t he M e s s ia h T ru th P roje c t, a f te r h e h a d b e e n lo c a te d

. A di s t r i ctcour t ’ s d en i al of di s coveryi s r evi ew ed for a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed St at es v. Hedai t hy , 392 F. 3d 580, 6 0 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). H ere , L eB o o n m o v ed to reo p en d isco v ery i n F e b r u a r y, 2 0 0 5 , o v e rt w o m o n t h s a f t e rt h e c l o s e o f

d i s c o v e r y. A tthe ti m e of herm ot i on, L eB oon had fi l ed a mot i on for s um m ar yj udg m en t , i ndi cat i ng t hat , fr om herper s pect i ve, t he r ecor d w as s uffi ci entt o w ar r antr el i ef i n herfavor

. S ee B enci venga v
. W

es t er n P a. Te a m st ers & Em pl oyee s , 763 F. 2d 5 7 4 , 5 7 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). In a d d iti o n , s h e d id n o t f ile a n a f f id a v it i ndi cat i ng t hat s he neede d addi t i onal di s covery t o r es pond t o t he L J C C ’ s m ot i on fors um m ar yj udgm ent , as pr ov ide d under F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 6 (f ). See R adi ch v. G oode , 886 F. 2d 1391 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( di s t r i ct cour t di d notabus e di s cr et i on bygr ant i ng s um m ar yj udgm entdes pi t e appe l l ant ’s cont ent i on th a t m o re d isc o v e ryw a s n e e d e d w h e n a p p e llan t f a iled to c o m p ly w ith R u le 56 (f) an d sp ec ifyw ith p arti cu lari tyw h at disco v ery w as neede d)

. W e concl ude, t her efor e, t hatt he M agi s t r at e J udge di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng L eB oon’ s m ot i on. I V . C oncl usi on For t he r eas ons s t at ed above, w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der deny i ng L eB oon’ s m ot i on fors um m ar yj udgm ent and granting sum m aryj ud gm ent t o the L ancast er J ew i sh C o m m u n ity C e n te r.I d o n o t d isa g re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s r u lin g s w ith re sp e c t to 11 p a r t s I , I I

. A, I I

. C a n d I I

. D. 

### 28 L eB o o n v . L a n ca ster J ew ish C o m m u n ity C en ter A sso c., 05- 2073

REN D E L L , Ci rc ui t

J udge , di s s e nt i ng
. Th i s c a s e pr e s e nt s an i s s ue of s t at ut or y i nt e r pr e t at i on . As the m ajority

po ints ou t, Titl e VII“does not define wh at consti tute s ‘ a r el igious corp o rati on , a ss ociati on , e du cati on al in stitutio n , o r so ciety .’” M aj

. O p . at 1 2 . O ur task , th eref o re, is to d eterm i n e w h at C o n g ress m ean t w h enit em p lo yedth o se wo rds and prov ided that

the hiring andfiri ng deci si on s of such e nt i t i e s s houl d be i mm

une fr om s ui t s a l l e gi ng di s c r i m i nat i on on th e b asis o f relig io n . R ath er th an in qu ire in to C o n g ress’s in ten t, ho wever, the m ajority

re fers with broad brush to the a pp roac hes t ake n by othe r c ourt s , fa i l s t o gi ve s e r i ous c ons i de r at i on t o the r e l e vant l e gi s l at i ve hi s t ory , and e m br a c e s ahy

br i d- scatt e r s hot test th at ex amin es w h eth er th e L an caster Jew ishC o mm un ity C en ter (“L JC C ”) k ep t a k o sh er k itch en , af f ix ed a m ezu zahto its do orway or re corded it s board m ee ti ng s usi ng the Hebrew c a l e n d ar . F r o m th e p art i c u l ar s o f th e L J C C ’ s o p e r at i o n, the m a jo ri ty c on c l ud e s that

the LJ CC i s J e wi s h e no ug h t o qua l i fy as a “relig io u s co rp o ratio n .”
I s ugge s t that the m a

