### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 19-2142
S ANDOR D EMKOVICH , Plaintiff -Appell ee ,

v.

S T

. A NDREW THE A POSTLE P ARISH , C ALUMET C ITY , and T HE A RCHDIOCESE OF C HICAGO , Defendants -Appel lants

.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois , Eastern Division

. No. 1:16

- cv

- 11576 — Edmond E. Chang , Judge

.

____________________
A RGUED F EBRUARY 9, 2021

— D ECIDED J ULY 9, 2021

____________________

Before S YKES , Chief Judge , and F LAUM , E ASTERBROOK , K ANNE , R OVNER , W OOD , H AMILTON , B RENNAN , S T

. E VE , and K IRSCH , Circuit Judges

. 1

B RENNAN , Circuit Judge

. The ministerial exception, grounded in the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses,

1 Circuit Judge Scudder did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.2 No. 19-2142

protects religious organizations from employment discrimination suits brought by their ministers. The question here is whether this constitutional protection applies to hostile work environment claims based on minister

- on

- minister harassment . We hold that it does.
I St. Andrew the Apostle Parish in Calumet City, Illinois is

a Roman Catholic church of th e Archdiocese of Chicago. 2 In September 2012, the church hired Sandor Demkovich as its music director, choir director , and organist. Reverend Jacek Dada, a Catholic priest and the church ’s pastor , supervised Demkovich in these roles. Over the next two years, t heir relationship deteriorated, culminating in Demkovich’s termination by Reverend Dada in September 2014

. Demkovich alleges that Reverend Dada , who is not a defendant her e, discriminated against him based largely on his sexual orientation and physical condition

. Demkovich is a gay man. According to Demkovich, Reverend Dada repeatedly subjected him to derogatory comments and demeaning epithets showing a discriminatory animus toward his sexual orientation . The frequency and hostility of these remarks increased after Reverend Dada learned that Demkovich planned to marry his partner while still employed by the church . A fter Demkovich’s marriage in September 2014, Reverend Dada asked for his resignation and told him that his marriage was against the teachings of the

2 On a motion to dismiss, we accept all well

- pleaded facts from the amended complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. White v. United Airlines, Inc. , 987 F.3d 616, 620 (7th Cir. 2021).No. 19-2142 3

Catholic C hurch. When Demkovich refused, Reverend Dada fired him.
Demkovich also suffer s from diabetes , metabolic syndrome , and weight issues . B efore Demkovich’s termination , Reverend Dada allegedly made belittling and humilia ting comments based on these conditions as well

. Reverend Dada’s remarks , b y Demkovich’s account, had no discernible connection with the terms of his employment and adversely affected his mental and physical health

. Eventually, Demkovich sued the church and the Archdioces e for employment discrimination

. In his initial complaint, Demkovic h claimed the church fired him based on his sex, sexual orientation, marital status, and disability

. He alleged
t he church therefore violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e -2 et seq. , the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq ., and analogous state and county laws . T he church moved to dismis s Demkovich’s case u nder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and raised the ministerial exception as an affirmative defense to his claims

. The district court deemed Demkovich a minister protected by the exception, g ranted the church’s motion, and dismissed the complaint in full , albeit without prejudice. In his amended complaint, Demkovich repackaged his allegations of discriminatory termination as hostile work environment claims . T he church again moved to dismiss and invoked the ministerial exception a second time . T he district court granted this motion in part , dismiss ing Demkovich’shostile work environment claims based on sex, sexual orientation, and marital status while allow ing his disability

- based hostile work environment claims to proceed

. Demkovich v. St.4 No. 19-2142

Andrew the Apostle Par. , 343 F. Supp. 3d 772, 776, 789 (N.D. Ill. 2018). 3

T he district court held that t he ministerial exception did not categorically bar Demkovich’s hostile work environment claims

. Id. at 778 –86. P rotection under the ministerial exception instead turned on whether the plaintiff challen ged a tangible or intangible employment action

. Id. at 780. Claims based on tangible employment actions, such as termination,

were categorically barred; claims based on intangible employment actions, such as discriminatory remarks and insults,
were not

. Id. at 778, 781 –83. The district court reasoned that tangible employment actions implicat ed a minister’s employment status, and therefore the religious organization’s authority over that minister , in ways unlike in tangible employment actions

. Id. at 781 –83. B ecause Demkovich alleged intangible employment actions in his amended complain t, the ministerial exception was not a “ categorical bar ” to his claims

. Id. at 78 6. Rather, only concerns over excessive church

- state entanglement

— as when a religious organization proffers a religious justification for alleged conduct

— could trigger the ministerial exception’s protection against intangible employment action claims

. Id. at 784 –86. For the district court, a pplication of the ministerial exception to intangible employment actions depended on a case

- by

- case balancin g. Id.This balancing led the district court to dismiss Demkovich’s claims of a hostile work environment based on his sex, sexual orientation, and marital status. Id. at 786 –87.

3 In its second memorandum opinion and order, the district court held that Demkovich conceded his status as a minister. Demkovich , 343 F. Supp. 3d at 778.No. 19-2142 5

S everal fa ctors supported protecti ng the church

. First , the church offered a religious justification for Reverend Dada’s allegedly discriminatory remarks. Id. at 786. Second, Demkovich’s status as a minister implicated the church’s absolute right to choose its own ministers without civil interference. Id. at 786

– 87. And third, practical and procedural concerns , including the need to prob e for animus and intrusive discovery , favored applying the ministerial exception. Id. at 787. The b alanc e t ipped the other way for Demkovich’s disability

- based hostile work environment claims, however. Id. at 787–88. T he church offered no religious justification for the se claims , sothe district court did not see the same risks of excessive entanglement present in adjudicating the sex, sexual orientation, and marital status claims. Id. at 788. With only Demkovich’s disability claims remaining , d iscovery began

. O n the church’s motion , t he district court then certified a controlling question of law to this c ourt under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b):
Under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, does the ministerial exception ban all claims of a hostile work environment brought by a plaintiff who qualifies as a minister, even if the c laim does not challenge a tangible employment action?
A motion s panel of this court accepted this interlocutory appeal

. An appeal under § 1292(b) brings up the whole certified order

. United Airlines, Inc. v. Mesa Airlines , Inc. , 219 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2000) ; see BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1539–40 (2021). We “may address any issue fairly included within the certified order because ‘it is the order that is appealable, and not the controlling question identified b y the district court .’” Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v.6 No. 19-2142

Calhoun , 516 U.S. 199, 20 5 (1996) (quoting 9 J. M OORE & B. W ARD , M OORE ’ S F EDERAL P RACTICE ¶ 110.25[1], p. 300 (2d ed. 1995)). A divided panel affirmed the district court’s decision denying dismissal of Demkovich’s disability

- based hostile work environment claim, and reversed its dismissal of his sex, sexual orientation, and marital status claims. Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Par. , 973 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2020)

. We vacated th e panel opinion and reheard this interlocutory appeal en banc. O ur review is de novo. Degroot v. Client Servs., Inc. , 977 F.3d 656, 659 (7th Cir. 2020).
II
A The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibi ting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. C ONST

. amend. I. From the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause flows the ministerial exception , which “ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful

— a matter ‘strictly ecclesiastical’

— is the church’s alone.” Hosanna

- Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC , 565 U.S. 171, 194– 95 (2012) (quoting Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America , 344 U.S. 94, 119 (1952)). T he se Religi on Clauses “ often exert conflicting pressures .” Cutter v. Wilkinson , 544 U.S. 709, 719 (2005 ). But when it comes to the ministerial exception, they work in uniso n toward the common goal of protect ing the employment rights of religious organizations. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey

- Berru , 140 S. Ct. 2049, 2060 (2020) (“ Under this rule, courts are bound to stay out of employment disputesNo. 19-2142 7

involving those holding certain important positions with churches and other religious instit utions.”).
The interests implicated by the ministerial exception have a rich lineage

. See Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2061–62 ( describing British and early American law on ministers and religious education ); Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 182– 85 (chronicling the “background” against which “the First Amendment was adopted”). Questions over the boundar y between religious and civil authority have been present since the founding. See generally Michael McConnell, The Origins and Historical Under standing of Free Exercise of Religion , 103 H ARV

. L. R EV . 1409, 1464

– 65 (1990) (explaining that religious organizations from the founding have been able “to define their own doctrine, membership, organization, and internal requirements without state interfe rence”). Supreme Court precedent reflects repeated engagement with that boundary and teaches that a voidance, rather than intervention , should be a court’s proper role when adjudicating disputes involving religious governance

. See, e.g. , Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich , 426 U.S. 696, 697 –99 , 724–25 (1976) (dispute over control of church property and appointment of bishops) ; Kedroff , 344 U.S. at 95 –96 , 120 –21 (same) ; Watson v. Jones , 80 U.S. 679, 713

