N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C HR ISTOPHER

OR R , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. C HR ISTIAN B R OTHER S HIGH SC HOOL, INC . , a C a lifornia c orporation; LOR C AN B AR

NES, a n individual, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 21-15109 D.C . No. 2:20-c v-00177-JAM -C KD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 16, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , M c KEOW N, C i rc uit Judge , a

n d RESTANI, ** Judge . 

# FIL ED NOV 23 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ja ne A. R e sta

ni, Judgefor the Unite d State s C ourt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion.C hristophe r Orr a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s sum m a ry judgm e nt ruling dism issing his rac i a l ha

ra ssm e nt, ra c e disc rim i nation, re ta l iation, a nd wrongful te rm ination c la im s a ga inst Lorc an B arne s a nd C hristia

n B rothe rs High Sc hool, Inc . unde r Title VII of the C ivil Rights Ac t of 1964, Se c tion 1981 of the C ivil Rights Ac t of 1866, the C a lifornia Fa ir Em ploy m e nt a nd Housing Ac t, a

nd C a lifornia c om m on la w. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. B e c a use the pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with thehistory

of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . W e re vie w orde rs gra

nting m otions for sum

m ary judgm e nt de novo. A.G. v . Paradise Valle y Unifie d Sc h . Dist. N

o. 69 , 815 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th C ir. 2016). W e a ffirm .

I The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Orr qua lifie d a s a

m iniste r for the purpose s of the m i niste ria l e xc e ption. TheSupre m e C ourt ha s broa dly de fine d what e m ploy m e n t positions a

re e ligiblefor a

pplic ation of thee xc e ption. In de te rm i ning whe the r e m

ploy e e s at re ligious sc hools a re m iniste rs, the Supre m e C ourt ha s e xpla ine d tha

t the c ore c onside ra tion is the i r “ role in c onve y i ng the C hurc h’ s m e ssa g e and c a rry ing out its m

ission.” Our Lady

of Guadalupe

Sc h. v . Morrisse y -Be rru , 140 S. C t. 2049, 2063 (2020) (c iting Hosanna-Tabor Ev ange lic al Luthe ran C

hurc h & Sc h. v . EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 192 (2012)).

“ [E] duc ating y oung pe ople in the ir fa i th, inc ulc ating its te a c hings, a nd tra ining 2the m

to livethe ir fa ith a

re re sponsibilitie s tha

t lie at the ve ry

c ore of the m ission of a priva te re ligious sc hool.” Id. , at 2064. Thus, in Hosanna-Tay lor and Morrisse y -Be rru , the Supre m e C ourt he ld tha t m any te a c he rs at re ligious sc hools qua lifie d a s “ m iniste rs” for the purpose s of the e xc e ption, e ve n though they we re not c onside re d form a l m i n iste rs. He re , Orr pla

y e d a n im porta nt role in the re ligious e duc at ion a nd form ation of the stude nts a

t C hristia n B rothe rs. Orr pa

rtic ipate d in re l igious se rvic e s a nd a c tivitie s, a iding thesc h ool in de ve loping a fa ith-ba se d

c om m unity and inc ulc ating fa ith-ba se d te a c hings. He ha d supe rvisory a

uthority ove r a spe c ts of re l igious instruc tion a

nd progra m m i ng. He a lso re c e ive d re ligious e duc ation a s pa rt of his role . In the c onte xt of the m i niste ria l e x c e ption, the re is no princ iple d distinc tion to be drawn be twe e n

te a c he rs a

nd princ ipa ls. Thus, under the Supre m e C ourt’ s form ulat ion of the m iniste ria l e xc e p tion, Orr qua lifie d for its a pplic ation to him . II Give n tha t Orr qua lifie d

for a pplic ation of them iniste ria l e xc e ption, a nd the fa c t ua l a lle g ations unde rly ing Orr’ s ha ra ssm e n t c la im s, the distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t his e m ploy m e nt c la im s we re ba

rre d by the e xc e ption. Orr a sse rte d c la im s unde r Title VII of the C ivil Rights Ac t of 1964, Se c tion 1981 of theC ivil Ri ghts Ac t o f 1866, theC a lifornia Fa ir Em p loy m e nt a nd Housing 3Ac t, a

nd C a lifornia

c om m on la w. The “ m iniste ria l e xc e ption” to a pplic at ion of e m ploy m e nt la ws to re ligious institutions a rose from the First Am e n dm e nt’ s prote c tion of the right of c hurc he s a nd othe r re ligious institutions to de c ide