jor i ty ’ s ana l y s i s and ul t i m at e r ul i ng d isreg ar d b a sic can o n s o f statuto ry in terp retatio n , in v ite illa dvi s e d judi c i a lfor ay s i nt o the m i nut iae of pr i vat e r e l i gi ous pr a c t i c e and, wor s t

of a l l , s anc t i on di s c r i m i nat ory e m pl oy m e nt de c i s i ons that go far be yond thos e Congr e s s i nt e nde d t o e xe m pt f ro m T itle V II. T h eref

o re, I m u st resp ectf

u lly d issen t f ro m th is a s pe c t of the m a jor i ty ’ s opi ni on. 11

### 29 I. We com e t o this i ss ue ta b u la ra sa . As I n o te d abo ve, Congr e s s di d not

i nc l ude wi thi n Ti t l e VI I ade fi ni t i on of the te rm “r el igious corporat ion.” See Ma j. Op. at 19- 21. Nor

have we yet h ad o ccas ion to con si der the m eaning of that ph ra se . Indeed, a s urvey

of our s is te r c ourt s of app ea ls re veal s that

“ [t ]here is l i tt l e pr e c e de nt on the m e ani ng of ‘ r e l i gi ous corporat ion’ un der [ § 7 0 2 (a )].” F ike v. U n ited M eth o dist Ch il dren’s Ho me of Va ., Inc. , 547 F. Supp . 286 , 290 (E.D. Va. 1 9 8 2 ); see a lso E

E O C v
. T o w n le yEn g ’ g &M f g
. Co r p. , 859 F .2 d6 1 0 , 6 1 8 (9 thC ir. 1 9 8 8 ) (n o tin g th at “th e case lawo nth is que s t i on i s not

v ery he lpful ” )

. Ne ve rthe l e s s , thi s l a c k of authority do es no t diminis h o ur re spon sibili ty to inte rpre t

“ r e l i gi ous c or

por at i on” i n away

that “ gi ve [s ] e ffe c t

to Co ng re ss ’s inte nt.” Ro se nb er g v. XM V

entures , 274 F. 3d 137, 1 4 1 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 1 ). It is ax io m atic th at, w h enth e m ean in g o f a p h rase em p lo yedb y C o n g ress is un d ef

in edan d un clear, w e m

u st b eg in our e ffort s t o dete rm i ne i t s m e ani ng wi th ar e vi e w of the relev an t leg islativ e h isto ry . “T h e S up rem e C o urt h as rep eated ly st at ed: ‘ Wher e . . . the r es olution o f a qu es tio n o f f ed er allaw turn s o na statute an dth e in ten tio no f C o n g ress, w e f irst lo o kto the s t at ut ory l angua ge and the n t o th e legi s l at i ve hi s t ory i f the st at utory lang uage is un cl ear. ’” Mur phyv
. Dal ton , 81 F. 3d 343, 350 ( 3d Ci r . 1996) ( quot i ng Blum v
. Ste ns on , 465 U. S. 886, 896 (1 9 8 4 )); s e e al

s o Uni te d States v
. Gre

gg , 226 F. 3d 253, 257 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (“Wh ere th e statuto ry lan g u a g e d o es n o t exp ress C o n g ress’s in ten t un equ iv o cally , a co urt trad itio n ally ref ers to th e leg isl a tiv e h isto ry

an dth e atm o sp h ere inw h ichth e statute was e nact ed in an atte m pt to dete rmine the cong re ss ional p urp o se.”); Di r
. , Of

f i c e of W or k e r s ’ Comp. Programs v
. Sun Sh ip, I nc. , 150 F.3d28 8, 29 1 (3dCir. 19 98 ) ( “I f the st at utory lan g u ag e is am

b ig u o u s, w e lo o kto leg is l a t iv e h isto ry to de t e rm i n e c o n g r e s s i o n a li n t e n t

. ” )