– 15, 727 –29 (1872) (dispute over control of church property) ; see also Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 185–87 (describing the holdings of these cases)

. By rejecting civil intrusion into the religious sphere, these decisions developed the doctrine of “church autonomy.” Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 206 1. Th is well

- established principle means what it says: c hurches must have “independence in matters of faith and doctrine and in closely linked matters of internal government.” Id.8 No. 19-2142

The ministerial exception f ollows natural ly from th e church autonomy doctrine . I n McClure v. Salvation Army , a female employee of the Salvation Army —a n “officer” within this religious charity organization

— alleged sex discrimination in violation of Title VII

. 460 F.2d 553 , 555 –56 (5th Cir. 1972 ). The Fifth Circuit held that she was a minister, and the First Amendment barred her claim as a result

. Id. at 55 6– 61. I n doing so, it recognized that “[t]he relationship between an organized church and its ministers is its lifeblood” and “[m]atters touching this relationship must necessa rily be recognized as of prime ecclesiastical concern.” Id. at 558, 559. Deciding the minister’s Title VII claim would intrude upon this sacred relationship, so the Fifth Circuit forb ade it. Id. at 560–61.
In Hosanna

- Tabor , t he Supreme Court unanimously e ndorsed the ministerial exception

. There, a teacher sued an Evangelical Lutheran school for unlawful retaliation under the ADA. Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 177 –79. T he Court held that the teacher was a minister , so it barred her claim. Id. at 191–94. Recognizing the central importance of ministers to religious organization s, the Court concluded that allowing an employment discrimination suit against the school would contravene both the Free Exercise C lause ( “which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments”) and the Establishment Clause(“which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions”). Id. at 188 –89. For the Court , “ [r] equiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision.” Id. at 188. Th is sort of civil intrusion “interferes with the internal governance of the church” by “depriv ing the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.” Id. T he Court’s decision wasNo. 19-2142 9

the result of not only its past church autonomy jurisprudence, but also of what had long been held by the circuit courts : e cclesiastical ind ependence in employment was of prime importance

. See i d. at 185

– 88. In the end, between the “interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes” and “the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teac h their faith, and carry out their mission,” the Court held that “the First Amendment has struck the balance for us.” Id. at 196. Our Lady of Guadalupe recently reiterated Hosanna

- Tabor ’s holdin g. T he Court in Our Lady of Guadalupe confronted theconsolidated appeals of two Catholic school teachers who alleged discriminatory terminations in violation of the ADA and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. , respectively. 140 S. Ct. at 2056 –59 . Because there exist ed “abundant record evidence that they both performed vital religious duties,” the ministerial exception barred th e employment discrimination suits of the two teachers

. Id. at 2066. Although Our Lady of Guadalupe mainly

co ncerned how to define ministerial status, th e decision emphasized that “a church’s independence on matters ‘of faith and doctrine’ requires the authority to select, supervise, andif necessary, remove a minister without interference by secular authorities.” Id. at 2060 (quoting Kedroff , 344 U.S. at 116). This was because “[w]ithout that power, a wayward minister ’ s preaching, teaching, and counseling could contradict the church’s tenets and lead the congregation away from the faith.” Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2060 (footnote omitted)

. Simply put, “ [t] he ministeri al exception was recognizedto preserve a church’s independent authority in such matters.” Id. at 2060 –61. Hosanna

- Tabor first endorsed the10 No. 19-2142

ministerial exception , and Our Lady of Guadalupe confirmed its strength

. F rom Hosanna

- Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalu pe , we take two principles. First, although these cases involved allegations of discrimination in termination, their r ationale is not limited to that context. The protected interest of a religious organization in its ministers covers the entire employment relationship , including hiring, firing, and supervising in between. See id. ; Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 188, 194–96. S econd , we cannot lose sight of the harm s— civil intrusion and excessive entanglement

— that the ministerial exception prevent s. See, e.g. , Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2060

– 61, 2069 ; Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 187 –89. Especially in matters of ministerial employment, the First Amendment thus “gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.” Hosanna

- Tabor
, 565 U.S. at 189.

B
With th ese precedent s in mind, we consider Demkovich’s hostile work environment claims. Cf. Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 196 (“ T here will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise .”). To succeed on a hostile work environment claim , a plaintiff must show: (1) unwelcome harassment; (2) based on a protected characteristic ; (3) that was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment; and (4) a basis for employer liability

. Howard v. Cook C n ty. Sheriff’s Off. , 989 F.3d 587, 600 (7th Cir. 2021)

. 4 Demkovich proceeds under Title VI I and the

4 At times, this court has recited this test differently, “looking instead for evidence that the workplace was both subjectively and objectivelyNo. 19-2142 11

ADA . U nder either Act , and no matter the alleged animus, the elements of a hostile work environment remain the same

. Ford v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff’s Off. , 942 F.3d 839, 856 (7th Cir. 2019) (the ADA) ; EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp. , 903 F.3d 618, 624– 25 (7th Cir. 2018) (Title VII)

. For its par t, the ministerial exception operates as an affirmative defense to employment discrimination claims , Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 195 n.4 , turn ing on the function of the employee and safeguard ing all faiths

. See Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2060, 2066 –67.
A hostile work environment is based on the totality of the circumstances . C ourts c onsider “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and w hether it unreasonably interferes with an employee ’ s work performance.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)

. This inquiry is “fact intensive.” Howard , 989 F.3d at 604. For example, we account for “the specific circumstances of the workingenvironment” as well as “the relationship between the harassing party and the harassed.” Robinson v. Sappington , 351 F.3d 317, 330 (7th Cir. 2003)

. Finding a hostile work environment , then, “is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test.” Harris , 510 U.S. at 22

. But when prove d, one thing is certain: “the work environment was so pervaded by discrimination that the terms and conditions of employment

offensive

— either in lieu of the first prong

— that the employee was subject to unwelcome harassment

— or the third prong

— whether the harassmentwas severe or pervasive enough to rise to the level of a hostile work environment.” Johnson v. Advoc. Health & Hosps. Corp. , 892 F.3d 887, 900 (7th Cir. 2018). But “[i] n the end, we have concluded that the inquiry is the

sam e.” Id.12 No. 19-2142

were altered.” Vance v. Ball State Univ. , 570 U.S. 421, 427 (2013) ; accord Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson , 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986).
III
This case concern s what one minister , Reverend Dada, said to another , Demkovich. Adjudicating Demkovich’s allegations of minister

- on

- minister harassment would not only undercut a religious organization’s constitutionally protected relationship with its ministers, but also cause civil intrusion into, and excessive entanglement with, the religious sphere. J udicial involvement in this dispute would depart from Hosanna

- Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe and threate n the independence of religious organizations “in a way that the First Amendment does not allow.” Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2069.
A
Demkovich’s hostile work environment claims c hallenge a religious organization’s independence in its ministerial relationships. A judgment against the church would legal ly recogni ze that it fostered a discriminatory employment atmosphere for one of its ministers. See Harris , 510 U.S. at 21– 23. So t he church , like any other employer, must have necessarily failed in supervision and control, either directly or indirectly

. See Johnson , 892 F.3d at 904 (“[E]mployers are strictly liable for the discriminatory acts perpetrated by supervisors and they are liable for the discriminatory acts of others

— coworkers, independent contractors, customers, inmates etc.

— only if they are negligent either i n discovering or remedying the harassment.”). And i f Demkovich succeeds in his suit, it means his ministerial work environment “was soNo. 19-2142 13

pervaded by discrimination that the terms and conditions of employment were altered.” Vance , 570 U.S. at 427.