“ m atte rs of c hurc h gove rnm e nt a s we ll a s those of fa ith a nd doc trine ” without gove rnm e nt intrusion. Morrisse y -Be rru , 140 S. C t. at 2055 (c ita tion omi tte d). The m iniste ria l e xc e ption “ insula te s a re ligious orga

niz ation’ s e m

ploy m e nt de c isions re ga rding its m

iniste rs from

judic ia l sc rutiny unde r Title VII.” W e r ft v . De se rt Southw e st Annual C

onfe re nc e of Unite d Me thodist C hurc h , 377 F.3d 1099, 1100–01 (9th C ir. 2004). Thus, Orr’ s e m ploy m e nt c la im s a

re pre c l ude d by

the m iniste ria l e xc e ption. The re are c e rta in e m

p loy m e nt c la im s tha

t a re not ne c e s sa

rily subje c t to the m iniste ria l e xc e ption. For e xam ple , in B ollard v . C

alifornia Prov inc e of the Soc ie ty of J e sus , 196 F.3d 940, 947 (1999), we he ld tha t a se x ua l ha ra s sm e nt c la im unre late d to a re ligious orga

niz ation’ s e m

ploy m e nt de c isions wa s not subje c t to the m iniste ria l e xc e ption. S

e e also Elv ig v . C

a lv in Pre s by te rian C

hurc h , 375 F.3d 951, 959–66 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding tha t se xua l ha

ra ssm e nt a

nd re ta l iatory

ha ra s sm e nt c la im s survive d the m iniste ria l e xc e ption). In this c a se , Orr ha s a sse rte d c la im s of ra c ia l ha ra ssm e nt tha

t c re ate d a hostilework e nvironm e nt. Apply ing the Bollard/Elv ig fra m e work, suc h a c la im 4c ould survivethe m i niste ria l e xc e ption. Howe ve r, unlike the c irc um sta nc e s in Bollard and Elv ig , the a l le gations he re are so inte rtwine d with thee m

ploy m e nt de c isions tha

t the c l a im s c annot be se pa ra te d . Se e Elv ig , 3675 F.3d a t 960 (e xpla ining tha

t c o urts m ay

not sc rutiniz e e m

ploy m e nt a c tions, whic h a

re prote c te d from Title VII lia

b i lity ). III The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t C hristia n B rothe rs did not waive the C a l ifornia

Fa ir Em p l oym e nt & Housing Ac t’ s (“ FEHA” ) stat utory e xe m ption for non-profit re ligious c orporations. C hristia n B rothe rs’ e m

ploy e e ha ndbook

“ ne ve r e xplic itly

re fe re nc e s FEHA” and “ m ake s no prom ise tha t [it] will be bound by FEHA.” Mathe w

s v . Happy

Valle y C onfe re nc eC

e nte r, Inc . , 43 C a l. App. 5th 236, 258 (2019). Thus, the re wa s no wa ive r of the re ligious e ntity sta tutory e xe m ption, whic h a

p plie s to Orr’ s sta

te sta tutory c l a im s. IV In sum , Orr’ s e m

p loy m e nt position qua

lifie s for a

pplic ation of the m iniste ria l e xc e ption unde r Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt. The e xc e ption pre c lude s his e m ploy m e nt c la im s. Unde r the fa c tua l c irc um s ta nc e s pre se nte d by

this c a se , the Bollard / Elv ig e xc e ption for hostile

work e nvironm e nt, ha

ra ssm e n t, a

nd re ta lia tion

5doe s not a

pply . The sta

te sta tutory c la im s a re pre c l ude d by

the sta tutory e xe m ption for non-profit re ligious c orporations. AFFIRM E D.

6