. T h e m a j o r i ty f a i l s t o t ake e ve n thi s m os t ba s i c s t e p, r e fe rr i ng i n c onc l us ory fa s hi on t o the an aly s is o f

th e leg islativ e h isto ry

sup p liedb y

an o th er co urt. Ma j. Op. at 19- 21. A thor ough ana l y s i s o f the l e gi s l at i ve hi s t ory m ake s c l e ar

that Congr e s s i nt e nde d the p hr a s e “ r e l i gi ous

### 30 corporat ion” to m ean tho se organizati on s fun ded o r c on tr olle d by ar e l i gi ous gr oup. II. The c urr e nt

ve r s i on of T i tl e VI I i nc l ude s two e xe m pt i ons pe rt i ne nt t o thi s c a s e . The fi r s t

i s l oc at e d i n § 702( a ) and prov ides that the anti -dis criminat ion provisi on s of Ti tl e V II

“ s ha l lnot

a ppl y . . . t o areli gi ous c or

por at i on, a s s oc i at i on, edu catio n al in stitutio n , o r so ciety .” T h e seco n dis lo catedin § 7 03 (e )( 2) and p rovides that it shal l no t be an unlawfu l e m ploy m ent pra ct ic e fo r as c ho ol , c ol l e ge , un i ve r s i ty , or other edu catio n al in stituti on or

in stitutio no f

learn in g to hire and em

ploy em ployee s o f a part ic ular r e l i gi on i f s uc h s c hool , c o lle ge , uni ve r s i ty , or othe r e du c at i ona li ns t i t

ut i on or i ns t i t ut i on of l e arni ng i s , i n whol e or

i n s ubs t ant i a lpart , owne d, supp orte d, controll ed, or m anaged by a parti cular r e l i gi on or

b y apart i c ul ar

r e l i gi ous c or

por at i on, a s s oc i at i on, or

s oc i e ty , or

i f the c urr i c ulum

of such sc ho ol, c olle ge, u nivers it y , or other edu catio n al in stitutio no r in stitutio no f learn in g is dire ct ed to w ar d the prop agat ion o f a part ic ular r e l i gi on. Whil e Tit le VII’ s dra fter s i nclu ded the § 7 02 (a ) exce ption i n the firs t draft of H.R. 71 52 – “ the bil l which was the bas is of

m uch o f the Civil Righ ts A ctof 19 64 ,” To wn le

y , 859 F. 2d at

617 – th ey di d not

i nc l ude the § 703( e ) ( 2) e xc e pt i on. Fe ar i ng that

§ 702( a ) woul d not

i nc l ude s i t

uat i ons i n whi c h an e duc at i on al i ns t i t ut i on ha d a l i gne d i t s e l f wi th a p articu lar f

aith , b ut w as not

fu ll y ow ned o r s up po rt ed by

that fa i th, Re pr e s e nt at i ve Gr aham Pur c e l loffe r e d an am e ndm e nt that wo ul d c r e at e the e xc e pt i on no w l oc at e d i n § 70 3( e ) ( 2)

. At is sue i n the fl o o r debate ov er the Purce llAm endm ent was whe the r i t wa s ne c e s s ary

– that i s , whe the r

the e xe m

pt i on l oc at e d unde r

§ 702( a ) wa s a l r e a dy

s uff icien t t o c ove r

the r e l at i ons hips of c onc e rn t o Re p. Pur c e l l

. Or c our se, R e p.N ot abl y , t he LJC C has r epr es ent ed i t s el f as an “e ducat i onal 12 o rg a n iz a tio n ” b e f

o re th e In te rn a l R e v e n u e S e rv ic e , s ee A ppx. at 1 0 5 8 , an d a s a n e n tityc re a ted “ [ t]o p ro v id e e d u c a tio n a l, rec rea ti o n al, so cial, cu ltu ral, an d h u m an serv ices to a ll m em b ers o f th e c o m m u n ity ,” b e f

o re th e C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D e p a rt m e n t o f

S ta te , s ee i d. at1080.