But Hosann a- Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe teach that ministerial employment is fundamentally distinct. As the Court emphasized in Hosanna

- Tabor , “ [t] he members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers .” 565 U.S. at 188. A minister is the “chief instrument” for a religious organization “to fulfill its purpose.” McClure , 460 F.2d at 559 . O nly through a minister does a religious organization speak in its own voice and spread its own message. See Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 188

. In precluding termination claims by ministers, Hosanna

- Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe recognize that a minister’s religious significance makes this employment relationship different than others, and deservedly so. See Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2055, 2060; Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 195 . J ust as a religious organization “must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way,” so too must those guides be free to decide how to lead a religious organization on that journey. Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 196. A minister’s legal status recognizes that ministerial employment differs from nonreligious employment , or even from nonministerial employment within a religious organization. See Robinson , 351 F.3d at 330 (noting we conside r “the specific circumstances of the working environment” as wellas “the relationship between the harassing party and the harassed”). Take Demkovich for example. As music director, choir director, and organist for the c hurch, Demkovich assist ed in the cel ebration of M ass by priests, Reverend Dada included. His p articipati o n in th e liturgy was the reason for his work

. See Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2063–64;14 No. 19-2142

Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 191

– 92. No other employer, besides a religious one, could impose this type of work requirement upon Demkovich . T he work environment of a minister thus differ s from the work environment of any other employee

. Because ministers and nonministers are different in kind , the First Amendment requires that their hostile work environment claims be treated differently. Religion permeates the ministerial work place in ways it does not in other work place s. M inisters , by their religious position and responsibilities, produce their employment environment

. From giving a rabbinic sermon on a Jewish holy day
to leading a mosque in a call to prayer , ministers imbue a religious organization with spirituality

. Given a minister’s role in the religious organization’s practice of the faith, allowing hostile work environment claim s here “intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision.” Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 188. Put differently, a nalyzing a minister’s hostile work environment claim based on another minister’s conduct is not just a legal question but a religious one , too

. As personnel is policy, employees are environment

. If “the relationship between an organized church and its minister is its lifeblood,” the n the relationship between its ministers is its backbone. McClure , 460 F.2d at 558. Interaction between ministers is critical to a religious organization and its mission. Demkovich ’s duties were liturgical by nature. How Demkovich’s employment ended

— with a dispu te over religious doctrine

— cements the religious character of their relationship. As t he Court stated in Our Lady of Guadalupe : “The ministerial exception was recognized to preserve a church’s independent authority in such matters.” 140 S. Ct. at 2060 –61. Reverend Dada’s supervision of Demkovich is such a matter

.No. 19-2142 15

The contours of the ministerial relationship are best left to a religious organization, not a court

. Within a religious organization, w orkplace conflict among ministers takes on a constitutionally protected character

. See id. at 2060 (explaining that the First Amendment protects the autonomy of a religious organization “with respect to internal management decisions that are essential to the institution’s central mission”) . T o r ender a legal judgment about Demkovich’s work environ ment is to render a religious judgment about how ministers interact

. Cf. McCarthy v. Fuller , 714 F.3d 971, 976 (7th Cir. 2013)(“Religious questions are to be answered by religious bodies.”). According to t he dissent , our holding condones harassment of a m inister a s necessary to supervise or control that minister . Post at 13, 19, 21. We disagree. D eciding where a minister’s supervisory power over another minister ends and where employment discrimination law begins is not a line to be drawn in litigation, the point of the ministerial exception. Precluding hostile work environment claims arising from minister

- on

- minister harassment also fits within the doctrinal framework of the ministerial exceptio n. A religious organization ’s supervision of its ministers is as much a “component” of its autonomy as “is the selection of the individuals who play certain key roles.” Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2060. It would be incongruous if the independence of religious organizations mattered only at the b eginning (hiring) and the end (firing) of the ministerial relationship, and not in between (work environment). See, e.g. , id. (“But it is instructive to consider why a church’s independence on matters of faith and doctrine requires the authority to select, supervise , and if necessary, remove a minister without interference by secular authorities.” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and footnote16 No. 19-2142

omitted) ); Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 194

– 95 (“The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful

— a matter strictly ecclesiastical

— is the church’s alone.” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted) ). In sum, s egment ing the ministerial relationship runs counter to the teachings of Hosanna

- Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe , from which we see no reason to depart. For this same reason, we apply the ministerial exception in the way the Supreme Court has applie d it . Just as a religious organization need not proffer a religious justification for termination claims , a religious organization need not do so for hostile work environment claims. See Hosanna

- Tabor ,565 U.S. at 194 (“The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a c hurch’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason.”). The dissent contends that “neutral, secular principles of law” should apply here, as in “property, contract, tax, or tort” cases. Post at 17. But the Court has rejected a s imilar argument. In Hosanna

- Tabor , theCourt held that a “valid and neutral law of general applicability,” Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith , 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted) , did not foreclose recognition of the ministerial exception. Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 190. “ Smith involved governmentregulation of only outward physical acts,” while the minister’s termination in Hosanna

- Tabor “concer n[ed] government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.” Id. The same is true for the ministerial work environment. A ttempts to cabin Hosanna

- Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe to tangible employment action claims likewise do not persuade. In those cases ,No. 19-2142 17

t he Court made no distinction, explicit or implicit, between tangible or intangible employment actions , so n either do we.
B Adjudicat ing Demkovich’s hostile work environment claims would also lead to impermissible intrusion into, and excessive entanglement with, the religious sphere. To do so would contravene the Religion Clauses in much the same way the termination claims did in Hosanna

- Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe

. By probing the ministerial work environment , the
state

— acting through a court

— interferes with the Free Exercise Clause, “which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission .” Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 188. A religious organization shapes its fait h and mission through its work environment just as much as “through its appointments.” Id. ; see Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2060. Allowing the state to regulate the ministerial work environment similarly runs afoul of the Establishment Clause, “wh ich prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions .” Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 1 89. How one minister interacts with another, and the employment environment that follows, is a religious , not judicial, prerogative. See Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2060 –61; Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 189. In compl e ment rather than conflict, the F ree Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause therefore preclude Demkovich’s hostile work environment claims. Consider first the litany of Free Exercise Clause problems with hostile work environment claims by ministers . “ [Q]uestions of church disciplin e and the composition of the church hierarchy are at the core of ecclesiastical concern.” Milivojevich , 426 U.S. at 717. So to adjudicate Demkovich’s allegations , which center on his relationship with his fellow18 No. 19-2142

minister and supervisor Reverend Dada, is to necessarily intrude upon th e religious realm. Even at its least in vasive , a hostile work environment claim threatens to fundamentally alter th e ministerial relationship and work environment. See Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints v. Amos , 483 U.S. 327, 336 (1987) (“Fear of potential liability might affect the way an organization carried out what it understood to be its religious mission

. ”). Because a minister lies at the heart of a religious organization’s work an d workplace , deciding whether discrimination pervaded his employment impermissibly requires “intrusion into a religious thicket.” Milivojevich , 426 U.S. at 719. “ The First Amendment outlaws such intrusion.” Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2060.
Hostile work environment claims i nterfer e with a religious organization’s internal governance , presenting another Free Exercise problem. A s we have said, “civil authorities have no say over matters of religious governance.” Korte v. Sebelius , 735 F.3d 654, 678 (7th Cir. 2013). T his invitation to turn the spiritual into the secular raises the concern of chilling religious

- based speech in the religious workplace

. See Brief for First Amendment Professors as Amic i Curiae 7–11. Turning to Demkovich’s allegations , w hat one minister says in supervision of another could constitute stern counsel to some or tread into bigotry to others. How is a court to determine discipline from discrimination? Or a dvice from animus? See Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 205 (Alito, J. concurring, joined by Kagan, J.) (“In order to probe the real reason for respondent’s firing, a civil court

— and perhaps a jury

— would be required to make a judgment about church doctrine.“) . T hese questions and others like them c annot be answered without infringing upon a religious organization ’s rights

. See Hernandez v.No. 19-2142 19

Comm’r , 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989) (“It is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants’ interpretations of those creeds.”). Shielded by the Free Exercise clause, m inisters should have an eye toward liturgy, not litigation. See Rayburn v. General Conf

. of Seventh -D ay Adventists , 772 F.2d 1164, 1171 (4th Cir. 1985) (“There is the danger that churches, wary of EEOC or judicial review of their decisions, might make them with an eye to avoiding litigation or bureaucraticentanglement rather than upon the basis of their own personal and doctrinal assessments of who would best s erve the pastoral needs of their members.”).
The Establishment Clause problems with adjudicating Demkovich’s hostile work environment claims are just as plain. “ Entanglement must be ‘excessive’ before it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause ,” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 233 (1997), and so “ the government action must involve ‘intrusive government participation in, supervision of, or inquiry into religious affairs.’ ” Vision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove , 468 F.3d 975, 995 (7th Cir. 2006) (q uoting United States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple , 224 F.3d 627, 631 (7th Cir. 2000)). So it is here. A hostile work environment claim based on the relationship between ministers “would enmesh the court in endless inquiries as to whether each discriminat ory act was based in Church doctrine or simply secular animus.” Alicea

Hernandez v. Cath. Bishop of Chicago , 320 F.3d 698, 703 (7th Cir. 2003) . Discerning doctrine from discrimination is no task for

a judge or jury

. See Minker v. Balt. Annu al Conf. of Unit ed Methodist Church , 894 F.2d 1354, 1357 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ( noting, in a promotion claim , that “ [w]e cannot imagine an area of inquiry less suited to a temporal court for decision; evaluation of the20 No. 19-2142

‘gifts and graces’ of a minister must be left to ecclesiastical institutions”)

