Garrick v. Moody Bible Inst.

95 F.4th 1104

Janay E. GARRICK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-2683

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Argued December 5, 2023

Decided March 18, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 18-cv-573 — John F. Kness, Judge.

Jamie S. Franklin, Attorney, Chicago Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL, Bradley Girard, Attorney, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Christian Mark Poland, Attorney, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Chicago, IL, Daniel Howard Blomberg, Luke William Goodrich, Laura Elizabeth Wolk Slavis, Colten L. Stanberry, Attorneys, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Joshua C. McDaniel, Attorney, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, for Amicus Curiae Belmont Abbey College.

Alexander George Siemers, Attorney, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Serbian Orthodox Diocese of New Gracanica-Midwestern America.

Cody S. Barnett, Attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom, Lansdowne, VA, for Amicus Curiae Alliance Defending Freedom.

Christopher George Michel, Attorney, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Professor Derek T. Muller.

James A. Barta, Melinda R. Holmes, Attorneys, Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Amici Curiae State of Indiana, State of Alabama, State of Alaska, State of Arkansas, State of Georgia.

Gene C. Schaerr, Attorney, Schaerr Jaffe LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, National Association of Evangelicals, Biola University, Liberty University, Wheaton College.

Thomas G. Hungar, Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Law & Religion Scholars.

Georgina Yeomans, Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Aditi Fruitwala, Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois

Before Hamilton, Brennan, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.

St. Eve, Circuit Judge.

For three years, Janay Garrick taught communications courses at Moody Bible Institute. When Moody fired her, she sued, alleging sex discrimination and other Title VII violations. Moody moved to dismiss Garrick's Second Amended Complaint, claiming that her suit was barred by Title VII's religious exemptions and the First Amendment doctrine of church autonomy. When the district court denied the motion in part, Moody appealed that nonfinal order. Because we find that the district court's order is not subject to interlocutory review under the collateral order doctrine, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Appellant Moody Bible Institute ("Moody") seeks review of the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss, so we credit facts pled in the Second Amended Complaint and construe all disputes in favor of Garrick. Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish, Calumet City, 3 F.4th 968, 973 n.2 (7th Cir. 2021) (en banc).

1. The Parties

Located in Chicago, Illinois, Moody is a religious institution of higher education and accepts federal financial aid. It offers graduate and undergraduate degrees and courses in both secular and religious subjects. Among other doctrinal commitments, Moody espouses complementarianism, which it defines as a belief that the clergy should be comprised of men only, though women may serve in all other ministry roles. Moody requires all faculty to subscribe to its core beliefs, including complementarianism, and to sign annual reaffirmations of those beliefs.

In 2014, Moody hired Janay Garrick as a non-tenure instructor in the communications program on an annual contract. In contrast to Moody's complementarian teachings, Garrick identifies as an egalitarian Christian because she believes that qualified people should not be restricted from certain roles on the basis of gender. In her interview, Garrick told Moody that she held to egalitarian beliefs and rejected complementarianism. Moody nevertheless hired her and twice renewed her teaching contract, although it did ask her to sign its doctrinal statement and affirmation of complementarianism. Moody also required Garrick to remove from her resume the fact that she was an ordained minister.

2. Garrick's Employment

Garrick claims that during her employment, other faculty members subjected her to hostile treatment due to her gender, treatment she raised with administrators who ignored or dismissed those complaints. She complained, for example, that male colleagues ignored, avoided, and ridiculed her; in response, the vice president of human resources suggested Garrick get a printer and keep to her faculty office to avoid any unpleasant interactions.

Garrick alleges that Moody never rebuked or sidelined men who publicly disagreed with its culture of sexism as it did her. One incident arose when Garrick co-designed and presented a plan for a more inclusive environment in response to the anti-LGBTQ+ atmosphere at Moody. After that presentation, a supervisor criticized Garrick for "inflammatory rhetoric" and told her she must "learn how to speak around here." In contrast, the male co-presenter was never reprimanded or punished.

Garrick also alleges disparate treatment in her teaching obligations and opportunities. She applied for a reduced teaching load while completing a terminal degree in her field—an accommodation male faculty had received—but Moody denied Garrick's application. She was also asked to develop five new undergraduate courses, labor that Moody did not similarly require of new non-tenure male hires. In 2016, when she applied for a tenure-track assistant-professor position for which she was apparently qualified, Vice President and Associate Provost of Faculty Larry Davidhizar denied her application within an hour of its submission, explaining that Garrick needed to "improve her fit within the division." Yet Garrick points out that her performance reviews consistently demonstrated that she was an excellent, engaging, enthusiastic instructor.

In 2017, Moody's reactions to Garrick's teaching performance began to change. She was chastised for missing an already-cancelled meeting in March. Also in March, she received her first negative performance review, three months after a performance review crediting her with "excellent service." When Garrick inquired into the basis for the negative review, Terry Strandt, the Chair of the Music and Media Arts Division, explained that it was a product of administrators' evaluations, including Davidhizar's, and "peer reviews." Garrick alleges that Moody never subjected male colleagues to peer reviews. When she asked to see those reviews, Davidhizar told Garrick this negative review was based on the assessment of Strandt himself. Eventually, after Garrick repeatedly asked about the reasons for her negative performance review, Moody raised her score—instead of (Garrick claims) providing her with a "straight answer" about the original review.

3. Garrick's Termination

In April 2017, Davidhizar and the vice president of human resources raised the problematic nature of Garrick's egalitarian views with her for the first time. Later that month, Moody informed Garrick that it would not renew her contract. Her termination letter explained that Garrick's non-alignment with Moody's complementarian beliefs made her a poor fit for the school. After completing her spring semester teaching assignments, she would receive pay for the rest of the year as a nonteaching faculty member. When Garrick discussed her termination with students and student-reporters, however, Moody immediately fired Garrick and expelled her from campus. The internal grievance Garrick filed was denied.

B. Procedural Background

1. EEOC Charge

Garrick filed an EEOC complaint in January 2018, alleging various Title VII violations including retaliation and discrimination on the basis of sex and religion. The complaint stated that she "was officially terminated because of [her] gender, [her] form of Christianity, and in clear retaliation for [her] complaints about [her] own treatment and [her] complaints on behalf of female students who were discriminated against." The EEOC issued Garrick a right to sue letter on September 24, 2018.

2. First Amended Complaint

Proceeding pro se, Garrick filed her First Amended Complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of gender and religion.¹ The complaint claimed that Moody's stated reason for firing her—religious disagreement—"was pretext for its true motives—discrimination and retaliation." Ultimately, the complaint tied Garrick's firing to disagreements over doctrine, including Garrick's advocacy on campus for women applying to the Pastoral Ministry Program.

Moody moved to dismiss Garrick's complaint, arguing that it was protected by the ministerial exception, the church autonomy doctrine, and Title VII's religious exemptions.

The district court² granted Moody's motion to dismiss, finding Garrick's claims of discrimination due to disagreements over complementarianism barred by Title VII's religious exemptions and the First Amendment doctrine of church autonomy. Garrick v. Moody Bible Inst., 412 F. Supp. 3d 859, 869-72 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (Garrick I).³ It noted, however, that it would permit Garrick to amend those claims because "there are strains of Garrick's Title VII claims that may not be tied to Moody's religious beliefs," including inconsistent treatment of male and female faculty members. Id. at 872.

3. Second Amended Complaint

Still representing herself, Garrick took the district court's invitation and filed her Second Amended Complaint alleging a hostile work environment, retaliation, and discrimination and...