### 31 P urcell b eliev edth at it w as n o t an d , in sup p o rt o f h is arg um en t, s a i d:
In my

st udy of the b il l, I dis covered that ge ne r ally the c hur c h- a ffi l i at e d s c hool s and c ol l e ge s that

ar e no t pr ot ec te d by

the s e two att e mp t s t o e x e mp t

th e m.

Alm ost wit

ho ut exce pt io n, the t er m
“ r el i gi ous c or

por at i on” woul d not

i nc l ude c hur c h- a ffi l i at e d s c hool s unl e s s thi s de fi n i t i on sh o u ldreceiv e dth e m o st lib eral p o ssib le in terp retatio nb y

th e co urts. A ctu a l l y

m o st c hur c h- r e l at e d s c hool s ar e c h art e r e d unde r the g en eral corpor at i on s t at ut e s as n o np ro f

it i ns t i t ut i ons for the pur pos e of e duc at i on. E E O C L eg isla tive H

isto ry o f T itles V II a n d X I o f th e Civil Ri ght s Ac t of 1964 , at 319 7 (19 68 ) ( em ph as is added). 12


### L ater inth e d eb ate, R ep resen tativ e H erb ert R ay R o b erts ro se to in qu ire ab o ut th e statu s o f a relig io u s o rp h an ag e inh is dist ri ct and whether it wo uld be consider ed exemp t und er § 702( a )

. I n r e s pons e , Re p resen t at i ve Fr ankl i n De l ano R o o sev elt, Jr. ro se an dask edw h eth er “th e o rg an i z a t io n. . . [w a s ] wh ollyow ned

by [ th e] re li giou s order .” I d. at 3201 (e m ph a s i s a dd e d)

. Whe n R e pr e s e nt at i ve Ro be rt s r e s po nd ed th at it w as, R e p r e s e n tativ e R o o sev elt saidth at it w o u ld “un qu estiona

bly” b e ex em

p t un d er § 7 0 2 (a). Id

. Re pr e s e nt at i ve Robe rt s r os e onc e a ga i n t o i nqu ire about the s am e or

phana ge

### 32 and, in re spon se , Repre se ntat ive Em anuel Cel le r, then Cha i rm an of the Judi c i ary C o mm i tt e e and i ns tr um e nt a li n the dr a ft i ng and pa s s a ge of the Ci vi lRi ght s Ac t , r os e t o s ay that the orph anage wou ld fallun der § 70 2(a) “[i]f it [ w as ] a w h o lly church supp orte d

or gani z at i on, that

i s , a r e l i gi ous c or

por at i on that com es un der s ec ti on[7 02 (a )].” I d. at 3 2 0 4 (em

p h asis a dde d)

. I n s hort , “ th e c ons e ns us wa s that [r e l i gi ous corporat ions] w er e not protec te d [ un der § 70 2(a) ] if they were m er el y ‘a ff il iate d’ with a r el igious organizati on .” To wn le y , 859 F. 2d at 617.
E v en tu ally , C o n g ress p assedth e P urcell A m en dm en t, co n f irm in g th at i t un d ersto o dth e § 7 0 3 (e)(2 ) ex em p tio nto r e qui r e al e s s e r

de gr e e of a s s oc iatio n be twe e n an e nt i ty and a relig io u s sect th anw h at w o u ldb e requ ired un d er § 7 0 2 (a). T h is is m ade a llthe m ore obv ious by the fac t th at , si nce § 70 2(a) al re ady exem pted re li giou s “ educat ional i nstituti on [s],” there w o u l d have be e n no ne e d t o c r e at e an e nt i r e l y ne w s e c t i on if C o n g ress h adalready

in te n d e d§ 7 0 2 (a) to en co m p ass relatio n sh ip s i n w h i c hsch o o ls o r co lleg es w ere n o t actu ally owne d or contr ol l e d by aform a lr e l i gi ous or gani z at i on. T h eref o re, th e d istin ctio n b etw een § 7 0 2 (a) an d § 7 0 3 (e)(2 ) is that the form e r

r e qui re s an e xtr e m e l y

c l os e ne xus be twe e n the e nt i ty and the r e l i gi on whi l e the l att e r r e qui r e s a l e s s e r s howi ng. Se e, e
. g. , Fike , 5 4 7 F

