Court Opinion

ID: 9559288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:25:45.235935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:32.103781
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice VOLLACK
dissenting:
The majority holds that the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution deprive Colorado courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate Van Osdol’s (the petitioner) Title VII claim against the United Churches of Religious Science (UCRS), Mile Hi Church of Religious Science (Mile Hi), and Hugh Frederick Vogt (Vogt) (collectively referred to as the respondents). I dissent because the First Amendment does not preclude Van Os-dol’s claim.
I.
The facts alleged in the petitioner’s amended complaint are as follows.1 Respondent Vogt is a past president of the United Churches of Religious Science (UCRS), and a previous member of the UCRS governing board, the “Ecclesiastical Committee.” Vogt also has a television ministry which is viewed widely throughout the state of Colorado. Additionally, Vogt is the Senior Minister of the Mile High Church of Religious Science.
In 1968, Vogt married Van Osdol’s mother, now known as June Kelly. Vogt thus became Van Osdol’s stepfather. Between 1968 and 1975, when Van Osdol was a minor, Vogt subjected Van Osdol to repeated sexual abuse and unlawful sexual contact, causing Van Osdol emotional distress. The sexual abuse continued until Van Osdol left home in 1975. Van Osdol did not realize that the sexual abuse perpetrated on her by Vogt was the cause of her emotional distress until she began psychotherapy in 1992.
In May of 1991, Van Osdol was employed by the UCRS as a minister in Renton, Washington. Later that year, she relocated to Denver and proposed to the Ecclesiastical Committee of the UCRS (the Committee) that the UCRS open a new church in south metropolitan Denver. In May of 1992, the Committee informed Van Osdol that they had approved her proposal to open a new church. At the same time, Van Osdol assumed the position of Novitiate Minister with UCRS.
In June of 1992, Van Osdol informed Reverend Kay Hunter, a vice president of UCRS, that Vogt had subjected a female parishioner and female employees to sexual harassment. Also in June of 1992, Van Osdol informed the Committee that Vogt had sexually abused her when she was a minor. Van Osdol sought the assistance of the Committee in obtaining payment from Vogt for Van Osdol’s therapeutic treatment.
Later in June, 1992, Vogt wrote to members of the Committee, denying the charges of sexual assault made by Van Osdol, and asking that the UCRS undertake an investigation of Van Osdol. On August 4, 1992, a member of the Committee met with Van Osdol for the purpose of investigating charges that Van Osdol had made false statements regarding Vogt. About a week later, the Committee met and voted to rescind Van Osdol’s novitiate license and to terminate her *1137as a minister with the UCRS. Subsequently, the UCRS notified Van Osdol by letter that the UCRS was rescinding her “pre-church and novitiate license” and that her employment as a minister with the UCRS was terminated.
In March of 1993, Van Osdol filed the instant action against the respondents, alleging: (1) illegal retaliation by the UCRS in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; (2) breach of fiduciary duty against UCRS and Mile Hi; (3) interference with prospective economic advantage by UCRS, Mile Hi, and Vogt; (4) intentional interference with contract by Mile Hi and Vogt; (5) breach of contract against UCRS; (6) promissory estoppel against UCRS; (7) battery against Vogt; (8) assault against Vogt; (9) outrageous conduct against UCRS, Mile Hi, and Vogt; (10) breach of fiduciary duty by Vogt; (11) negligent hiring against UCRS and Mile Hi; (12) negligent supervision against UCRS and Mile Hi; and (13) negligent retention against UCRS and Mile Hi.
The trial court, inter alia, granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the claims for retaliation, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with economic advantage, interference with contract, and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. The trial court held that it lacked jurisdiction, pursuant to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, to review the decisions of a church and its officials.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the above claims. The court of appeals held that, in order to adjudicate Van Osdol’s retaliation claim,
the trial court would be forced to inquire into the good faith of the position asserted by the UCRS officers in revoking Van Osdol’s license and ministry to determine whether their actions were retaliatory in nature, and this type of inquiry is prohibited under the First Amendment.
Van Osdol v. Vogt, 892 P.2d 402, 405-06 (Colo.App.1994). Van Osdol then petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari. We granted certiorari to determine: (1) Whether the First Amendment precludes a court from exercising jurisdiction over a minister’s tort and Title VII claims against her church and another minister; and (2) whether the “fraud” and “collusion” exceptions to the First Amendment defense are viable claims when a minister is discharged in retaliation for reporting misconduct of another minister.
