Opinion ID: 718187
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The EEOC and the District Court Proceedings

Text: 18 Sister McDonough filed discrimination charges against Catholic University with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on January 18, 1990. After a two-year investigation and failed efforts at conciliation, the EEOC joined Sister McDonough in instituting this action in which they allege that, in denying Sister McDonough's application for tenure, Catholic University engaged in sex discrimination and retaliatory conduct in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 19 The case went to trial on November 3, 1993, and was concluded one week later. What emerged as the critical factual issue was whether the University's stated reasons for denying tenure, namely, Sister McDonough's marginal performance in teaching and scholarly publications, were pretextual. In order to establish that they were, Sister McDonough introduced testimony comparing her performance with that of the two most recent applicants to be granted tenure in the Department of Canon Law, both of whom were men. This comparison largely focused on the quantity of her publications and the quality of her scholarship as reflected in them. 20 During the presentation of evidence, Judge Oberdorfer expressed his uneasiness at sitting on the qualifications of an expert in canon law and suggested that the line of inquiry was getting awful[ly] close to entangling the government and the judiciary in religious matters. Nov. 4, 1993 Trial Transcript at 9-10, J.A. 199. See also Nov. 5, 1993 Trial Transcript at 147, J.A. 240 (I've got to pass on people's judgment about colleagues in a religious setting ... and when I hear this ... aggressive examination of a priest about what is at least partly his clerical duties, I've got a problem.). Shortly thereafter, he asked the parties to submit briefs on whether he had the constitutional authority to hear the case. 21 After reviewing the parties' submissions and hearing oral argument, Judge Oberdorfer dismissed the case without reaching the merits. He concluded that the application of Title VII to [the facts and relationships] would violate both the Free Exercise and the Establishment Clauses.... Catholic University, 856 F.Supp. at 9. Specifically, he found that Sister McDonough's primary role in the Department of Canon Law was the functional equivalent of the task of a minister, id. at 10, and concluded that the Free Exercise Clause precludes review of this employment decision. Id. at 11. He also held that the Establishment Clause barred adjudication of Sister McDonough's claims on the ground that [a] judicial evaluation of the 'quality' of [her] canon law scholarship would constitute[,] and the prolonged monitoring and investigation by the EEOC has constituted[,] excessive entanglement with religion.... Id. at 12. 22 In their appeal from the district court's order, appellants make a number of arguments, of which the following warrant analysis: (1) the ministerial exception relied on by the district court has been discredited by the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division, Dep't of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990); (2) even if the exception remains valid, it does not apply to the facts of this case; and (3) because the district court was not required to address any religious issues, the case could not have posed a risk of undue governmental entanglement with religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.