. S up p . at 2 9 0 n . 3 ( d e s c r i bi ng the § 7 03( e ) ( 2) e xe m

pt i on a s the “ m or e l e ni e nt e xe m pt i on” of the tw o ). T hu s, § 7 0 3 (e)(2 ) ap p lies o n ly to anen tity

th at is “in whol e or i n s ubs t ant i a lpart , owne d, s upport e d, c ontro lled or m an ag edb y

a p articu lar rel i g io n ,” w h ile § 7 0 2 (a) requ ires a s h o w i n g th at

th e e n t i ty i

s moret han “ i n s ubs t ant i a l part , owne d, sup p o rted , co n tro lledor

m a nag edb y a p articu lar relig io n .” T h is l e ave s ve ry

litt l e r oom

for an or gani z at i on fi nanc i a l l y or s tr uc t ur a l l y i nde pe nde nt

of a r e l i gi ous or de r t o ava i l i t s e l f of the § 7 0 2 (a) ex em

p tio n . Looki ng at

the LJ CC thr ough thi s l e ns , the r e i s no doubt th at it d o es n o t qu alif

y un d er § 7 0 2 (a). Withresp ect to gove rnanc e , the LJ CC, dur i ng the r e l e vant t i m e pe r i od, wa s not r un by a s y na gogue , but by

aboar d i nde pe nde nt l y

e l e c t e d by

the C en ter’s m em

b ers. A s th e m aj o rity p o in ts o ut, w h ile th e rab b is

### 33 from ea ch of the three loca l s y nago gu es atte nd ed bo ar d m ee ti ng s, they

on ly “played an adviso ry

role ,” se rving as

“ honor ary , non- vot i ng m e m be r s ” of the Boar d. Ma

j Op. at 14. Wi th re spec t to financia l as si st ance , ther e is si m ply no evidence, no r has the LJC C co n te nd ed, that any of the l ocalsy

nago gu es gave the LJ CC any

m one y i n any of the ye ar s at i s s ue . I ns t e a d, the LJ CC s us t a i ne d i t s e l f l ar ge l y by due s and i nc om e fr om

the re ntalof it s fac il it ie s. T h e o n ly supp ort i t r ec ei ved f rom an arg u abl y “ r e l i gi ous ” or gani z at i on wa s , a s the m a jor i ty poi nts o ut, f ro m th e L an caster Jew ishF ed eratio n . S ee id

. The LJ CC do e s no t ar gu e that

the Fe de r at i onwa s aki n t o a s y na go gu e. The r e for e , far

fr om be i ng m or e than “ i n s ubs t ant i a lpart , owne d, s upport e d, c ontr ol l e d or

m ana ge d by

apart i c ul ar

r e l i gi on, ” the LJ CC wa s an i nde pe nde nt e nt i ty not c ontr ol l e d by

any r e l i gi ous sect w h ile it em

p lo yedL in d a L eB o o nan dcann o t n o wu se § 7 0 2 (a) to sh ielditself

f ro m L eB o o n ’s su it.
III. Th e m ajority ’s discu ss ion o f the le gisl at ive his tory m i s s e s the poi nt , a s i t

fa i l s t o a ddr ess the c onc e rn of the de bat e r s that

i s r e l e vant t o the que s t i on be for e us – nam e l y , the r e l at i o n ship r e qui r e d be twe e n an or gani z at i on and i t s r e l i gi on un der §§ 7 0 2 (a ) & 70 3(e) (2). Inst ea d, the m ajority no te s that the r epre se ntat ives were concerned w it h “the abil it

y of a s e c ular e duc at i ona li ns t i t

ut i on t e a c hi ng s e c ular

subj ec ts , but affili at ed with or ow ned b y

a r el igious order or o rganiz at ion, to hire pr e fe r e nt i a l l y

pe r s ons of th e sam e fa i th. ” Ma j. Op. at 20- 21. Whil e the pu rpose of the ame ndme nt w as, un d o ub t e d ly , to addres s the abil it

y of re li gi ou s s choo ls to hire and f ir e prefere ntia ll y , the d

eb a te explored the ext ent t o w hich that had a l r e a dy be e n a c hi e ve d by