II.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addresses discrimination in the employment context. Section 703 of Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to
fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l) (1988). Furthermore, section 704 of Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who participates in proceedings pursuant to Title VII, or who opposes practices made unlawful by Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). In interpreting Title VII, the Supreme Court has held that the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex encompasses sexual harassment. Meritor Savs. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2404, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986).
Section 702 of Title VII exempts religious institutions from the religion provision contained in section 703. That section provides:
This subchapter shall not apply ... to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-l. Although this section allows religious institutions to make employment decisions on the basis of religious preference, Title VII does not permit religious organizations to make such decisions on the basis of race, sex, color, or national origin. Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventhday Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164, 1166-67 (4th *1138Cir.1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020, 106 S.Ct. 3333, 92 L.Ed.2d 739 (1986).
The legislative history of section 702 clarifies that Congress intended that religious employers only be exempted from the portion of section 703 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. Congress considered and rejected a provision that would have wholly excluded religious employers from the scope of Title VII in favor of the narrower exemption now contained in the statute. McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553, 558 (5th Cir.) (citing 110 Cong. Rec. 12818), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 896, 93 S.Ct. 132, 34 L.Ed.2d 153 (1972). Thus, it is clear that Congress intended to subject even religious employers to Title VIPs prohibition on discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, or national origin. Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1167.
In order to state a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that she engaged in an activity protected by Title VII; (2) that an adverse employment action occurred; and (3) that there was a causal connection between the participation in the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Ray v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 63 F.3d 429 (5th Cir.1995). Once the plaintiff establishes her pri-ma facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate nonretaliatory reason for its adverse actions. Id. If the defendant satisfactorily discharges this burden, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s articulated reasons are pretextual, and that, “but for” her protected actions, she would not have been subject to the adverse treatment. Id. The burden of persuasion lies with the plaintiff at all times. See Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1095, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).
Although it is clear that Congress intended to subject religious employers to Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, or national origin, the majority holds that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbid a minister from bringing such an action against her church. I disagree.
III.
I would hold that the trial court may properly exercise jurisdiction over the petitioner’s Title VII claim without offending the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. In analyzing the issue of whether a statute or regulatory scheme may appropriately be applied against a religious institution, courts have looked either to the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, or a combination of the two. While I believe that Free Exercise Clause analysis presents the soundest approach to this inquiry,2 I would reach the same result under either of the Religion Clauses. I will thus present my views under both clauses, addressing the Free Exercise approach first.
A.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states in pertinent part: *1139“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof_” The focal point of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is the right of the individual to choose his own course with regard to religious affairs without compulsion from the state. Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1571, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963); Americans United for Separation of Church and State Fund, Inc. v. State, 648 P.2d 1072, 1078 (Colo.1982).3 However, the concept embraced by the Free Exercise Clause, freedom to act, is not absolute. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-04, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940); Moses v. Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310, 319 (Colo.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2153, 128 L.Ed.2d 880 (1994). “Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 303-04, 60 S.Ct. at 903; Moses, 863 P.2d at 319.
Along these same lines, it is well established that the Free Exercise Clause does not grant churches broad immunity from being sued in civil courts. Moses, 863 P.2d at 320; Destefano v. Grabrian, 763 P.2d 275, 284 n. 9 (Colo.1988); cf. Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Schs., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 628, 106 S.Ct. 2718, 2723, 91 L.Ed.2d 512 (1986) (“[Ejven religious schools cannot claim to be virtually free from some state regulation.”). We have recently stated that “Application of a secular standard to secular conduct that is tortious is not prohibited by the Constitution.” Moses, 863 P.2d 310, 320 (citing Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990)). Similarly, the Supreme Court has recently opined that even religiously motivated conduct is not immune from neutral laws of general applicability. Smith, 494 U.S. at 885-86, 110 S.Ct. at 1603-04.
Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Smith, the standard universally applied to determine whether a challenged governmental action was permissible under the Free Exercise Clause was that articulated by the Court in Sherbert v. Ver-ner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963). The Sherbert Court held that a challenged governmental action would only withstand constitutional challenge if it
represents no infringement by the State of [the petitioner’s] constitutional rights of free exercise, or because any incidental burden on the free exercise of [the petitioner’s] religion may be justified by a “compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the State’s constitutional power to regulate.”
