Gordon v. DeWeese-Boyd to be Heard By the Massachusetts Supreme Court
by Liam Siegler '23, Staff Reporter
Image: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, where Gordon’s upcoming appeal will be heard.
Gordon College’s three-year long lawsuit with former sociology professor Margaret Deweese-Boyd will be heard by the Massachusetts Supreme Court on January 4, 2021. Deweese-Boyd is suing the school over allegations that the college denied her tenure because “she had vocally and publicly opposed Gordon College’s discriminatory policies relating to LGBTQ+ individuals. The last time the Tartan covered Margaret Deweese-Boyd v. Gordon College was on October 25, 2018; the case has since seen multiple developments.
The lawsuit began in 2017 when associate professor Margaret Deweese-Boyd was denied full professorship by school provost Janel Curry and President Michael Lindsey, despite being unanimously recommended by the Faculty Senate. Deweese-Boyd also claims that Gordon discriminated on behalf of her gender, arguing that male professors voiced similar views without repercussion.
As was reported by the Tartan in 2017, “Professor DeWeese-Boyd is seeking personal damages as well as promotion to the position of Full Professor and an injunction ordering Gordon College to cease unlawful discrimination and retaliation.”
Gordon College is pursuing a summary judgement from the court on the First Amendment ministerial exception. This exemption bars legal claims against religious institutions from employees who carry out “ministerial” functions. It is a doctrine that was developed for nearly 50 years in the lower courts until a landmark case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Employment Opportunity Division (2012), unanimously recognized its legitimacy. Gordon argues that all of its faculty are ministers.
As elaborated by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court’s justification for this doctrine lies in the Free Exercise Clause, “which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.”
Gordon College maintains that it is exempt from Deweese-Boyd’s discrimination claims because the substance of her position qualifies the school for the ministerial exception. Deweese-Boyd denies that she can be considered a “ministerial employee,” and says that her “role and responsibilities at Gordon College do not differ from those of a professor in a similar field at a non-Christian college.”
The motion for a summary judgment was taken up by the Massachusetts Essex Superior Court. On April 2nd, 2020, judge Jeffrey T. Karp ruled in favor of DeWeese-Boyd, denying Gordon from use of the ministerial exception.
In his decision, Judge Karp affirmed that Gordon College was a religious institution that could qualify for the exception. However, after surveying court precedent such as Kirby v. Lexington Theol. Seminary (2014), Kant v. Lexington Theol. Seminary (2014), Bohnert v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco (2015), Richardson v. Northwest Christian Univ. (2017), and Hosanna-Tabor amongst others, he determined that DeWeese-Boyd “does not qualify as a ministerial employee”.
Judge Karp applied the “functionalist approach” found in Kirby to make his decision. This approach considers multiple factors when weighing whether someone can be found a “minister” for the purpose of the exception, such as: the substance of the title given, the employers view of that title, the employees view, and whether the employee’s position included “important religious functions.” Judge Karp analyzed DeWeese’s role under this framework.
In response to this decision, Gordon College appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court for relief; the Court agreed to hear their case.
As the lawsuit now heads to the highest judicial body in the state, a new development may affect how it will decide.
The Supreme Court of the United States this past July issued a 7-2 decision in favor of religious employers, substantially strengthening the ministerial exception doctrine. The case, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020), consisted of two lawsuits decided together. Both were filed by teachers from different Catholic schools and alleged age and disability discrimination, respectively. Similar to Gordon, the schools sought a summary judgment on the ministerial exception.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Alito. In ruling against the petitioners, he concluded that there was “abundant record evidence that [Morrissey-Berru and Biel] both performed vital religious duties…[and] qualify for the exemption we recognized in Hosanna-Tabor.” Perhaps most significantly, Justice Alito argued that in light of the relevant information, courts should defer to religious institutions over how they view the religious significance of the position in dispute. He reasoned that when “a school with a religious mission entrusts a teacher with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith, judicial intervention into disputes between the school and the teacher threatens the school’s independence in a way that the First Amendment does not allow.”