§ 702( a ) , and i t

i s th is f eatur e of the de bat e that

s he ds l i ght

on the m e ani ng of that

e xe m pt i on. A d d itio n ally , th e m aj o rity w rites th at “th e L JC C is r e a di l y d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e f

r o m th e e x am

p l e s o f s c h o o l s and c o l l e g e s th at

p e p p e r th e tr an s c r ip t ” o f

th e l e g i s l at i v e h i s t o ry. M aj . O p . at 2 1

. T h e qu estio n o f w h eth er th e L JC C is “read ily di s t i ngui s habl e ” fr om

the s c hool s and c ol l e ge s di s c us s e d i n theTh e q u e s t i o n wou l d h a v e b e e n r e l e v a n th a d t h e LJ CC 13 so u g h t p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e § 7 0 3 (e )(2 ) e x e m p tio n , w h ich it d id n o t. 

### 34 debate is ir

re le vant becaus e the qu es ti onis no t at iss ue. What 13 

### is im po rt ant for o u r p u rp oses is that the l egis lati ve hist ory re veal s what Con gres s und er st oo d to b e the diff er en c e s be t

ween the r e l e vant

e xe m pt i ons , both of whi c h r e fe r t o r e l i gi ous sc ho ols andcoll eges . The disc ussi on of wh ether § 7 02 (a ) was s uffi c i e nt t o c ove r i nde pe nde nt

r e l i gi ous school s i nform s the m ean in g o f

“relig io u s co rp o ratio n ” sin ce § 7 0 2 (a) treatedb o th e n t i t i e s i nth e s am e w ay. Th e m ajority ’s te rs e disc ussi onof the l egis lati ve hist ory r obs i t s ana l y s i s of the ne c e s s ary foc us on Congr e s s ’ s i nt e nt and c ons e qu en tly

i nfe c t s i t s abi l i ty

t o c r a ft

ac ohe r e nt

and m ana ge abl e t e s t

for de te rm i ni ng what

c ons t i t ut e s a“ r e l i gi ous co rp o ratio n , asso ciatio n , edu catio n al i n s t itutio n , o r so ciety .” Rathe r than a dopt i ng an a

ppr oa c h that ana l y

z e s the c l os e ne s s of the LJ CC’ s form a lr e l at i ons hip wi th apart i c ul ar r e l i gi ous group, the m ajority anno un ce s at t he ou ts et of it s dis cuss ion that th e L JC C i s en titledto th e § 7 0 2 (a) ex em p tio n“b ecau se its struct ure andpurpose” ar e pri m aril y re li giou s. Ho wever, it

then proceeds t o d is cuss neither s tr ucture no r purpo se , b ut, r ather, catalo g u es Jew ishattri b utes o f th e L JC C ’s d aily

o p eratio n s, s uch as the fe at

ur e s of the i t s pr ogr amm i ng, i t s obs e rvanc e of the Sabbath, i ts pre- sc ho ol curric ulum and the exte nt to wh ic h th e Jew ish calen d ar “p ro v id ed th e rh y th m ” o f it s activ ities. Ma j. Op. at 17. As i f thi s a ppr oa c h we r e not

alrea dy s u f f icien tly n eb u lo u s, th e m aj o rity

o f f ers a series o f

cav eats, whi c h di c t at e that

ar elig ious c or

por at i on m ay

ava i li t s e l f of § 7 02 (a ) and stil l “engage in se cular act ivit ie s, ” f ai l t o con fo rm to “th e strictest ten ets” o f its f aith , d eclare i t s i n ten tio nn o t to disc ri m inate e ven w hile do ing j ust t hat, and, finall y , hir e pe r s ons who s ubs c r i be t o othe r fa i ths whi l e r e s e rvi ng the r i ght to f ire th o se s ame e mp lo yees, so lely o nth e b asis o f

th eir re li gion , s ho uld it c ho ose t o d o so at s om e poi n t i n the fu ture

. Ma j. Op. at 17- 18.