Id. at 403, 83 S.Ct. at 1793. More recently, in Smith, the Court articulated the Sherbert test as follows:
Under the Sherbert test, governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
Smith, 494 U.S. at 883, 110 S.Ct. at 1602.
This court, in Young Life v. Division of Employment and Training, 650 P.2d 515 (Colo.1982), interpreted the Sherbert standard as follows:
[A]ctions taken in accord with religious belief may be subject to incidental burdens imposed by government.... In eases where a significant conflict between permissible goals of the state and. religious practices exist, a balancing test is used to measure whether the state has exceeded its constitutional power. In order to outweigh a substantial burden on religiously motivated activity, the state aim involved must be compelling and the state action must be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal.
Id. at 524.
Reading these formulations together, I would conclude that the following statements were valid in Colorado before Smith: (1) A challenged governmental action will be upheld under the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution if the action does not burden a religious practice of an individual or religious entity; and (2) A challenged governmental action will be struck down as violative of the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution if the action creates any incidental burden on a religious *1140practice of an individual or religious entity that is not justified by a compelling governmental interest, or is not the least restrictive means for accomplishing that interest.
In Smith, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sherbert compelling interest test does not apply to generally applicable criminal laws. The Court stated that “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’ ” Smith, 494 U.S. at 879, 110 S.Ct. at 1600 (citing United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263 n. 3, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 1059 n. 3, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 (1982) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 595, 60 S.Ct. 1010, 1013, 84 L.Ed. 1375 (1940)).
The Supreme Court’s holding in Smith infused considerable uncertainty into Free Exercise Clause analysis. One way it did so was by not overruling Sherbert but only limiting the vitality of the standard contained therein. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 884-85, 110 S.Ct. at 1603 (limiting Sherbert only by holding that it does not apply to challenges of across-the-board criminal prohibitions on particular forms of conduct). Thus, courts are now provided no clear guidance in determining whether the Sherbert or Smith standard applies in the variety of situations not addressed by the Smith court.4
In the instant case, however, I would hold that we are not faced with such a predicament. I would hold that we need not decide whether the Smith standard applies because the UCRS’s free exercise claim in this case does not even survive the less restrictive Sherbert balancing test.5 See National Labor Relations Bd. v. Hanna Boys Ctr., 940 F.2d 1295, 1305 (9th Cir. 1991) (applying Sherbert rather than Smith where there was no state interference with the free exercise of *1141religious beliefs), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 985, 112 S.Ct. 2965, 119 L.Ed.2d 586 (1992). The petitioner in this case does not challenge the religious beliefs or ecclesiastical doctrine of the UCRS, but only asserts that the UCRS violated the secular mandate of Title VII prohibiting retaliation against individuals for activities protected under that statute. The petitioner further maintains that any assertion on the UCRS’s part that the decision to fire the petitioner was religiously motivated is a pretext for such retaliation. I would hold that the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claim — in order to determine whether any religious motivation asserted by the UCRS for retaliating against the petitioner was, in fact, the genuine reason for her termination — would not burden any religious practice of the respondents.
1. Pretext
Several courts which have applied the above principles have held that it is appropriate to inquire into whether a defendant’s asserted legitimate reasons for its discriminatory actions are pretextual. In Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 106 S.Ct. 2718, 91 L.Ed.2d 512 (1986), the United States Supreme Court held that a state civil rights commission did not violate the Religion Clauses of the Constitution by investigating the circumstances of a religious school teacher’s discharge. In Dayton, the plaintiff was employed as a teacher at Dayton Christian Schools (Dayton). After the plaintiff informed her superior at Dayton that she was pregnant, her superior notified her that her contract would not be renewed at the end of the school year because Dayton’s religious doctrine required that mothers stay home with their preschool age children.
The plaintiff then contacted an attorney, who sent a letter to Dayton’s superintendent threatening litigation if Dayton did not agree to renew the plaintiffs employment contract. Upon receiving the letter, the superintendent suspended the plaintiff, and Dayton’s board subsequently terminated her. The board stated that the sole reason for the plaintiffs termination was her violation of a church doctrine that one Christian should not take another Christian into courts of the state.
The plaintiff then filed a complaint with the state civil rights commission alleging that Dayton’s nonrenewal of her contract constituted sex discrimination in violation of state law, and that her termination constituted impermissible retaliation in violation of state law. The commission found that there was probable cause to believe that Dayton had discriminated and retaliated in violation of state law, and subsequently initiated administrative proceedings against Dayton.
While the administrative proceedings were pending, Dayton filed an action in the federal district court seeking an injunction against the state administrative proceedings on the ground that such proceedings violated the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. The district court refused to issue the injunction, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the exercise of such jurisdiction by the state agency would violate both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The United States Supreme Court reversed. Although the Court based its hold*1142ing on abstention grounds, the Court took the opportunity to expound on the substance of the constitutional claim as follows:
Even religious schools cannot claim to be wholly free from some state regulation. We therefore think that however Dayton’s constitutional claim should be decided on the merits, the Commission violates no constitutional rights by merely investigating the circumstances in this case, if only to ascertain whether the ascribed religious-based reason was in fact the reason for the discharge.
Id. at 628, 106 S.Ct. at 2723 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court thus specifically stated that a pretext inquiry does not run afoul of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
In another case involving a pretext inquiry, Geary v. Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 7 F.3d 324 (3d Cir.1993), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a plaintiff could bring a claim against a religious school under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).6 In Geary, the plaintiff was terminated from her employment as a teacher at the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish School (the School) after she turned fifty and after her twenty-ninth year of employment there. She had previously received favorable reviews, and had the defendant not terminated her, she would have been the highest paid teacher at the School. The School subsequently hired a younger, lower paid teacher to replace her.
To justify the plaintiffs dismissal, the School asserted that the plaintiff had married a divorced man in violation of Church doctrine. The plaintiff conceded that she acted in violation of church doctrine, but she argued that this reason for her termination was pretextual, and that the actual reason for her termination was her age and salary.
The plaintiff then filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the School violated the ADEA by firing her. Subsequently, the School canceled the plaintiffs health coverage, indicating that the cancellation was required by the plaintiffs legal action. The EEOC found that, while the plaintiffs dismissal did not violate the ADEA, the retaliatory cancellation did. The plaintiff then filed an ADEA claim in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which held broadly that the ADEA does not apply to religious schools and granted summary judgment in favor of the School.
The plaintiff then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals first stated that the appropriate inquiry in this case was under the three-part standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490, 99 S.Ct. 1313, 59 L.Ed.2d 533 (1979). The Geary court stated that standard as follows:
First, a threshold question: would application of the statute present a significant risk of infringing the First Amendment? Second, the interpretive rule: is there a permissible construction of the statute that avoids that risk, or alternatively, is there a clear expression that Congress intended that the statute apply? And, third: if the statute applies, does it violate the religion clauses of the First Amendment?
Geary, 7 F.3d at 327.
Applying the threshold question, the Court of Appeals held that the application of the ADEA to the plaintiff in this case did not present a significant risk of infringing the First Amendment. In so holding, the court first noted that the “simple prohibitions” of the ADEA do not present a significant threat of entanglement between church and state.7 The court then stated that the absence of a direct conflict between the secular prohibi*1143tions of the ADEA and the asserted religious doctrine militated toward a finding that there was no risk of infringement of the First Amendment.
The court next addressed the fact that the ease involved a “pretext” argument. The court stated that as long as a plaintiff only challenges whether the asserted nondiscriminatory reason actually motivated the challenged action, and does not challenge the validity of the religious doctrine itself, no significant risk of offending the First Amendment is presented. Id. at 329. The court then noted that the process of inquiry could permissibly proceed as follows:
The secular tribunal merely asks whether a sincerely held religious belief actually motivated the institution’s actions. The institution, at most, is called upon to explain the application of its own doctrines. Such an application is no more onerous than is the initial burden of any institution in any First Amendment litigation to advance and explain a sincerely held religious belief as the basis for a defense or claim. Indeed, because the court in an ADEA case should not examine either the validity or the religious nature of the doctrine, the burden of the religious institution to explain is considerably lighter than in a nonreligious employer case.
Thus, when the pretext inquiry neither traverses questions of the validity of religious beliefs nor forces a court to choose between parties’ competing religious visions, that inquiry does not present a significant risk of entanglement. However, the First Amendment dictates that a plaintiff may not challenge the validity, existence or “plausibility” of a proffered religious doctrine, and we caution that the ADEA would not apply in such a case.
