- January 31, 2023
- Firm News
Victory for Catholic-Based Hospital Systems Across the Country
Garfunkel Wild, P.C. won a significant and precedent-setting victory for its client, and other Catholic-affiliated hospitals across the country, in a case that challenged the use of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (“ERDs”) in Catholic-affiliated hospitals.
On January 18, 2023, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the hospital defendants, agreeing that a prospective employee’s objection to the ERDs was not a protected activity and cannot form the basis of a religious discrimination case. While the widely-disseminated code of conduct is used by Catholic healthcare facilities nationwide, there is an absence of case law establishing that their use is permissible and will not lead to discrimination-related claims. Catholic institutions requiring adherence to the ERDs now are armed with a federal court decision to fend off similar future claims.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiff, a psychiatrist seeking to work within a Catholic not-for-profit health system, objected to its requirement that its employees adhere to the ERDs. Plaintiff sued, claiming that he was discriminated against and blacklisted from employment for asking about the ERDs.
On a motion to dismiss, the Court largely dismissed Plaintiff’s claims as deficient, holding the ERDs “are statements of how the signor will conduct his medical practice while employed by the hospital, not a statement of religious belief” and cannot form the basis of a religious discrimination claim. As the Court explained, “all Plaintiff was required to do was to say that he agreed to comply with the ERDs at work; he was not required to say he personally agreed with the ERDs or the views of the Roman Catholic Church. . . He remained entirely free to disagree with and disregard the directives of the Church in his personal life.” Furthermore, “[t]o the extent he believed the Agreements required him to state that he would be bound by Church doctrine in general, that is an implausible reading.” That belief “is an idiosyncratic, subjective misreading of the contract, which is secular conduct, not a bona fide religious belief.” Only a limited retaliation claim survived the motion.
Following discovery, Garfunkel Wild moved for summary judgment dismissal of the small piece of the case that survived the motion to dismiss. Garfunkel Wild argued, and the Court agreed, that Plaintiff’s objections to the ERDs were not protected activity. The Court expressly called the ERDs a “code of conduct” and reflected on its decision on the motion to dismiss. Upon reflection, the Court held that “Plaintiff’s objection to the ERDs cannot be a protected activity because it was not objectively reasonable for Plaintiff to think he was protesting an employment practice made illegal by Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Garfunkel Wild’s litigation team included Michael Keane and Gillian Barkins.
The case is Giurca v. Bon Secours Charity Health System et al in the Southern District of New York, and the full opinion can be found here.
*** Shortly after the first anniversary of this decision, on January 26, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the physician's appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision.
On January 18, 2023, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the hospital defendants, agreeing that a prospective employee’s objection to the ERDs was not a protected activity and cannot form the basis of a religious discrimination case. While the widely-disseminated code of conduct is used by Catholic healthcare facilities nationwide, there is an absence of case law establishing that their use is permissible and will not lead to discrimination-related claims. Catholic institutions requiring adherence to the ERDs now are armed with a federal court decision to fend off similar future claims.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiff, a psychiatrist seeking to work within a Catholic not-for-profit health system, objected to its requirement that its employees adhere to the ERDs. Plaintiff sued, claiming that he was discriminated against and blacklisted from employment for asking about the ERDs.
On a motion to dismiss, the Court largely dismissed Plaintiff’s claims as deficient, holding the ERDs “are statements of how the signor will conduct his medical practice while employed by the hospital, not a statement of religious belief” and cannot form the basis of a religious discrimination claim. As the Court explained, “all Plaintiff was required to do was to say that he agreed to comply with the ERDs at work; he was not required to say he personally agreed with the ERDs or the views of the Roman Catholic Church. . . He remained entirely free to disagree with and disregard the directives of the Church in his personal life.” Furthermore, “[t]o the extent he believed the Agreements required him to state that he would be bound by Church doctrine in general, that is an implausible reading.” That belief “is an idiosyncratic, subjective misreading of the contract, which is secular conduct, not a bona fide religious belief.” Only a limited retaliation claim survived the motion.
Following discovery, Garfunkel Wild moved for summary judgment dismissal of the small piece of the case that survived the motion to dismiss. Garfunkel Wild argued, and the Court agreed, that Plaintiff’s objections to the ERDs were not protected activity. The Court expressly called the ERDs a “code of conduct” and reflected on its decision on the motion to dismiss. Upon reflection, the Court held that “Plaintiff’s objection to the ERDs cannot be a protected activity because it was not objectively reasonable for Plaintiff to think he was protesting an employment practice made illegal by Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Garfunkel Wild’s litigation team included Michael Keane and Gillian Barkins.
The case is Giurca v. Bon Secours Charity Health System et al in the Southern District of New York, and the full opinion can be found here.
*** Shortly after the first anniversary of this decision, on January 26, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the physician's appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision.