A Chicago appeals court has allowed a sex discrimination lawsuit against Moody Bible Institute (MBI) to proceed, highlighting a clash between claims of sex discrimination and religious freedom. The lawsuit, initiated by former MBI professor Janay Garrick, alleges that MBI fired her due to “disparate treatment based on sex” among other civil rights violations.
The court’s decision to let the case proceed challenges MBI’s defense based on the “church autonomy doctrine,” emphasizing that courts can adjudicate disputes involving religious institutions when doctrinal inquiries are not required.
The Roys Report reports:
For three years, Janay Garrick had taught communications classes at the prominent evangelical Bible school in Chicago, ending in late 2017. She sued MBI in 2018, claiming that “disparate treatment based on sex” and other Title VII civil rights violations motivated MBI leaders to fire her.
On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit dismissed an appeal that MBI had filed last year, seeking the dismissal of Garrick’s suit. MBI claimed Garrick was fired “because she rejected and publicly decried its core beliefs about church leadership.”
Attorneys for MBI cited the “church autonomy doctrine,” a legal principle which protects the right of religious institutions to govern themselves.
Circuit Judge Amy St. Eve, writing on behalf of the three-judge panel, rejected that argument. “The church autonomy doctrine does not . . . bar courts from adjudicating all disputes involving a religious institution,” she wrote. “Courts may exercise authority when the resolution does not require inquiry into doctrinal disputes.”
Read the full article here.
Key Points
- A Chicago appeals court has allowed a sex discrimination lawsuit against Moody Bible Institute to proceed, challenging the institute’s defense based on religious freedom.
- The lawsuit, filed by former professor Janay Garrick, alleges sex discrimination and civil rights violations.
- The court rejected MBI’s argument based on the “church autonomy doctrine,” stating that courts can adjudicate disputes not requiring doctrinal inquiry.
| Themes | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Precedent | Sets a significant precedent for how religious institutions handle discrimination claims. | May lead to increased legal scrutiny and challenges for religious institutions. |
| Religious Freedom | Clarifies the boundary between religious freedom and discrimination laws. | Potentially complicates the autonomy of religious institutions in internal governance. |
| Gender Equality | Promotes accountability in addressing gender discrimination in religious settings. | This could provoke tensions within religious communities regarding gender roles and equality. |
Questions to Consider
- How does this case reflect the broader tension between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws?
- What implications might this legal battle have for the future governance of religious institutions?
- How should religious organizations navigate internal policies in light of changing legal standards on gender equality and discrimination?
About Post Author