Id. at 330 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals went on to dismiss the plaintiffs claim because she did not refute the School’s proffered legitimate reason for her dismissal. Significantly, the court also held that the plaintiffs retaliation claim could stand because it did not present any First Amendment issues. Id. at 332; see also DeMarco v. Holy Cross High Sch., 4 F.3d 166 (2d Cir.1993).
The reasoning in Dayton and Geary is apt, and I would apply the same analysis to the pretext inquiry in the instant case. A pragmatic examination of the procedural aspects of a Title VII case reveals that a trial forum could adjudicate the instant dispute without trespassing into the protected realm of ecclesiastical doctrine. Under the tripartite Title VII burden-shifting mechanism, the trial could proceed as follows: (1) The petitioner would be required to make out a prima facie case that the UCRS terminated her and revoked her novitiate license as retaliation for the petitioner’s protected actions under Title VII; (2) the burden would then shift to the UCRS to articulate a legitimate non-diserimi-natory reason for the actions taken against the UCRS; in this case the UCRS could also articulate a legitimate ecclesiastical reason for such actions that would be protected under the First Amendment; (3) once the UCRS articulated such a reason, the burden would then shift back to the petitioner to show that the UCRS’s articulated reason is actually a pretext for the unlawful retaliation alleged by the petitioner in her prima facie case.
At no time during the burden-shifting process would the trier of fact be required to question the belief system of the UCRS, nor to validate any interpretation of religious doctrine in favor of another, nor to compel the UCRS to accept any idea into its belief system. The trier of fact would weigh the evidence and conclude that one side or the other possesses more credibility. The trier of fact would not be required to evaluate church doctrine. The trier of fact would merely weigh whether it accepts the petitioner’s version of events, that the UCRS illegally retaliated against her and that any assertion of a legitimate motivation on the UCRS’s part is pretext, or the UCRS’s version, that the UCRS’s actions were ecclesiastically motivated.
There are thus only two possibilities: If the trier of fact believes the petitioner, this would mean that the UCRS’s actions were secular activities prohibited by Title VII and therefore outside the purview of the First Amendment. Alternatively, if the trier of fact believes the UCRS, this would mean that *1144the UCRS’s activities were ecclesiastically motivated, within the protection of the First Amendment, and the UCRS would prevail. This method of analysis simply does not present the possibility of the evaluation of church doctrine.
It is true that the sacred protections of the Religion Clauses exempt religious institutions from liability for ecclesiastical decisions that would otherwise run afoul of civil law. It is also true, however, that the Free Exercise Clause does not grant religious institutions broad immunity from being sued in civil courts. Moses, 863 P.2d at 320; Destefano v. Grabrian, 763 P.2d 275, 284 n. 9 (Colo.1988); see Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Schs., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 628, 106 S.Ct. 2718, 2723, 91 L.Ed.2d 512 (1986). It would be contrary to our precedent, therefore, to hold that on the one hand the church is prohibited from engaging in certain secular conduct, but that on the other hand, the First Amendment precludes secular tribunals from inquiring into that very conduct. Such a holding would allow religious institutions to engage in unlawful discrimination, exempted by neither the First Amendment nor Title VII, with impunity. I would thus hold that the Free Exercise Clause does not prohibit the State of Colorado from inquiring into the secular wrongs of the church.
2. “Minister Exception”
The majority bases its holding on the proposition that, because the petitioner is a minister, she is absolutely precluded from bringing an action against the UCRS for terminating her employment and revoking her novitiate license in violation of Title VII. By so holding, the majority pens the first decision by a court of this state carving an exception into our well established rule that the Free Exercise Clause does not grant churches broad immunity from being sued in civil courts. Such an exception has heretofore never been recognized by a Colorado court, and I would decline to incorporate such an exception into our jurisprudence.8
The majority cites Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventhday Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020, 106 S.Ct. 3333, 92 L.Ed.2d 739 (1986), as a leading ease supporting its holding that the trial court in this case lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitioner’s Title VII claim. Maj. op. at 1127. Rayburn, however, is inapposite to the instant facts because the Rayburn court did not face the situation, as we do here, where a clergy member challenges a religious institution’s religious justification for its actions as being a pretext for prohibited secular conduct.