. And for good reason. “It is not to be supposed that thejudges of the civil courts can be as competent in the ecclesiastical law and religious faith of all these bodies as the ablest men in each are in reference to their own.” Watson , 80 U.S. at 729; see also Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments , in S ELECTED W RI TINGS OF J AMES M ADISON 21, 24 (R. Ketcham ed. 2006) ( stating the idea that a “Civil Magistrateis a competent Judge of Religious truth” is “an arrogant pretension” that has been “falsified”). To be sure, “[i]nteraction between church and state is inevitabl e.” Agostini , 521 U.S. at 233. But w hen a court adjudicates a minister’s hostile workenvironment claim based on the protected ministerial relationship, excessive entanglement results

. See Rayburn , 772 F.2d at 1171 (explaining that “[b]ureaucratic suggestion inemployment decisions of a pastoral character, in contravention of a church ’ s own perception of its needs and purposes, would constitute unprecedented entanglement with religious authority”)

. T he Supreme Cour t has held f ar less than intruding upon a minister’s work environment to be impermissible under the Establishment Clause

. Cf. , e.g. , Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe , 530 U. S. 290, 30 1–10 (2000) ( holding excessive entanglement when public school permitted students to say a prayer before football games)

. A religious organization should not be forced to choose between proffering a religious justification or risking legal liability

. See Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 194 –95. “In these sensitive areas, the state may no more require a minimum basis in doctrinal reasoning than it may supervise doctrinal content.” Rayburn , 772 F.2d at 1169 ; seeNo. 19-2142 21

also Lee v. Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church of Pittsburgh , 903 F.3d 113, 121 –22 (3d Cir. 2018) ( noting same)

. Informed by the Establishment Clause, the ministerial exception affords religious organizations protection from that choice. See Amos , 483 U.S. at 336 (“[ I]t is a significant burden on a religious organization to require it, on pain of substantial liability, topredict which of its activities a secular court will consider religious.”). To hold otherwise “misses the point of the ministerial exception.” Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 194. Under either Religion Claus e, procedural and practical problems abound when probing a minister’s work environment. True, religious organizations do not “enjoy a general immunity from secular laws.” Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2060 . The Supreme Court has noted that “[ t] he Es tablishment Clause does not exempt religious organizations from such secular governmental activity as fire inspections and building and zoning regulations .” Tony & Susan Alamo Found. v. Sec'y of Lab. , 471 U.S. 290, 305 (1985)

. For example, religious organi zations are not exempt from compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Id. at 306. A nd a s far as we can tell, no court has held that the ministerial exception protects against criminal or personal tort liability. N or do we. If a minister’s allegations rise to those levels, they may be independently actionable , as the protection of the ministerial exception inures to the religious organizations, not to the individuals within them

. But like the Fourth Circuit, we worry about a “protracted le gal process pitting church and state as adversaries.” Rayburn , 772 F.2d at 1171. Th is case’s history shows the prejudicial effects of incremental litigation : two motions to dismiss,
two su b sequent decisions and orders, the beginnings of22 No. 19-2142

discovery, an interlocutory appeal, a panel opinion, and now en banc rehearing. To defend against Demkovich’s claims without the ministerial exception, the church would likely have to rely on the affirmative defense described in Burlington Indus t ries , Inc. v. Ellerth , which “comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective op portunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” 524 U.S. 742, 765 (1998) (establishing the standard as proof by a preponderance of the evidence)

. Meeting this burden makes legally relevant “every step” that the church took (or failed to take) in internally respond ing to the alleged behavior of Reverend Dada , from the informal procedures of a church handbook to the ancient traditions of a canon tribunal

. Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church , 375 F.3d 951, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (Trott, J., dissenting). These “rules, policies, and decisions which are unmistakably of ecclesiastical cognizance” are “not the federal courts’ concern.” Natal v. Christian & Missionary All. , 878 F.2d 1575, 1577 (1st Cir. 1989). The ministerial exception ’s status as an affirmative defense makes some threshold inquiry necessary. See Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 195 n.4. At the same time, discovery to determine who is a minister differs materially from discovery to determine how that minister was treated, esp ecially because admissible evidence is only a subset of d iscoverable information

. See F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 26 (b)(1) . E ven
more onerous would be t he depositions of fellow ministers and the search for a subjective motive behind the alleged hostility . I t is this subjectivity that differentiates hostile work environment claim s from tort claim s , which seldom probe forNo. 19-2142 23

discriminatory animus. Tort liability

— unlike liability for employment discrimination claims

— generally does not arise as a direct result of the pr otected ministerial relationship. And nothing indicates that t he offensive and derogatory comments here bring about any claim other than for employment discrimination. A nalogies to tort law fail to recognize that a hostile work environment claim brings the entire ministerial relationship under invasive examination

. See Brief for The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, et al., as Amic i Curiae 7–8. Taken together , t hese concerns are at least in part why we must “stay out of employment disputes involving those holding certain important positions with churches and other religious institutions.” Our Lady of Guadalupe , 140 S. Ct. at 2060. Like the Religion Clauses, employment discrimination statutes serve “undoubtedly important” societal interests. Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 196. Yet “the very process of inquiry” in weighing these competing interests “may impinge on rights guaranteed by the Religion Clauses.” NLRB v. Cath

. Bishop of Chicago , 440 U.S. 490, 502 (1979). When the se interests conflict, as here, the ministerial exception must prevail. See, e.g. , Young v. Northern Ill. Conf. of United Methodist Church , 21 F.3d 184, 185 (7th Cir. 1994) (“In other words, in a direct clash of ‘ highest order ’ interests, the interest in protecting the free exercise of religion embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution prevails over the interest in ending discrimin ation embodied in Title VII.”). The dissent asserts that a balancing approach is best. Post at 14 –19. But a s the Court declared in Hosanna

- Tabor , “the First Amendment has struck the balance for us.” 565 U.S. at 196.24 No. 19-2142

C
Demkovich’s case is not our first enga gement with matters of ministerial employment

. This court ha s consistently recognized the importance of the ministerial exception and the protection it offers. In Young , we applied the ministerial exception to a Title VII clai m for denial of a promotion by a probationary minister. 21 F.3d at 187

– 88 (characterizing as “fruitless” theplaintiff’s argument “that Title VII may be applied to decisions by churches affecting the employment of their clergy”). In Tomic v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria , we did the same for an ADEA termination suit by a music director and organist . 442 F.3d 1036, 1040 –43 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that “[a religious employer] would not be constrained in its dealings with [its ministers] by employment laws that would interfere with the church’s internal management, including antidiscrimination laws” (collecting cases) ), abrogated in part on other grounds by Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 195 n.4. And i n Alicea

- Hernandez , w e dismissed under the ministerial exception a comm unications manager’s suit alleging , among other claims, Title VII retaliation

. 720 F.3d at 700, 703 –04 (“The ‘ministerial exception’ applies without regard to the type of claims being brought.”). Notably , e ach of these applications of the ministerial exception came before the Supreme Court’s holding in Hosanna

- Tabor

. W e continued to confirm the ministerial exception’s strength a fter its unanimous endorsement in that case. In Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc ., we applie d the ministerial exception to a n ADA termination claim by a teacher at Jewish day school. 882 F.3d 655, 657, 662 (7th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (describing Hosanna

- Tabor as “the Supreme Court adopt[ing] the ‘ministerial exception’ to employmentNo. 19-2142 25

discriminati on laws that the lower federal courts had been applying for years”) . In Sterlinski v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago , weheld the ministerial exception barred a Title VII claim for demotion and termination by another organist and music director. 934 F.3d 568, 569, 572 (7th Cir.) (noting that Hosanna

- Tabor “holds that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to ministers”) , as amended on denial of reh’g and reh’g en banc (Oct. 31, 2019 ). Although Demkovich’s appeal is our first encounter with the ministerial exception since Our Lady of Guadalupe , this decision is the next station on this journey. On a final note, w e acknowledge the split in the circuits on whether the ministerial exception covers hostile work environment claims. The Tenth Circuit holds that it does

. Skrzypczak v

. Roman Cath. Diocese of Tulsa , 611 F.3d 1238, 124 3– 4 6 (10th Cir. 2010)

. The Ninth Circuit holds that it does not , at least as a categorical matter. Compare Elvig , 375 F.3d at 969 , and Bollard v. Cal

. Province of the Soc’y of Jesus , 196 F.3d 940, 945–50 (9th Cir. 1999), with Werft v. Desert Sw. Annual Conf. of United Methodist Church, 377 F.3d 1099, 1101 –04 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)

. 5 T he church contends that the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits have also weighed in on this issue . B ut we are not sure the cases cited cleanly present ed hostile work environment claims

