Ironically, both professors taught in the marriage and family counseling department. Both Hope and the Church of Christ take a dim view of that sort of thing, and in any event the university holds its professors to an “abstain from all appearance of evil” standard from I Thessalonians .A section on “Separation of Service” states that any faculty member may be terminated “immediately in the case of grievous moral failure.” Reminiscent of the rule of ejusdem generis, the handbook does not attempt to define “grievous moral failure” but cites Exodus 20:1-17 and Galatians as examples of expected moral behavior. Supp.2d 694 [ministerial exception did not apply to church receptionist or pastor's secretary]; Lukaszewski v. Thus the phrase “of a particular religion” within the civil rights law was broadly interpreted to mean “permission to employ only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the employer's religious precepts.” (See id. 950-951.)Little is, strictly speaking, not on point here because it had to do with the interpretative scope of title VII of the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act, not California's marital status antidiscrimination laws. (b).)In the present case, there is nothing about two professors working in the same department which so overarchingly implicates “problems of supervision, safety, security or morale” that we could say summary judgment is appropriate. For the moment, though, only conjecture would support summary judgment given the applicable regulatory framework.Exodus 20:1-17 is where the first listing of the Ten Commandments may be found in the Old Testament. However, its principle that courts should avoid putting themselves in a position where they must ascertain precisely what a religion's strictures do, or do not, entail is still valid. However, we must also caution the trial court that there is no evidence of marital status discrimination outside of the a priori rule used by Mutunga and Elliston against married coworkers making up one department.There is a genuine issue of material fact on this record as to whether the two professors really were “religious” employees. Disputes of fact are decided in favor of the nonmoving party. There, the issue of the “status” of marriage (as modern family lawyers would characterize it) ultimately turned on abstruse issues of theology regarding the permissibility of marrying one's dead brother's wife.
Nothing in the governing rules requires the moving party to organize its points and authorities in support of a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, by cause of action. The world is full of psychologists who vehemently disagree about the role of religion in psychology.
To that degree the university's animus, reasonable or not, was not directed at their marriage as such, but at what their marriage was thought to imply about past behavior. Application of the Exception In This Case The point of our survey is to lay the foundation for this conclusion: We cannot say, on the record before us, categorically that professors Rouanzoin and Riggs are within the ministerial exception. According to Mutunga, their job was to teach marriage and family therapy “through a Biblical approach.” So we cannot say categorically that they could not come within the exception, either. Cir.1991) 929 F.2d 944 [interpreting federal civil rights exemptions to extend to non-Catholic working at Catholic school to avoid constitutional entanglement problem].) The issue is premature now because, in the present posture, it cannot be said that Rouanzoin and Riggs performed religious duties.
However, to the degree that the marital status discrimination claims are predicated on an a priori policy on the part of Hope that two people working in the same department could not be married to each other, the claims are viable. The School It would be an understatement to say that Hope International University is a religious institution. They are nonordained and they teach a subject (marriage and family counseling) that is not necessarily religious. All we can say is that, in this proceeding on a summary judgment motion, Hope did not establish that they are required to come within the exception. 14 [question of fact existed as to whether a recently self-declared homosexual professor of religious studies and philosophy at Catholic liberal arts college had primarily religious duties and thus fit within ministerial exception, and remanding case with regard to the nature of the professor's duties without prejudice so defendant could present “additional evidence concerning the nature” of plaintiff's “duties and responsibilities”].) We will follow suit. (d).) Presumably they could discriminate against their janitors as well as their choir directors. (c).) Presumably they can discriminate against chaplains but not janitors. (f)(1).) Thus if one were to assume, for purposes of the case before us, that Rouanzoin and Riggs perform “religious duties,” then religious hospitals get an exemption for employees performing religious duties that religious educational institutions don't get. In this proceeding in the wake of a summary judgment motion, they are analogous to the janitors employed by religious hospitals, not the chaplains. Wuerl, supra 929 F.2d 944, does establish a cautionary note in regard to the constitutional need to avoid religious entanglement, which the trial court can accomplish on remand by bifurcating the question of whether Rouanzoin and Riggs really do come within the ministerial exception, and having that issue tried first before the rest of the trial. Proc., § 597.)In Little, a divorced Protestant was allowed to work at a Catholic elementary school.
In addition to teaching, Rouanzoin has a private practice in psychological counseling and marriage and family therapy known as Rouanzoin & Associates. Hope requires that every syllabus indicate how the class addresses the mission of the university, and every publication produced for either on or off campus consumption includes Hope's mission statement.3.
In the early 1980's, when Hope decided to include a marriage and family therapy program on campus, its administrators solicited Rouanzoin to integrate his private practice with the school. Reminiscent of the story of Suzanna and the elders in the Apocrypha, the rumors may have had their origin in Riggs' rebuff of the man's advances.