In Rayburn, the petitioner was denied a position on the pastoral staff of the respondent church. The petitioner then brought an action against the church’s governing body, alleging discrimination on the basis of race and sex in violation of Title VII. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the church. The Court of Appeals held that such ecclesiastical decisions are inviolate and that “ ‘civil courts are bound to accept the decisions of the highest judicatories of a religious organization of hierarchical polity on matters of discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law.’ ” Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1167 (citing Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 2382, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976)).9 The Court of Appeals went on to clarify, however, that
*1145churches are not — and should not be— above the law. Like any other person or organization, they may be held liable for their torts and upon their valid contracts. Their employment decisions may be subject to Title VII scrutiny, where the decision does not involve the church’s spiritual functions.
Id. at 1171.
Rayburn is thus inapplicable to the ease before us because the petitioner here does not challenge the church’s spiritual functions. The petitioner in this case only argues that any religious motivation asserted by the UCRS is a pretext for unlawful secular actions.
Another federal jurisdiction has held that, under certain circumstances, a religious organization may be haled into court for a personnel decision regarding a minister. In Drevlow v. Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, 991 F.2d 468 (8th Cir.1993), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the First Amendment did not require the dismissal of a minister’s tort claims against his church. In so holding, the court stated that “[t]he First Amendment does not shield employment decisions made by religious organizations from civil court review ... where the employment decisions do not implicate religious beliefs, procedures, or law.” Id. at 471. The court further held:
At [the motion to dismiss] stage of this litigation we are unable to predict that the evidence offered at trial will definitely involve the district court in an impermissible inquiry into the Synod’s bylaws or religious beliefs.... The Synod has not offered any religious explanation for its actions which might entangle the court in a religious controversy in violation of the First Amendment.
Id. at 472.
The court went on to elaborate how such a dispute between a minister and his church could be appropriately adjudicated without offending the First Amendment:
On remand, the district court must exercise care to ensure that the evidence presented at trial is of a secular nature.... It is incumbent on the court to limit the evidence at trial in order to avoid determining religious controversies.
Id.; see also Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference, 894 F.2d 1354, 1360 (D.C.Cir.1990) (allowing minister to bring action against church and stating that “appellant should be allowed to demonstrate that he can prove his case without resorting to impermissible avenues of discovery or remedies,” and that “[m]aintaining a suit, by itself, will not necessarily create an excessive entanglement”).
If we are to look outside of our own jurisdiction for a standard to apply, I would hold that Drevlow is far more applicable to the instant case than is Rayburn and its progeny. Drevlow, as does the instant case, involved a personnel decision regarding a minister where it was not apparent at the motion to dismiss stage of the case that any impermissible inquiries into the church’s religious doctrine would be made. Moreover, Drevlow very succinctly explains how such entanglements can be avoided from a pragmatic standpoint. I see no reason why the trial forums in our jurisdiction would not be competent to avoid such a conflict. I would thus decline to adopt a “minister choice” exception to our well established rule that the Free Exercise Clause does not grant churches broad immunity from being sued in civil courts. I turn now to my analysis of this issue under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
B.
The function of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is to withdraw matters of religious worship and belief from governmental “sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement.” Americans United for Separation of Church and State Fund, Inc. v. State, 648 P.2d 1072, 1078 (Colo.1982) (citing Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 668, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1411, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970)). Thus, the command of the Establishment Clause is to prohibit the State from endorsing a particular religion. Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 605, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 3107, 106 *1146L.Ed.2d 472 (1989); State v. Freedom From Religion Found., 898 P.2d 1013, 1019 (Colo.1995). The Supreme Court has formulated, and we have endorsed, a tripartite test to determine whether a statutory scheme improperly endorses religion in violation of the Establishment Clause: (1) The statute must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) the primary effect of the statute must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) the statute must not foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971); Americans United, 648 P.2d at 1078.
In the context of governmental regulation, some courts have utilized the Establishment Clause to determine the constitutionality of a statute or regulatory scheme under the First Amendment. See, e.g., Scharon v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Presbyterian Hosps., 929 F.2d 360, 361 (8th Cir.1991); Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1169. In determining the constitutionality of a statute or regulation, most courts focus on the entanglement prong of the Lemon test, asking whether imposition of the statute on the particular religious institution will foster excessive entanglement between the government and the religious institution. Scharon, 929 F.2d at 361; Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1169.
