ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Legal Newsline) - A divided Maryland Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sex” may not apply to an employee of a Catholic organization who lost spousal insurance benefits after the church realized he was in a same-sex marriage.
Drawing dissents from three of the court’s seven justices, the Supreme Court ruled an exemption from the discrimination laws for religious employers may prevent the plaintiff identified as John Doe from winning his case against Catholic Relief Services. The dissenters argued state law should be read to included sexual orientation in the definition of “sex,” as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2020 decision involving federal antidiscrimination law.
Doe sued Catholic Relief Services after the organization suspended his spousal health benefits in 2017. The data specialist enrolled his husband in the insurance program after he was hired in 2016 but several months later a human resources manager informed him CRS denied benefits to spouses in same-sex marriages.
Doe sued under Title VII of federal law as well as the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act and the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act. A federal district court granted him summary judgment on the Title VII claim but sought guidance from the Maryland Supreme Court on the state-law claims.
In an Aug. 14 decision by Justice Jonathan Biran, the majority held that neither law explicitly protects Doe against discrimination by a religious organization over his sexual identity. His case hinges upon whether his role at CRS is tied closely enough to the religious mission of the organization to fall under a broad exemption in MFEPA, the court ruled. MEPEWA, meanwhile, prohibits discrimination based on “sex” and “gender identity,” the court ruled, but not sexual orientation.
Doe argued the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County should control. In that case the court ruled that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination “because of sex” included sexual orientation.
The Maryland Supreme Court disagreed. MFEPA specifically outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but exempts religious organizations over claims they discriminated against someone of “a particular religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity to perform work connected with the activities of the religious entity.”
To read it the way the Doe argued would render the exemption “a nullity,” the majority said. “Every plaintiff who sued a religious entity employer for alleged sexual orientation discrimination would simply plead their claim as a sex discrimination claim to avoid the potential application of the religious entity exemption.”
Likewise, MEPEWA prohibits discrimination based on “sex” and “gender identify,” the court said. “This statute specifically prohibits pay disparities based on `sex’ and `gender identity,’” the court ruled. “There is no mention of sexual orientation in the statute.”
It will be up to the trial court to decide whether Doe’s job in data entry “directly” furthers “the core mission of a religious entity,” exempting CRS from liability under MFEPA, the court concluded.
“We recognize that, under our interpretation of the exemption, some employees of a religious entity may bring claims against their employer for all forms of discrimination that are actionable under MFEPA, while other employees may sue the entity for all forms of discrimination except for discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity,” the majority said. “We leave it to Maryland’s legislators to decide whether to retain or eliminate the difference in MFEPA’s coverage among employees of the same religious entities. We may not “rewrite the law for them, no matter how just or fair we may think such a new law or public policy would be.”
Justices Michele Hotten, Angela Eaves and Shirley Watts dissented, saying the U.S. Supreme Court settled the question of whether laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sex” include sexual orientation.
“The overarching promise of justice and fairness must reflect a sentiment of equality that is consistent with what is right under the law,” Justice Hotten wrote.