. See Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church , 203 F.3d 1299, 1300– 01 (11th Cir. 2000 ); Combs v. Cent. Tex

. Annual Conf. of United Methodist Church , 173 F.3d 343 , 350–51 (5th Cir. 1999) . R egardless of the dept h of the split , c ourts on either side recognized this court’s position before Demkovich’s suit

. See Skrz ypcz ak , 611 F.3d at 1245 (“[W]e

5 The dissent places great emphasis on the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Elvig and Bollard . We note that these cases predate the Supreme Court’s decisions in Our Lady of Guadalupe and Hosanna

- Tabor

.26 No. 19-2142

choose to follow the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Alicea

Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago , 320 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2003), which, in our opinion, is the better

- reasoned approach.”); Elvig , 375 F.3d at 960 n.4 (“The Seventh Circuit would perhaps sweep up Elvig’s claim within its blanketstatement that the ‘ministerial exception’ applies without regard to the type of claims being brought. Alicea

- Hernandez , 320 F.3d at 703.” ( alteration, internal quotation marks , and parenthet ical omitted)). In this decision, we remove any doubt as to where we st an d.
IV

T he First Amendment ministerial exception protects a religious organization’s employment relationship with its ministers, from hiring to firing and the supervising in between. Adjudicating a minister’s hostile work environment claim s based on interaction between ministers would undermine th is constitutionally protected relationship . It would also result in civil intrusion upon , and excessive entanglement with, the religious real m, departing from the teachings of Hosanna

- Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe

. Therefore, the ministerial exception precludes Demkovich’s hostile work environment claims against the church

. We R EVERSE the district court’s decision denying dismissal of Demkovich’s disability

- based hostile work environment claim , and we A FFIRM on different grounds its dismissal of his sex, sexual orientation, and marital status claim s. The case is R EMANDED with instructi ons to D ISMISS the state and federal claims.No. 19-2142 27

H AMILTON , Circuit Judge , joined by R OVNER and W OOD , Circuit Judges , dissenting

. The majority opinion decides a hard question but makes it look easy. The majority holds that the“ministerial exception” recognized in First Amendment doctrine bars any hostile environment employment claims by “ministerial employee s.” The majority tells us that the risks of unconstitutional intrusion and entanglement betwee n civil courts and faith communities are just too great to allow any such lawsuit. This bar will apply regardless of how severe, pervasive, or hostile the work environment is, regardless of whether the hostility is motivated by race, sex, national origin, disability, or age, and regardless of whether the hostility is tied to religious faith and practice. I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion makes the case look easy by scarcely acknowledg ing or engag ing with the arguments on the other side . It also d isregards the limits the Supreme Court imposed on its decision in Hosanna

- Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. E .E.O.C. , 565 U.S. 171 (2012) , where t he Court made clear it was deciding only that the ministerial exception applies to t erminations of ministers

. By focusing too much on religious liberty and too little on counterarguments and other interests, the majority opinion takes our circuit’s law beyond necessary protection of religious liberty . It instead creates for religious inst itutions a constitutional shelter from generally applicable laws , at the expense of the rights of employees

.We should instead stick with the panel’s more cautious approach to this relatively new and rare question. We should weigh competing interests case

- by

- case to protect both religious liberty and laws against employment discrimination. To show why th e hostile environment question is harder than the majority makes it appear and why the majority’s28 No. 19-2142

sweeping holding is not justified, this opinion proceed s a s follows. First, the Supreme Court has not decided the question we face. Second, the circuits and state courts are already divided on the question. Third, turning to the substance of the question, given other similar claims that civil courts may hear, the majority’s holding draws an oddly arbitrary line as a matter of constitutional law , barring only hostile environment claims . Fourth, the Ninth Circuit’s and our panel’s line between tangible employment actions and hostile environment claims is the line mo st congruent with the purpose s of theministerial exception. It allows churches ample power to select, control, and supervise their ministers while protecting employees from abuses that are not properly within the scope of anyone’s employment. Next , the Ni nth Circuit’s and panel’s allowance of hostile environment claims, subject to a
narrower, case

- by

- case balancing approach toward First Amendment issues , is more in harmony with the broader sweep of First Amendment precedents

— protecting religious liberty while not granting special privileges to churches at the expense of their employees except where necessary

. Finally, it is necessary to highlight the breadth of the majority’s holding and the consequences it may have

. 1. The Supreme Court has not decided this question. By taking broad quotations out of context, the majority opiniongives the impression that the Supreme Court has already decided th e question in th is case in Hosanna

- Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey

- Berru , 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020). It has not, and it has taken pains to say it has not.
In Hosanna

- Tabor , the Supreme Court first recognized the ministerial exception that every circuit had recognized

. The plaintiff in that case was a ministerial employee (a “called”No. 19-2142 29

teache r in a religious school) who had been fired to retaliat e against her for trying to assert her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the employer.
Hosanna

- Tabor said that the ministerial exception is not a statutory interpretation . It is an application of the FirstAmendment: “Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interf eres with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.” 565 U.S. at 188. The majority errs by disregarding the limits the Supreme Court put on its decision. The Court was working against the backdrop of more than a century of precedents of church encounters with civil authority. The Court was t herefore cautious in Hosanna

- Tabor , saying that it was not deciding the question we face here, which is whether the ministerial exception applies to suits that do not result from the firing of a ministerial employee:The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit. We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions byemployees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers

.30 No. 19-2142

565 U.S. at 19 6 (emphasis added) . Because Demkovich’samended complaint addresses only his treatment by his supervisor while he was employed and does not challenge his firing or any other tangible employment action , it falls squarely into the area that Hosanna

- Tabor exp ressly declined to reach. The majority here also quotes references in Our Lady of Guadalupe to a church’s “employment relationship” with its ministers. From these unqualified references, the majority seems to infer that Our Lady of Guadalupe drove past the guardrail in Hosanna

- Tabor without actually saying so. That’s a misreading of the opinion. Hosanna

- Tabor recognized theministerial exception for the first time in Supreme Court jurisprudence, but with the limits just noted. Our Lady of Guadalupe decided an apparent circuit split on how courts should decide who counts as a ministerial employee. The plaintiffs in the Our Lady of Guadalupe cases were teachers who had been fired from jobs with religious schools. The question the Court actually decided was that both teachers counted as ministerial employees so that they could not challenge their firings under employment discrimination laws. 1 40 S. Ct. at 2055. The question we face here, whetherthe ministerial exception should extend to hostile environment claims, was neither presented nor decided. Also, we already know that the First Amendment does not bar civil courts from all aspects of a m inister’ s employment relationship . I t has long been clear that civil courts may award damages for breaches of employment contract s. Jones v. Wolf , 443 U.S. 595, 606 (1979) (neutral principles may be applied to theNo. 19-2142 31

“ manner in which churches own property, hi re employees, or purchase goods”). 1

2. Circuits and state courts are split on the question before us

. Th e circuit split is a sign that the question before us is not as easy as the majority presents it. In applying the ministerial exception, t he Ninth Circuit ha s drawn a line between tangible employment actions and hostile environment claims. In Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus , 196 F.3d940 (9th Cir. 1999), plaintiff had been training for the priesthood. He alleged that his superiors subject ed him to sexual harassment so severe that he left the Jesuit order before taking vows as a priest. The district court dismissed under the then

emerging ministerial exception. Id. at 944. The Ninth Circuit reversed, emphasizing that the case did not presen t any challenge to “the Jesuit order’s choice of representative, a decision to which we would simply defer without further inquiry.” Id. at 947. The Jesuits also did not defend the alleged harassment as motivated by religious faith; the Jesuits condemned i t.