In the context of a Title VII action brought by a minister against his church in which the minister alleges that the church’s asserted religious reasons for its actions are pretextual, courts have held that entanglement concerns are not implicated. Geary, 7 F.3d at 329; DeMarco v. Holy Cross High School, 4 F.3d 166, 172. In Geary, the court stated that in a situation where a religious institution argues that a permissible religion-based discrimination formed the true motive for the challenged action, entanglement concerns will not be raised so long as the plaintiff does not challenge the validity of the religious doctrine itself. The court went on to conclude:
Thus, when the pretext inquiry neither traverses questions of the validity of religious beliefs nor forces a court to choose between parties’ competing religious visions, that inquiry does not present a significant risk of entanglement.
Geary, 7 F.3d at 330.
The reasoning in Geary is persuasive and compels the same conclusion in the case at bar. The limited inquiry in this case is whether the UCRS discharged the petitioner in retaliation for her protected actions under Title VII. If the UCRS is required to defend these actions, it has the option of admitting that it took unlawful retaliatory action, or denying that its actions constituted illegal retaliation and articulating legitimate reasons for its actions. In the former situation, UCRS faces liability unless it persuades the court that it is entitled to a religious exemption under the First Amendment. Under the latter scenario, the only issue is whether the UCRS’s asserted reasons for the retaliation are pretextual, not whether they are doctrinally correct. Because the court is not required to determine whether UCRS’s asserted reasons are doctrinally correct, nor even to evaluate them at all, there is no risk of impermissible entanglement between church and state. I would thus hold that the exercise of jurisdiction over the petitioner’s Title VII claim against the UCRS would not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
IV.
As neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Establishment Clause precludes the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over the petitioner’s Title VII claims against the UCRS, I respectfully dissent.

. As this action is before us pursuant to a motion to dismiss, we must accept all allegations of the complaint as true and construe them strictly against the defendant. Popovich v. Irlando, 811 P.2d 379, 385 (Colo.1991).

. Although numerous jurisdictions have recognized an argument that the Establishment Clause may limit governmental regulation of religious institutions, e.g., Rayburn, 772 F.2d 1164; see also National Labor Relations Bd. v. Catholic Bishop, 440 U.S. 490, 501-02, 99 S.Ct. 1313, 1319-20, 59 L.Ed.2d 533 (stating that were the Court considering the First Amendment issue, the Court would be required to determine whether the government entanglement with religion was excessive pursuant to the Lemon Establishment Clause test), commentators have persuasively opined that such use of the clause faces serious obstacles. William P. Marshall & Douglas C. Blomgren, Regulating Religious Organizations Under the Establishment Clause, 47 Ohio St. LJ. 293, 306 (1986); Joanne C. Brant, "Our Shield Belongs to the Lord": Religious Employers and a Constitutional Right to Discriminate, 21 Hastings Const. L.Q. 275, 298 (1994). The first concern commonly voiced is the illogic in claiming that the government is "establishing” or supporting a religious institution by requiring that it comply with statutory or regulatory requirements. Marshall & Blomgren, supra, at 306. Another more substantive concern is that the application of current Establishment Clause analysis to preclude regulation of religious institutions would be unlimited in scope as the Lemon test does not take into account countervailing policy considerations. Id. at 306-07. Moreover, application of the Establishment Clause in this context runs the risk of engendering religious favoritism, because by exempting religious institutions from government regulation, courts place those entities not excluded from such regulation at a disadvantage. Id. at 324.

, The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment are applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940).

. Many lower courts have applied the Smith rule in civil contexts. E.g., People v. LaPorte Church of Christ, 830 P.2d 1150, 1152 (Colo.App.1992); Black v. Snyder, 471 N.W.2d 715, 719 (Minn.App. 1991); Health Servs. v. Temple Baptist Church, 112 N.M. 262, 814 P.2d 130, 134-35 (App.), cert. denied, 112 N.M. 262, 814 P.2d 130 (1991).

