Boydston v. Mercy Hosp. Ardmore, Inc., Case No. CIV-18-444-G

DON BOYDSTON, Plaintiff, v. MERCY HOSPITAL ARDMORE, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. CIV-18-444-G

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

March 25, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

Now before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16) filed jointly by Defendants Mercy Hospital Ardmore, Inc., Mercy Health Oklahoma Communities, Inc., and Mercy Health. Plaintiff Don Boydston has filed a Response (Doc. No. 20), to which Defendants have replied (Doc. No. 31). See also Defs.' Notice (Doc. No. 34). Based upon the parties' submissions and the relevant record, the Court grants Defendants' Motion.

I. Background

In this action, Plaintiff brings claims of religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act ("OADA"), Okla. Stat. tit. 25, §§ 1101 et seq. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 1-2, 7-11. Pursuant to the Court's Order of June 26, 2018, the parties have conducted limited discovery on the issue of Defendants' collective status as a religious organization, and Defendants now seek summary judgment on Plaintiff's Title VII and OADA claims on the basis of religious exemption. See Order of June 26, 2018 (Doc. No. 11) (DeGiusti, J.).

II. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is a means of testing in advance of trial whether the available evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find in favor of the party asserting a claim. The Court must grant summary judgment when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "An issue is 'genuine' if there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way." Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998). "An issue of fact is 'material' if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim." Id.

The party that moves for summary judgment has the burden of showing that the undisputed material facts require judgment as a matter of law in its favor. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the movant carries this initial burden, the nonmovant must then "go beyond the pleadings and 'set forth specific facts' that would be admissible in evidence in the event of trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant." Adler, 144 F.3d at 671 (quoting prior version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)); see also LCvR 56.1(c). The Court must then determine "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).

Parties may establish the existence or nonexistence of a material disputed fact by:

• citing to "depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . . , admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials" in the record; or

• demonstrating "that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A)-(B). While the Court views the evidence and the inferences drawn from the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, see Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Pittsburg, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 431 F.3d 1241, 1255 (10th Cir. 2005), "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmovant's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the [trier of fact] could reasonably find for the [nonmovant]." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252.

III. Relevant Facts¹

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Mercy Hospital Ardmore, Inc., as a Power Plant Technician from November 2005 until his termination on December 9, 2016. Defs.' Statement of Material Facts ("SMF") ¶¶ 1, 4, 61 (Doc. No. 16, at 5-17). Defendant Mercy Hospital Ardmore, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Mercy Health Oklahoma Communities, Inc., which, in turn, is wholly owned by Defendant Mercy Health. SMF ¶ 24. Defendant Mercy Health, along with its subsidiaries, is recognized as a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). SMF ¶ 24.

Defendant Mercy Health was founded by the Sisters of Mercy of the St. Louis Regional Community, a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church. SMF ¶¶ 9-10. The Sisters of Mercy have a sponsorship relationship with Defendants, pursuant to which members of the Sisters of Mercy provide various governance roles and functions, including positions on Mercy Health's Board of Directors. SMF ¶¶ 11-12. Mercy Health's Board of Directors is also the sponsoring Board for Mercy Health Ministry, which was founded by the Sisters of Mercy and granted pontifical public juridic personality² by the Vatican in 2008.³ SMF ¶¶ 13-15, 31. Mercy Health's Bylaws stipulate that each Class A Director must be "a woman religious Sister of Mercy so long as there are Sisters willing, able and qualified to serve." SMF ¶¶ 19-20 (internal quotation marks omitted). At the time Defendants filed their Motion on August 31, 2018, all of Mercy Health's Class A Directors and some of their Class B Directors were religious nuns. SMF ¶ 21.

Defendant Mercy Health's Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws both state that the entity is "organized exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific and educational purposes." SMF ¶¶ 22-23 (internal quotation marks omitted). Its Bylaws additionally set forth that its "specific purpose" is "to carry forward the healing ministry of Jesus in the Church through the management, ownership, or sponsorship of health care facilities, programs and services consistent with the teaching and laws of the Church regarding Catholic health services and with traditions, values and enduring concerns of the Sisters of Mercy," and to "adhere to and be guided by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops . . . and by the philosophy, mission, and traditions of the Sisters of Mercy." SMF ¶¶ 18, 39 (omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). The "Mercy" public website contains the following sectarian mission statement: "As the Sisters of Mercy before us, we bring to life the healing ministry of Jesus through our compassionate care and exceptional service. The Mission statement of Mercy is an inspiring reminder of our calling. It also unites and directs activities across our entire health and human services ministry." SMF ¶ 33 (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition to the values of justice, service, and excellence, Mercy's values, as listed on the public website, include: "Dignity[:] We cherish each person as created in the image of God"; and "Stewardship[:] We wisely use our talents and resources to strengthen Mercy as a ministry of the Church." SMF ¶ 34.

Mercy's "Co-worker Orientation Participant Guide" includes information for new employees regarding Mercy's Catholic history, heritage, mission, and values. SMF ¶ 35;see also id. ¶¶ 44-46.⁴ Employees are, to at least some degree, exposed to prayer at employee meetings. Compare SMF ¶ 48 ("Mercy co-workers are exposed to prayer on a regular basis, including at the beginning and end of meetings." (citing Bryson Decl. (Doc. No. 16-3) ¶ 49)), with Pl.'s Resp. at 7 (citing Pl.'s Admis. (Doc. No. 16-9) ¶ 5 (Plaintiff stating that he "recall[s] attending department meetings where prayer was sometimes included"). Mercy has designated spaces for private and communal worship, reflection, and prayer at its facilities. SMF ¶ 51.⁵ Mercy's guidelines provide that the prayer chapels located in its facilities should be highly visible. SMF ¶ 52. Defendant Mercy Hospital Ardmore, Inc., displays religious symbols throughout its facility, including in patient rooms. These include crucifixes with the image of Jesus Christ, religious statues of the Virgin Mary, other religious art and story boards, and scriptural images and quotes. SMF ¶ 53.⁶

IV. Plaintiff's Title VII Claims

Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to "discharge . . . or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's . . . religion." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Title VII also proscribes employer retaliation against an employee for his or her opposition to a practice made unlawful by Title VII. Stover v. Martinez, 382 F.3d 1064, 1070 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)). Under § 2000e-1(a) of Title VII, however, religious entities are exempt from the prohibition on retaliation and discrimination on the basis of religion. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a); Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 329 (1987). Section 2000e-1(a) provides:

This subchapter [i.e., Title VII, which covers both § 2000e-2(a)(1) discriminatory discharge claims and § 2000e-3(a) retaliation claims], shall not apply to . . . a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a).

Because the statute does not define what constitutes a religious entity, courts have considered a variety of factors when analyzing whether an employer falls within the scope of the § 2000e-1(a) exemption. Here, both parties cite the test articulated in LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center Association, 503 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2007), whichdirects the...