1 Ministers’ claims for breach of contract can present serious First Amendment issues, but the y are not barred categorically from civil courts. They call for case

- by

- case consideration of whether the claim may be decided without intruding into doctrinal or ecclesiastical territory. For illustrations of this approach, see, e.g., Petruska v. Gannon Univ. , 462 F.3d 294, 310

– 12 (3d Cir. 2006), and Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conf. of United Methodist Church , 894 F.2d 1354, 1359

– 61 (D.C. Cir. 1990). For treatments after Hosanna

- Tabor , see, e.g., Gregorio v. Hoover , 238 F. Supp. 3d 37, 48

– 49 (D.D.C. 2017); Kirby v. Lexington Theological Seminary , 426 S.W.3d 597, 615

– 21 (Ky. 2014); Sumner v. Simpson Univ. , 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207, 217

– 22 (Cal. App. 2018).32 No. 19-2142

The Ninth Circuit found that the Free Exercise Clause did not require the courts to deny relief on the hostile environment claim : The Free Exercise Clause rationale for protecting a church’s personnel decisions concerning its ministers is the necessity of allowing the church to choose its representatives using whatever criteria it deems relevant. That rationale does not apply here, for the Jesuits most certainly do not claim that allowing harassment to continue unrectified is a method of choosing their clergy. Because there is no protected

- choice rationale at issue, we intrude no further on church autonomy in allowing this case to proceed than we do, for example, in allowing parishioners’ civil suits against a church for the negligent supervision of mini sters who have subjected them to inappropriate sexual behavior.
196 F.3d at 947

– 48. A “generalized and diffuse concern” about church autonomy , the court added, was not enough to require dismissal. Id. at 948.
Bollard went on to consider the problem of ent anglement under the Establishment Clause. The court found there wouldbe no need to evaluate religious doctrine or the “reasonableness” of Jesuit practices. Id. at 950. Finding there would be no greater entanglement than in other private civil suits agains t a church, the Ninth Circuit found no constitutional barrier tothe sexual harassment claim that did not challenge any tangible employment action.No. 19-2142 33

The Ninth Circuit followed that same course in Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church , 375 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2004), and drew essentially the same line the panel drew here. The plaintiff was an ordained minister . She alleged that a senior minister sexually harassed her and , after she protested, retaliated against her. The district court dismissed. Following Bollard , the Ninth Circuit reversed in part. Th e plaintiff could not challenge any tangible employment decisions but could pursueher hostile environment claims, including damages for emotional distress and reputational harm. Id . at 953. 2
The Tenth Circuit took a different approach , expressly disagreeing with Bollard and Elvig in Skrzypczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa , 611 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2010), where the plaintiff was a ministerial employee and sued for sex discrimination, including both tangible emp loyment actions and a sexually hostile environment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims, reasoning as the majority does here that even the hostile environment claim would pose too great a threat of entanglement with religious matters. Id. at 1245.

3. The m ajority’s rule draws an odd, arbitrary line in constitutional law. The central thrust of the majority opinion

2 For other cases allowing ministerial employees to pursue hostile environment claims, see Dolquist v. Heartland Presbytery , 342 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1007 (D. Kan. 2004); Prince of Peace Lutheran Church v. Linklater , 421 Md. 664, 689, 28 A.3d 1171, 1185 ( 20 11); McKelvey v. Pierce , 173 N.J. 26, 55, 800 A.2d 840, 858 (2002); Van Osdol v. Vogt , 908 P.2d 1122, 1130 (Colo. 1996); Black v. Snyder , 471 N.W.2d 715, 720

– 21 (Minn. App. 1991). As for our decision in Alicea

- Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago , 320 F.3d 698 (7thCir. 2003), which some have mistakenly read as rejecting all hostile environment claims by ministerial employees, see the panel’s analysis of the

case. Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish, Calumet City , 973 F.3d 718, 724

– 26 (7th Cir. 2020).34 No. 19-2142

is that religious liberty will be undermined if churches are accountable in civil courts for what would otherwise be illegal discrimination against ministerial employees subjected to hostile work environments based on race, sex, disability, or national origin. To be clear, I agree that s uch cases raise serious concerns about protecting religious liberty, but defendants’ cries of doom call for a little more skepticism. C hurches and their leaders are already accountable in civil courts for many similar sorts of claims. Courts already navigate these
wat ers with more attention to nuance and less reliance on absolute immunitie s. Religious liberty still thrives. First, defendants and all member s of this court agree that employment discrimination laws may be enforced against churches on behalf of non

- ministe rial employees. Those employees may assert rights against churches for discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, and every other aspect of the employment relationship, including hostile environment claims. Second, defendants and all members of this c ourt agree that even ministerial employees may assert tort claims against supervising ministers and churches as institutions. On

- the

job conduct that supports statutory claims for hostile environment discrimination may also amount to torts, including assau lt and battery (when abuse is physical) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Third, defendants and all members of this court agree that supervising ministers may be subject to criminal law for crimes committed against church employees, includi ng ministerial employees.No. 19-2142 35

Fourth, defendants and all members of this court agree that churches and their ministers are subject to civil law

— including tort and criminal law

— for wrongs committed against parishioners and others

. For example, cases of ministe rs sexually abusing parishioners, especially children, have b ecome too familiar.
In each of these types of cases, there is some risk of burdening religious liberty and entangling civil and religious affairs. B ut the First Amendment does not categorically d efeat any of them

. Consider, for example, parish priests who sexually abused children and were transferred to other parishes. Investigations into tort and criminal liability of supervisors and churches as institutions cannot avoid looking into a church’s s upervision and control of a ministerial employee. D elicate legal questions may arise , but such investigations, civil suits, and even prosecutions may proceed. N o one here suggests that the First Amendment flatly prohibits the inquiries. Instead, if a special difficulty arises under the First Amendment, courts will deal with it.
I n this case, however, t he majority adopts a broad exception for any hostile environment claims by ministerial employees . That produces an oddly arbitrary line. I see no go od reason why the careful, case

- by

- case approach to First Amendment issues is appropriate in these other categories of cases but is intolerable in this one

. 3

3 The majority shrugs off the comparison to tort law with a surprising and unsupported assertion, that tort claims are not subjective and “seldom probe for discriminatory animus.” Ante at 22. State of mind is at the heart of tort law. Consider the great d ivide between intentional torts and negligent torts. See Prosser & Keeton, The Law of Torts § 8 (5th ed. 1984) (citing “intent” as “the key distinction between two major divisions of36 No. 19-2142

4. The line between tangible employment actions and hostile environments fits the purpose s of the ministerial exception. Defendants say this category of cases is special because of the central role of ministers and churches’ need to be able to select and supervise them. T hat need lies at the heart of the ministerial exception, as the Supreme Court exp lained in Hosanna

- Tabor and repeated in Our Lady of Guadalupe

. See, e.g., 565 U.S. at 195; 140 S. Ct. at 2060. But the defendants’ answer is too glib.

T he First Amendment question has never been what sorts of legal immunities might help churches. A s Bollard teaches , the question is whether this particular legal immunity “ is necessary to comply with the First Amendment.” 196 F.3d at 947

. After all, we are talking here about imposing constitutional restrictions on Congressional power to protect employee s from invidious discrimination based on race, sex, disability, or national origin. The government’s interest in preventing such discrimination has long been recognized as “compelling” for purposes of constitutional analysis , e .g., New York

legal liability

— negligence and intentional torts”). Even with non

intenti onal torts, state of mind is often critical in deciding about punitive damages or whether conduct has been reckless, wanton, or willful, for example. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 2, cmts. a & b (2010) ( summa riz ing differences among and significance of these states of mind ); Prosser & Keeton, § 2 (“Where the defendant’s wrongdoing has been intentional and deliberate, and has the character of outrage frequently associated with crime,” courts permit the award of punitive damages). The majority also declares that tort liability generally does not arise as a direct result of the protected ministerial relationship. Ante at 22. With respect, I am skeptical, given the role that a priest’s or other pastor’s power may play in, for example, sexual abuse of parishioners or subordinate ministers, or in inflicting emotional distress on a subordinate.No. 19-2142 37

State Club Ass’n v. City of New York , 487 U.S. 1, 14 n.5 (1988) , and one that Congress considered a policy “of the highest priority.” Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc

. , 390 U.S. 400, 402 & n.3 (1968), citing committee reports on what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964

. To answer whether this additional immunity from hostile environment claims is necessary , we should start with powers that are undisputed : the powers churches already have to select and control their ministers , free of constraints from employment discrimination and other laws. Hiring, firing, promoting, retiring, transferring

— these are decisions that employers, including religious organizations, make to s elect those who carry out their work. The latent power to take such actions offers other tools for control. F urther control is available through many other tangible employment actions, including decisions about compensation , benefits, working conditions, resources available to do the job, training, support from other staff and volunteers , and so on. Employment discrimination law is built on the recogni tion that employers have these powers to control their employees

. As the Supreme Court explained in Ellerth : “Tangible employment actions are the means by which the supervisor brings the official power of the enterprise to bear on subordinates” and require “an official act of the enterprise.” Burlington Industries , Inc. v. Ellerth , 524 U.S. 742, 762 (1998). Control is the very point of those powers . As Ellerth explained , that’s why employers are held accountable for these tangible decisions when manager s make them with an unlawful purpose. Id

. Hostile environment claims, w hile they may arise under the same statutes, involve quite different elements and special38 No. 19-2142

rules for employer liability. The differences show t hat religious employer s do not need exemptio n from such claims to be able to select, supervise, or control their ministers.
Hostile environment claims , which are essentially tortious in nature , are by definition based on actions that are not necessary for effective supervision of employees . See Elle rth , 524 U.S. at 756 –57; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 793– 94 (1998) . In general, “sexual harassment by a supervisor isnot conduct within the scope of employment,” so the employer cannot be held liable for that conduct. Ellerth , 524 U.S. at 757. However, “an employer can be liable, nonetheless, where its own negligence is a cause of the harassment,” id. at759, or where the supervisor takes tangible employment action against the employee