. Although I would hold that we need not decide whether Smith applies here, I write further to express my disagreement with the majority's analysis of Smith. The majority holds that Smith is inapplicable to the instant facts, and that even if Smith applied, it would support the majority’s holding precluding application of Title VII in the present case. Maj. op. at 1130. The majority notes that the underlying justification for the Smith holding is that it is not within the province of the judiciary to evaluate or pass judgment on an individual’s religious beliefs. Id. at 1130. The majority then goes on to state that
[ajpplying Title VII or any anti-discrimination law to a church’s choice of a minister would require a judge to question the belief system of the church, to validate certain interpretations of the religious doctrine over others, or to compel the church to accept certain ideas into their belief system.... It would be impossible for a court to apply Title VII and evaluate the propriety of a minister hiring or discharge decision without evaluating the beliefs behind that decision.
Maj. op. at-.
The majority misconstrues Smith and misunderstands how it would apply to this case. When the Smith Court stated its disapproval of judiciary evaluation of individual religious beliefs, it was in the context of abandoning the Sherbert compelling interest test championed and applied by the majority. Smith, 494 U.S. at 885-88, 110 S.Ct. at 1603-05. The Smith court expressly stated its dissatisfaction with the compelling interest standard because that standard requires courts to
question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, [as well as] the validity of particular litigants’ interpretations of those creeds.
Id. at 887, 110 S.Ct. at 1604.
It is the compelling interest test, applied by the majority, that requires the judiciary to inquire into and question religious beliefs. The Smith standard', on the other hand, is a bright line rule that avoids such inquiry. The compelling interest test, applied in the context of a Title VII action brought by a minister against her church, requires the judiciary to evaluate the significance and centrality of that ministerial position in deciding whether or not to grant the church an exemption from Title VII under the Free Exercise Clause. See Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1169 ("[I]t is our duty to determine whether the position of associate in pastoral care is important to the spiritual mission of the [Church].”). This is precisely the type of inquiry the Smith Court found abhorrent.
Conversely, the Smith approach avoids such inquiry, whether in the context of a criminal prohibition or a Title VII action brought by a minister against her church. The Smith approach merely requires a court to inquire whether the regulation in question is a "neutral law of *1141general applicability,” and if so, to apply the regulation uniformly. Smith, 494 U.S. at 879-80, 110 S.Ct. at 1600-01. The majority fears that the application of Title VII to the propriety of a minister discharge decision would require the court to evaluate the beliefs behind that decision. The majority’s fears are unwarranted, because the beliefs behind the decision would be irrelevant under Smith. So long as Title VII passed muster under the Smith standard, as a neutral law of general applicability, the Free Exercise Clause would be unavailable to the church as a defense. Id. Thus, no inquiry into the importance or centrality of the church's belief system would be necessary.
The judicial inquiry into religious beliefs prohibited by the Smith Court occurs during the decision whether to grant a Free Exercise Clause exemption to the religious institution, not during the action under the regulation itself. Id. at 882-83, 110 S.Ct. at 1601-02. Thus, in a case such as the one before us, the only required inquiry would be whether Title VII is a neutral law of general applicability. If it is not, then it may be stricken. If Title VII is a neutral law of general applicability, however, it should be applied in a uniform fashion, as it would be to any nonreligious actor.

. As the ADEA's substantive provisions were derived verbatim from Title VII, cases involving the ADEA are equally apposite here. Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 584, 98 S.Ct. 866, 872, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978).

. Although the Geary court utilized the Establishment Clause "entanglement" mode of analysis, Geaiy is equally apposite under Free Exercise analysis because of its general determination that, under the Catholic Bishop test, an inquiry into whether a religious institution’s asserted reasons for its discriminatory actions are pretex-tual does not present a significant risk of infringing First Amendment interests.

. The majority cites numerous cases from jurisdictions outside of this state for the proposition that a minister may not bring a Title VII action against her church. Maj. op. at 1126-1128. These decisions are not binding on this court. Colorado law is clear and unequivocal that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment do not grant churches broad immunity against being sued in civil courts. Moses, 863 P.2d at 320.

. The majority cites Milivojevich for the proposition that a church is exempted by the First Amendment from actions involving the hiring or termination of a minister. Maj. op. at 1131. Milivojevich is inapplicable to the case in front of us. That case held that the First Amendment precluded civil courts from adjudicating disputes involving the church's own internal laws and procedures. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 708, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 2380 (1976). This principle is inap-posite to the present case where the church seeks to preclude review of its alleged violations of federal discrimination law.