Chapman Wins a Landmark Job Case

A state appeals court has upheld Chapman University’s decision to reduce the hours and job benefits of its former chaplain, agreeing with a lower court ruling that religious institutions can take any employment action they deem necessary against their clergy.

In a decision believed to be the first of its kind in California, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that the reasons for chaplain Shaunie Eminger Schmoll’s diminished duties don’t matter because Chapman is a religious institution and the plaintiff is a religious figure.

Schmoll, who left Chapman in 1994, contended her work hours were cut back because she reported two incidents of alleged sexual harassment relayed to her by students complaining about faculty members. Chapman maintained the pastor’s job was pared down because of budget cuts.

But firings and employment decisions in the religious realm are protected under the 1st Amendment, the appeal court ruled, upholding an earlier ruling by an Orange County Superior Court judge who dismissed Schmoll’s lawsuit without a trial.

“It matters not whether such an employment decision is based on doctrine or economics,” wrote Presiding Justice David G. Sills. “It is irrelevant whether the action involves hiring, firing or discipline or simply changes the terms and conditions of the employment. The rule is about as absolute as the law can be: the 1st Amendment guarantees to a religious institution the right to decide matters affecting its ministers’ employment, free from the scrutiny and second-guessing of the civil courts.”

In a 13-page decision, Sills added that judicial review of the case would “absolutely result in excessive entanglement with religion.” But the ruling makes clear that religious institutions can be held to answer discrimination claims brought by nonministerial employees.

The university hired Schmoll as its full-time chaplain and director of campus ministry in June 1991. Less than three years later, Schmoll sued when the university cut her hours in half and virtually eliminated her benefits.

Ernest W. Klatte III, the attorney representing Chapman, said Wednesday that while similar issues have come before courts in other states, this is the first time it has been tested in a California court. He said the 3-0 decision reflects the viewpoints of “a number of courts” reviewing similar lawsuits.

“We felt it was an important decision both for the university and for the 1st Amendment,” said Klatte, of the Costa Mesa-based firm of Rutan and Tucker. “I believe the court’s opinion recognizes that decisions concerning the hiring and retention of clergy are issues that courts should not and cannot be involved in.”

But Schmoll’s attorney, Grace Emery, called the higher court’s ruling “one of the grossest violations of equal protection under the law.”

Emery, who specializes in employment discrimination cases, said Wednesday that the court’s decision “means every ministerial employee, most of whom are employed by religious-affiliated organizations, are just denied their access to civil court of law if their dispute involves employment.”

Emery said she plans to petition the case to the California Supreme Court.

Emery said her client essentially has “lost a career” because of her experience at Chapman and is now living in Oregon working in a nonreligious job.

Robert Pugsley, professor of criminal law and legal ethics at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles, said the ruling implies that “churches, within their own boundaries, can hire and fire [clergy] for reasons intelligible to them that are not necessarily accepted by the broader secular society.”

While other courts around the country already have tackled the issue, Pugsley said he knew of no other cases in the state covering the rights of ministers regarding alleged discrimination by their religious institutions.

“It raises troubling concerns,” he said. “There may be real and even terrible suffering swept under the rug in this kind of situation. . . . [Religious institutions] apparently can do damn well what they like.”

But Pugsley lauded the court for limiting the ruling’s impact to ministers and for reinforcing the separation of church and state.

“On balance,” he said, “the wall maintained by the court in this decision is a foot wide and a mile high.”