. Id. at 760−61; accord, Faragher , 524 U.S. at 789 –90. I f no tangible employment action is taken , t hese rules treat harassment as a tort committed by a supervisor against an employee but acting outside the scope of the supervisor’s employment

. Defendants here argue in effect that their power as employers to take tangible employment actions against ministerial employees does not give them enough power to select , supervise, and control those employees. But the Supreme Court’s leading case on the subject teaches that a hostile work

en vironment , by definition, simply is not a permissible meansof exerting (constitutionally protected) “control” over employees and accomplishing the mission of the business or religious organization. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993). The conduct plaintiff alleges here is classic tortious harassment under Harris , Ellerth , Faragher , Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson , 477 U.S. 57, 65−66 (1986), and countlessNo. 19-2142 39

other cases in the lower courts : his supervisor allegedly subjected him to a ca mpaign of verbal abuse based on his sex, sexual orientation, and disabilities, ultimately interfering with his job performance and mental and physical health. Or so we must assume here on the pleadings

. 4 An employer ’ s need and right to control employees

s hould not embrace harassing behavior that the Supreme Court has defined in numerous cases as conduct that “unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris , 510 U.S. at 23. The notion that such harassment is somehow necessary to control or supervise an employee is, under employment discrimination law, an oxymoron. The majority tells us , however, that hostile environment claims by ministerial employees threaten religious lib erty because they will cast a shadow over a supervisory minister’s “counseling” of a wayward subordinate. With respect, n either defendants nor the majority have identified any cases actually challenging counseling or good

- faith supervision in the decades t hat such cases might have been brought. T he suggestion that federal courts cannot tell the difference between pastoral counseling , even with “tough love” or “stern counseling” as the majority puts it, and torrents of the most vile and abusive epithets aimed at race, sex, sexual orientation, and disability does not give sufficient credit to the federal courts. Courtshave been protecting religious liberty for generations by policing lines far more subtle than the one that worries defendants and the majority in this case.

4 As this appeal comes to us, we must also assume that plaintiff would be able to show a basis for employer liability, as the panel opinion noted. Demkovich , 97 3 F.3d at 723.40 No. 19-2142

5. The majority departs from a long practice of carefully balancing civil law and religious liberty. A pplication of employment discrimination laws, including in hostile environment claims, poses some risk of “entanglement” between civil power and churches. See Bollard , 196 F.3d at 948 –49; Elvig , 375 F.3d at 956 –57 . B ut that recognition should be only the beginning of the analysis, not the end. S ee generally Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 233 (1997) (“Interaction between church andstate is inevitable, ... . Entanglement must be ‘excessive’ before it runs afoul of the Establishment Clause.”). W here faith communities encounter civil law, American courts have a long history of b alancing the powerful interests on both sides
to protect religious freedom while enforcing other important legal rights. The problem here is particularly sensitive , involving tension between the freedom of religion and employees’ rights to be free from inv idious discrimination

.The cases speak of both procedural and substantive entanglement. Defendants a rgue that both are inevitable here. Yet

c ourts have relatively little experience with hostile environment claims by ministerial employees against religious employers. Perhaps defendants’ predictions of intolerable abuses and intrusions may come true. Yet i n more than twenty years , t hey have not in the Ninth Circuit

. Until shown otherwise, I believe courts can manage a balance that respects the rights of both churches and their employees. Procedural entanglement may result from “ a protracted legal process pitting church and state as adversaries,” in which the religious organization would be subjected to “the full panoply of legal process designed to probe the mind of the church,” including “far

- reaching” remedies and “continued court surveillance of the church’s policies andNo. 19-2142 41

decisions” even after final judgment. Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh

- Day Adventists , 772 F.2d 1164, 1171 ( 4 th Cir. 1985). Subst antive entanglement occurs “where the Government is placed in a position of choosing among competing religious visions.” E.E.O.C. v. Catholic University of America , 83 F.3d 455, 465 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quotation marks omitted). The potential for procedural entanglement does not justify

a categorical rule against a ll hostile environment claims by ministerial employees. R eligious employers have long been subject to employment discrimination suits by their non

ministerial employees. T he processes of civil litigation can be intrusive , of course ; n o employer welcome s them. But civil litigation of such claims against religious employers has not been deemed a sufficient basis to require dismissal. Tort, contract, and property cases are n ot barred categorically. Procedural entanglement is not necessarily any more a concern with hostile environment claims by ministerial employees than with claims by non

- ministerial employees

. These cases are no more suitable for a one

- size

- fits

- all prohibition

. On the subject of procedural entanglement, Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc. , 477 U.S. 619 (1986) , weighs against the majority’s broad rule . A state civilrights commission started to investigate allegations that a religi ous school discriminated against a teacher because of her sex. As in the later Hosanna

- Tabor case, th e teacher had agreed in her contract to resolve disputes within the church itself. Theschool ultimately fired her for complaining to the state government to start a civil investigation, contrary to this commitment. Id. at 623.42 No. 19-2142

The school sought a federal injunction against the state investigation based on what we would now call entanglement,arguing “that any investigation of [the school’s] hiring process or any imposition of sanctions for [its] nonrenewal or termination decisions would violate the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.” Id. at 624 –25. The Supreme Court rejectedthe claim, holding that the district court should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny. 477 U.S. at 625. Noting that “[e]ven religious schools cannot claim to be wholly free from some state regulation,” the Court had “no doubt that the elimination of prohibited sex discrimination is a sufficiently important state interest” to justify Younger abstention and also had “no reason to doubt that [the school] will receive an adequate opportunity to raise its constitutional claims” in state proceedings. Id. at 628. Dayton Christian Schools signals that an investigation of such an allegation ofdiscrimination does not threaten unconstitutional entanglement to the extent that the investigation must be shut down before it begins.
That result is consistent with the broader land scape of litigation in civil courts involving churches. The Catholic Church has itself faced extensive litigation over torts committed by clergy in recent years . That litigation has inquired

— sometimes deeply

— into the relationships between clergy and parish ioners and into the Church’s supervision and disciplinary practices in dealing with priests suspected of having sexual ly abused children

. The First Amendment does not bar such claims or the necessary investigations . See, e.g., Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. , 196 F.3d 409, 430

– 32 (2d Cir. 1999); Malicki v. Doe , 814 So. 2d 347, 351

–No. 19-2142 43

57 & n.2 (Fla. 2002) (collecting cases); see also Elvig , 375 F.3d at 959 (allowing minister’s hostile work environment claim based on sexual harassment to go forward where allegations would require only “a purely secular inquiry” and would not require court to pass on issues of religious doctrine). Accordingly, t he potential for procedural entanglement should not bar plaintiff’s claims here ent irely. Courts can and should deal with procedural entanglement problems as they arise , not close the courthouse to the entire category of cases.The more difficult problems arise here in terms of potential substantive entanglement

. Again, though, w e n eed to keep in mind that some entanglement is “ inevitable ” and that only “excessive” entanglement violates the First Amendment

. Agostini , 521 U.S. at 233. C ourts have managed potential entanglement problems in church litigation across a range ofsubjects, from contracts and property disputes to employment disputes, torts, and church elections and schisms. The general parameters are familiar. C ivil court s must notdecide questions of correct faith and practice, such as deciding which of two rival g roups seeking control of church property has the better theological or doctrinal arguments. At the same time, civil courts sometimes must decide questions of property, contract, tax, or tort law in cases involving churches. T hey may do so if they avoid iss ues of faith and stick to applying neutral, secular principles of law. In some cases, that approach has led civil courts to leave churches alone. E.g., N.L.R.B. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago , 440 U.S. 490, 503 (1979) (interpreting statute to deny NLRB juri sdiction over lay teachers in church schools) ; Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the U.S.A. v. Milivojevich , 42 6 U.S. 696,44 No. 19-2142

708– 09 (1976) (reversing state court decision that set aside decisions of “mother church” defrocking bishop, dividing diocese, and amending diocese constitutions) ; PresbyterianChurch in the U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church , 393 U.S. 440, 449 (1969) (reversing state

- court decision in property dispute that had been based on court’s assessment of church doc trine) ; Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America , 344 U.S. 94, 120

– 21 (1952) (striking down state statute transferring administrative control of church from Russian hierarchy to leader of United States branch)

. These are the cases that drive the majority’s conclusions here. In other cases, however, civil law may be applied to churches without intolerable burdens on religious liberty. E.g., Hernandez v. Comm ’ r of Internal Revenue , 490 U.S. 680, 695

