Ruling Upholds Firing on Basis of Religion

Religious institutions cannot be held liable for discriminating against employees on the basis of religion, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.

The state high court threw out a lawsuit by an evangelical Christian who was fired from a Catholic medical foundation after he proselytized to other employees.

The court held that the U.S. and California constitutions protect thousands of religious employers--including religious publishing houses, television and radio stations and churches and schools--from litigation, said Jeffrey A. Berman, who represented several churches and religious groups in the case.

File clerk Terence Silo had “been counseled three times previously

A Superior Court jury awarded Silo damages and attorney fees, and a state Court of Appeal upheld the awards on the grounds that the state Constitution bars religious discrimination in the workplace. But the Supreme Court said Thursday that religious organizations have the right under the 1st Amendment to “define themselves and their religious message” and may fire workers for “objectionable religious speech.”

Secular employers can still be held liable for religious discrimination, but religions need “considerable discretion to choose employees who will not interfere with their religious mission,” Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote for the court.

Lawyers in the case said the decision and other rulings permit religious organizations to make hiring and firing decisions solely on the basis of one’s creed.

“The impact of this is great for religious institutions,” Berman said. “It indicates that the California Supreme Court is sensitive to the issue of religious autonomy and to both the state and federal constitutional rights of religions to regulate themselves.”

Thursday’s ruling stemmed from a lawsuit Silo filed against the Catholic Healthcare West Medical Foundation. The organization hired Silo in July 1991 to work in its medical records department in Sacramento. More than a year later, Silo experienced a religious conversion.

“I gave my life to Christ,” he testified at trial. “My heart was filled with the Holy Spirit, and my life was changed.”

In January 1993, after already having received a poor performance evaluation, Silo met with the managers at the clinic. A fellow employee had complained that Silo told her not “to use the name of God in vain,” and a patient objected that Silo had been “preaching” to him.

The managers admonished Silo. He was not to use the word “God ... unless it’s off the clock”--not during work time, the court recounted in Silo vs. CHW Medical Foundation. Silo was placed on probation the following month and warned that he would lose his job unless he got more work done.

When he was fired that April, the termination papers cited three incidents in which Silo had continued to “preach” and “Soul Save” despite warnings. Three of his co-workers had complained of harassment.

Silo denied he had harassed anyone and insisted that his religious discussions had occurred during his lunch hour.

Catholic Healthcare West, which runs 42 hospitals in California, Nevada and Arizona, denied that it had discriminated against Silo on the basis of religion. The organization said it has a policy against religious discrimination and fired Silo because of his work performance.

Thursday was the second time the case was before the high court.

A Sacramento jury had found that Catholic Healthcare West had shown religious prejudice and awarded Silo $6,305 in economic damages and $1 for emotional distress. His lawyer was awarded $155,245 in attorney fees.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal initially ruled for Silo on the grounds that the foundation could be held liable under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The California Supreme Court asked the Court of Appeal to reconsider that decision in light of precedents that have held religious organizations exempt from the anti-discrimination law.

The appeals court then decided that Silo could prevail because the California Constitution bars religious discrimination in the workplace. Under the state Constitution, employers must try to accommodate an employee’s religious practices.

The Legislature in 1999 and 2000 passed amendments to the state’s fair employment law that will allow some religious discrimination lawsuits against religiously affiliated hospitals. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of those amendments Thursday because the case was filed before their passage.

Stephen W. Parrish, who represented Catholic Healthcare West, said the decision indicates that the court, even with the more recent amendments to the fair employment law, views religious discrimination cases differently from other kinds of discrimination claims.

The court noted, in fact, that it might rule another way if a religious employer were sued for sex discrimination.

“It is evident that restricting a religious employer’s ability to control religious speech in the workplace raises different constitutional issues than does a prohibition of sexual discrimination,” Moreno wrote.

Parrish said religious discrimination lawsuits are extremely complex. “You almost need to seek legal advice before do anything because these are such sensitive issues,” Parrish said.

Steven Drapkin, who represented a religious freedom organization in the case, said the decision shows that the court realizes that the “breadth of a religious organization’s mission is not limited to houses of worship.”

Catholic Healthcare West does not limit its services to Roman Catholics, does not have a chaplaincy or chapel and does not sponsor or conduct religious services or Bible studies on its premises or display religious symbols.

But the organization is exempt from state taxation as an entity operated by the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.

Anthony J. Poidmore, who represented Silo, said he advocates religious freedom in many of his legal cases and believes the court properly gave “more clear protection to what I term legitimately religious employers.”

Poidmore said he objected to the fact that the medical foundation was protected by its religious affiliation because, he said, it is really a secular institution.

“When you have an organization that is essentially secular, the protections that are afforded to other employees should be afforded to these types of employees,” he said.

Silo, now an evangelical Christian pastor, admitted that he was “on fire” and perhaps too exuberant about “sharing the good news” when he was first born again, Poidmore said.

But Silo toned down his discussions about the Gospel after receiving warnings, the lawyer said.

William J. Hunt, president and chief executive of Catholic Healthcare West, said he was pleased that the court has recognized the rights of religious institutions.

“We have an obligation to look out for the interest of all of our employees and patients,” Hunt said. “This ruling reinforces our ability to do that in accordance with our own beliefs.”