This ruling was decided three months after the Superior Court decision and may significantly affect how the ministerial exception will now be applied. Religious liberty advocates believe that it will yield favorable results for religious institutions across the country.
Gordon College hopes that Our Lady of Guadulpe will benefit their case against DeWeese-Boyd. In a copy of the school's MA Supreme Court brief obtained by the Tartan, the college states that the most recent ruling “reaffirmed and strengthened the ministerial exception with respect to teachers at religious schools, such as the Plaintiff.”
The core of the school’s 50-page argument seeks to demonstrate how DeWeese-Boyd was a ministerial employee. Throughout the brief the college stressed the importance of faith-based integration to her position. According to the President Michael Lindsey, who was quoted extensively throughout, professors are required to:
“profess the Christian faith; to assist students in their spiritual journey as part of their intellectual formation; to be available to minister to students with questions, personal needs, spiritual exploration; to advise students on their pursuits while at Gordon and beyond; to inculcate the Christian identity and transmit it to the next generation.”
As it applies to DeWeese-Boyd, Dr. Lindsay stated she was to “embody the Christian faith... advance it in its formation in the lives of our students... bring Christian reflection to bear on her scholarship,” and to “mentor, disciple, [and] give counsel to the students.”
The school also pointed to her teaching credentials, past statements, essays on her educational philosophy, and participation in religious, professor-only seminars as further evidence of her ministerial status. After presenting the sum of their argument, the college concludes that “there is no question” DeWeese-Boyd was entrusted “with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith....such that the ministerial exception applies and bars her claims.”
DeWeese-Boyd, represented by her lawyer Hillary Schwab, strongly contests the school’s arguments. In a brief obtained by the Tartan, DeWeese-Boyd contends that Gordon College fails to meet the requirements needed to qualify for the exception.
Schwab claims that Gordon is not a religious institution for the purpose of the ministerial exception, since it “is primarily a liberal arts college, with a non-denominational Christian character.”
As evidence, she points to government filings where the school identifies itself under “Arts/Culture/Humanities”, and its purpose as “higher education”, not “religious.” Scwabb also refers to President Lindsey’s description of the school as a “New England liberal arts college” and similar statements as further evidence why Gordon should primarily be considered a liberal arts school.
Upon a full analysis of her duties as a professor, Schwab also argues that DeWeese-Boyd was not a ministerial employee. According to her, DeWeese-Boyds teaching consisted in “social policy; research methods; values and ethics; the policy process; political thought; community practice and theory.” She was not “a teacher of religion,” nor did she provide “religious instruction,” “lead students in or prepare them for participation in religious or devotional activities,” “pray with students or bring them to pray,” or “teach them about prayer or other religious rituals.”
DeWeese-Boyd’s role at Gordon College, Schwab states, “was being an Associate Professor of Social Work.” Among the things she did “was...teach students in social work, supervise students in social work-related activities, and engage in research and academic pursuits relating to social work...she had no religious functions.” Furthermore, DeWeese-Boyd “never held herself out as a minister of Gordon College and did not regard herself as a minister for Gordon College.”
On the integration issue in particular, Schwab remained unconvinced. She argued that “integration at Gordon College means simply that professors are to approach their work from a Christian perspective.” It does not, in her estimation, “amount to any requirement that they include religious content in their teaching.”
Towards the end of her brief, Schwab noted a “potential for abuse.” She suggested Gordon College’s motivation was have the “ministerial exception apply as broadly as possible”, as a “pretextual shield” against not only DeWeese-Boyd’s, but any anti-discrimination claim brought by an employee. Schwab stated that ruling in favor of the college “would seriously undermine anti-discrimination laws.” She concluded her arguments by urging the Court to affirm the Essex Superior Court’s decision.
Together, both Gordon College and DeWeese-Boyd present important questions for the Massachusetts Supreme Court. At its core, this lawsuit encapsulates the conflict between the First Amendment right to religious liberty and the government’s compelling interest in combatting discrimination. Regardless of where it lands however, the decision is poised to be monumental for the school.
The case is currently scheduled to be heard Monday, January 4th 2021. Even after the oral arguments are heard it may take months for the Court to decide.