– 700 (1989) ( affirming denial of charitable deductions for “gifts” to church where quid pro quo exchange for services was clear); Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Sec’y of Labor , 471 U.S. 290, 305 (1985) (permitting application of Fair Labor Standards Act to religious employer); Bob Jones University v. United States , 461 U.S. 574 (1983) (affirming denial of university’s tax

- exempt status based on racial discrimination said to be based on religious doctrine); Wolf , 443 U.S. at 602–04 (resolving property dispute between rival factions of local church based on neutral principles ). In all of these cases there was some risk or degree of entanglement, but the Supreme Court deemed it tol erable. If we consider the full sweep of thecase law, rather than just one side of it, we see a need for balance and nuance, not new absolute rules in constitutional law.No. 19-2142 45

In this case, p laintiff is not asking the court to pass on the substance of the Cath olic Church’s religious doctrines or practices. Civil courts have nothing to say about whether the Church should permit same

- sex marriage, for example, or whether the Church should have a hierarchical supervisory structure. The Church was free to decide wh ether to retain plaintiff or fire him. But plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims allege conduct that constituted abuse under neutral, generally applicable standards that would be enforceable on behalf of a non

- ministerial employee

. That conduct is, b y definition, not necessary to control or supervise any employee. As in cases applying secular legal rules to torts, contracts, or property di sputes , I would hold that courts may apply secular hostile

- environment law to actions taken toward all employees , including ministers , absent a showing that the circumstances of the particular case will require excessive entanglement between civil and religious realms.

6. Consequences and Stakes

. Finally, it is important to look past the abstractions about religious liberty and past the factual details of this case . W e should consider the full range of facts that might prompt ministerial employees to bring hostile environment claims that the majority now bars

. We know that people who exercise authority within churches can be all too human. C asebooks and news reports tell us of cases of sexual harassment by ministers, sometimes directed at parishioners, sometimes at non

- ministerial employees, and sometimes at other (typically less senior) ministers. Elvig is just one example. 375 F.3d at 953 –54. See also the cases cited in footnote 2, above. As noted in the panel majority, 973 F.3d at 730 –31 , w ithin this circuit alone, hostile environment claims have been46 No. 19-2142

brought against other types of employers on the basis of highly disturbing facts. E.g., Gates v. Board of Education , 916 F.3d 631, 637

– 39 (7th Cir. 2019) (plaintiff subjected to repeated use of vicious racial epithets; collecting a number of other

cas es in which racial and sex

- based abuse constituted a hostile work environment) ; Smith v. Rosebud Farm, Inc. , 898 F.3d 747, 749– 50 (7th Cir. 2018) (plaintiff subjected to four years of groping, mimed sex acts, and racial slurs; threatened with meat cleaver s and h ad tires slashed after report ing workplace abuse to supervisor); Porter v. Erie Foods Int ’ l, Inc. , 576 F.3d 629, 635 (7th Cir. 2009) ( Black employee repeatedly had noose left at his work station and suffered violent intimidation in the workplace ); Cerros v. Steel Technologies, Inc. , 288 F.3d 1040 , 1042–43 (7th Cir. 2002) (Latino plaintiff subjected to horrific racial harassment stemming from supervisors ’ explicit embrace of philosophy that “ if it ain’t white it ain’t right” ); Brooms v. R egal Tube Co. , 881 F.2d 412, 417 (7th Cir. 1989) ( supervisor repeatedly showed racist pornography to employee, threatened to force her to engage in bestiality, and threatened to kill her ); Henderson v. Irving Materials, Inc. , 329 F. Supp. 2d 1002 , 1009 –10 (S.D. Ind. 2004) (Black plaintiff terrorized by co

workers with tacit approval by supervisors)

. In brief s and oral argument, defendants have acknowledged that a religious employer could be held civilly liable for a supervisor’s criminal or tortious conduct toward a ministerial employee, or for the pattern of racial abuse and harassment described in Porter . Such cases would not violate the supervisor’s or t he employer’s First Amendment rights. If criminal or tort cases do not, then it is hard to see why a statutory case based on the same conduct would necessarily violate theNo. 19-2142 47

First Amendment, whether or not the supervisor claims a religious motive. See, e.g., Elvig , 375 F.3d 951 ; Bollard , 196 F.3d 940.
Given that the ministerial exception is driven by constitutional necessity, see Hosanna

- Tabor , 565 U.S. at 188; Bollard , 196 F.3d at 947, it is difficult for me to conclude that the First Amendment require s immu nity where supervisors and co

workers of ministerial employees, for example, leave nooses at the desk of a Black minister while repeatedly subjectinghim to verbal abuse with racial epithets and symbols, or subject one teacher to pervasive and unwelcome se xual attention,or subject another to intimidating harassment based on national origin. Such harassment simply is not necessary to “control” ministerial (or any other) employees. We may allhope that such extreme allegations against religious organizations would be very rare. Yet the majority’s holding today will put even this sort of extreme conduct beyond the reach of employment discrimination statutes. From a practical standpoint, t he majority’s decision also raises the stakes for future decisions about who should be deemed a “ministerial” employee. Here we deal with alleged abuse of a music minister by a parish priest of the CatholicChurch, two men surely at the core of the ministerial exception. Yet many employers with religious affiliations , such as hospitals and schools, are trying to expand the reach of the ministerial exception to cover a much broader range of their employe es , such as teachers , nurses , and other health

- care workers

. Hosanna

- Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe both involved schools and teachers, of course. Lawyers for such employers have been offering public advice about how to try to expand the reach of the ministerial48 No. 19-2142

exception as far as possible. One group advises, for example: “by distributing religious duties to as many staff members as is reasonably appropriate, a religious organization can increase the perception that employees who have those duties are ministers

. Assigning employees responsibilities in prayer and devotions, including leading staff devotional studies, or responsibilities to provide congregational/member care, move those employees toward the ‘ minister ’ end of the spectrum.” Donn C. Meindertsma, Employment Law for Ministries , Conner Winters (Mar. 2019), https://www.cwlaw.com/newsletters

- 40 ( last visited Ju ly 8 , 2021) (emphasis added). Another group advises that all employee agreements and handbooks state that the “organization’s core mission includes the promotion, development, or education of religion,” and that “Employees of the organization have a vital duty to aid in the promotion and development of the organization’s co re mission.” Gordon Behr, Hiring and Firing in Religious Organizations: The Ministerial Exception , MauckBaker (Sept. 8, 2020) , https://www.mauckbaker.com/post/hiring

- and

- firing

- in

religious

- organizations

- the

- ministerial

- exception ( last visited Ju ly 8 , 2021).
Consistent with these efforts
, in other cases religious employers have invoked the ministerial exception more broadly than seems reasonable. Th e following cases rejected such efforts , but the efforts show the hydraulic pressure being applied. E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Publishing Assoc ., 676 F.2d 1272, 1278 (9th Cir. 1982) (abrogated on other grounds) (editorial secretary at religious publishing company); Goodman v. Archbishop Curley High Sch. , 149 F. Supp. 3d 577, 586 n.5 (D. Md. 2016) (school libraria n); Herx v. Diocese of Ft. Wayne -S outh Bend , 48 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1177 (N.D. Ind. 2014) (language artsNo. 19-2142 49

teacher at Catholic school who did not lead religious observance and who was deemed a “lay teacher”), appeal dismissed, 7 7 2 F.3d 1085 (7th Cir. 2014); D avis v. Baltimore Hebrew Congregation , 985 F. Supp. 2d 701, 711 (D. Md. 2013) (facilities manager and janitor for synagogue); Dias v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati , 2012 WL 1068165, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2012) (computer teacher at Catholic high school who was not a Catholic and was barred f rom teaching Catholic doctrine). Also, ofcourse, federal courts are familiar with cases of doctors sexually harassing nurses and principals sexually harassing teachers. The combination of the majority’s holding in this

c ase with efforts to expand the categories of employees deemed “ministerial” threatens to leave many without basic legal protection of their dignity and employment.

* * *
The hostile environment claims before us present a conflict between two of the highest values in our society and legal system: religious liberty and non

- discrimination in employment. The Supreme Court has not answered this question, nor doesthe First Amendment itself. Circuits and state courts are divided. For the reasons explained above and in the panel majority, I submit that t he majority’s absolute bar to statutory hostile environment claims by ministerial employees is not necessary to protect religious liberty or to serve the purposes of the ministerial exception. The majority’s reasoning also stands in tension with the other categories of similar cases that may proceed in civil courts. I would allow plaintiff to pursue his hostile environment claims w ith the understanding that the district court should intervene if the specific case poses a serious threat to religious liberty.