### 35 The m a jor i ty ’ s t e s t

i s unwi e l dy

and r oot e d i n ne i the r

the te xt of Titl e V II no r i n the un ders tand ing o f the Co ng re ss that w ro te it. IV . Insum , C o n g ress un d ersto o d§ 7 0 2 (a) to co v er o n ly thos e e nt i t i e s that , unl i ke the LJ CC, ar e c ontr ol l e d by ar e l i gi ous sect. See Tow nley , 8 5 9 F .2 dat 6 1 7 ( “ A l l assum edth at o n ly thos e i ns t i t

ut i ons wi th e xtr e m e l y

c l os e t i e s t o or gani z e d r e l i gi on wo uld be covered [by

§ 7 02 (a )]. Chu rc hes, and entit ie s s imil ar t o c hur c he s, w ere the par a di gm . ” )

. Howe ve r , anothe r s e r i ous concern cuts in favo r o f re ading § 7 02 (a ) a s Isugg es t, and that i s , as ev en the m a

jor i ty poi nt s out , that

“ ‘ [i ]t i s not wi thi n the judi c i a lke n t o que s t i on the c e ntr a l i ty of particu lar be l i e fs or p ractices to a f

aith , o r th e v alid ity

o f p articu lar litig an ts’ i nt e rp r e t at i o n s o f

th o s e c r e e d s . ’ ” M a

j

. O p . at 1 8 ( qu o t i ng Hernan dez v . Com m’r , 49 0 U.S. 68 0, 69 9 (1 98 9)). Unfort u n ately , thi s i s e xa c t l y

the s ort of s c r ut i ny that the m a jor i ty a ppl i e s t o the LJ CC, gi vi ng us afi ve - pa ge ana l y s i s of th e part i c ul ar s of the Ce nt e r ’ s c om m i tm e nt t o Jud a i s m – an anal y si s e x emp li fied by

it s prono un ce m ent that “ the LJCC’s to leran ce o f

n o n -k o sh er f

o o d s o nits p rem ises is b alan cedb y its co n ti nu ed atte m

pt to m ai ntai n a ko sher kitc hen.” I

d. By adop ti ng a t es t t

hat t urns onthe att

ribu te s o f

the LJCC’s r e l i gi ous pr a c t i c e , the m a

jor i ty m i s t ake nl y

a s s um e s that

we have the c o mp etenc e t o, and s houl d, s ort thr ough the var i ous a c t i vi t i e s of ar e l i gi ous l y in cl i ne d organi z at i on and pi c k out thos e that

ar e m e ani ngful and thos e that ar e not

. W e have p rev io u sly

d eclin ed to d o so . See A frica v. P en n sylva n ia , 662 F .3 d 1025, 1030 ( 3d Ci r . 1981) ( “ Judge s ar e not or a c l e s of th eo lo g ical v erity , an dth e F o un d ers d idn o t in ten df o r th em to b e d eclaran ts o f

relig io u s o rth o d o x y .”); se e als o D eHart v

. H o rn , 227 F.3d47 , 55-57 (3d C ir . 200 0 ) (c it in g m any ca se s estab lis h i n g “ ac o n s i s t e n t

an dr e s o un d i n g th e me” th at rep resents our , an dth e S up r e m e C o urt ’ s , r e l u c t an c e t o e v a l u at e the part ic ular s o f re li giou s p ra ct ic e)

. We shou ld no t do so h er e. It is neither prac ti ca l nor desi ra ble and , ult im at el y , unn ec es sary g iv enC o n g ress’s in ten t.

### 36 V. Fo r these re as on s, I wou ld re vers e the Distri ct Co urt’ s orde r andr e m andfo r

furthe r pr oc e e di ng s onLe Bo on ’s d i s c r i mi n at i o nc l a i m.