Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-267_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 52

16 

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL v. 
MORRISSEY-BERRU 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

24.  For one thing, the Court discusses evidence from only
Morrissey-Berru’s case (not Biel’s).7  For another, the Court 
invokes  the  disputed  deposition  testimony  of  a  school  ad-
ministrator  while  ignoring  record  evidence  refuting  that
characterization  and  suggesting  that  Morrissey-Berru
never completed the full catechist training program.  See, 
e.g., Excerpts of Record in No. 17–56624 (CA9), at 41–42, 
44–45, 67.  Although the Archdiocese does confer titles and 
holds  a  formal  “Catechist  Commissioning”  every  Septem-
ber, id., at 42, 45, the record does not suggest that either
teacher here was so commissioned.  In relying on disputed
factual  assertions,  the  Court’s  blinkered  approach  com-
pletely disregards the summary-judgment standard.

Second  (and  further  undermining  the  schools’  claims),
neither teacher had a “significant degree of religious train-
ing” or underwent a “formal process of commissioning.”  Ho-
sanna-Tabor, 565 U. S., at 191; cf. Excerpts of Record in No. 
17–56624 (CA9), at 42 (identifying similarly formal train-
ing  and  commissioning  process  within  the  Catholic 
Church).  Nor  did  either  school  require  such  training  or 
commissioning as a prerequisite to gaining (or keeping) em-
ployment.  In  Biel’s  case,  the  record  reflects  that  she  at-
tended a single conference that lasted “four or five hours,” 
briefly  discussed  “how  to  incorporate  God  into  . . .  lesson 
plans,” and otherwise “showed [teachers] how to do art and 
make little pictures or things like that.”  App. 262.  Notably, 
all  elementary  school  faculty  attended  the  conference,  in-
cluding the computer teacher.  Id., at 261–263.  In turn, Our 
Lady of Guadalupe did not ask Morrissey-Berru to undergo 

—————— 

7 In Biel’s case, the Court cites a page from St. James School’s “Staff 
Guidelines and Responsibilities” setting out “ ‘expect[ations]’ ” and a dec-
laration by the school principal about required attendance at a teacher 
conference.  See ante, at 24, n. 28.  Neither shows as a matter of law that 
Biel was a “catechist” or that formal religious training was a prerequisite
to her position.  See infra, this page and 17.