Religious employers must comply with nondiscrimination laws and are prohibited from discriminating against employees due to sexual orientation, civil and religious rights organizations said in a new court filing.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and eight other groups submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the plaintiff in Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, an LGBTQ rights case currently before the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 2020 lawsuit accused Catholic Relief Services in Baltimore of violating state and federal anti-discrimination protections by withdrawing spousal insurance benefits to the husband of a male employee identified as “John Doe.” The marriage is legal in Maryland but not recognized in Catholic teaching.
The agency, now backed by the federal government, has appealed a 2025 district court ruling granting $60,000 in damages for violating the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act. CRS also violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Federal Equal Pay Act, another federal judge ruled in 2022.
The Catholic humanitarian aid group argues its action is supported by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
CRS also asserts the application of anti-discrimination statutes in the case violates the principle of church autonomy barring government interference in the theological and ecclesiastical affairs of faith-based organizations.
“According to CRS and intervenor United States, the fact that federal and state laws clearly prohibit such discrimination is irrelevant. What matters, they say, is that CRS — or any other religious employer in a similar situation — has a religious justification for discriminating,” according to the Jan. 9 amicus brief filed by the ACLU, Americans United, Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, the Central Atlantic Conference of the United Church of Christ, DignityUSA, the Global Justice Institute of Metropolitan Community Churches, the Hindu American Foundation, the Methodist Federation for Social Action, Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus and the Society for Humanistic Judaism.
“The First Amendment ‘does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws.”
“The First Amendment ‘does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws,’” the civil and religious rights groups said. “Church autonomy is a narrow doctrine that prevents courts from intervening in disputes that resolve purely ecclesiastical matters, including those concerning a religious entity’s choice of ministerial employees. It is not, as CRS and the United States claim, a free pass to discriminate against non-ministerial employees or to violate secular laws.”
The plaintiff did not qualify as a ministerial employee because he worked in information technology and therefore played no direct role in the agency’s humanitarian relief work or donor relations, the groups argued.
The additional argument that the depth of CRS’ religious conviction justifies the denial of benefits also is invalid under the law, the brief states.
“CRS and the United States are therefore incorrect that employers get a free pass to discriminate — regardless of whether an employee is ministerial — so long as the discrimination is motivated by ‘sincere religious beliefs.’ There is no general constitutional immunity, over and above the ministerial exception, that can protect a religious institution from the law’s operation.”
Using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense also is faulty because the law prohibits government, not individuals, from threatening the free exercise of religion. “Because Doe, not the government, brought this lawsuit to enforce his rights under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, CRS cannot use RFRA as a defense,” the groups argue.
“Instead, the central question is straightforwardly secular: Whether CRS revoked Doe’s dependent’s health insurance because of Doe’s sexual orientation. Nothing in that question requires ‘extensive inquiry by civil courts into religious law and polity.’”
Ryan Tucker, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, described the district court ruling as troubling for multiple reasons, Catholic News Agency reported.
“Now and always, every religious organization has the right to hire people who share its faith. The government should never penalize a religious nonprofit just because it’s religious,” he said. “This ruling, however, is deeply concerning due to the implications it may have for the First Amendment rights of religious organizations and employers.”
But Americans United President Rachel Laser said the issue isn’t the ministry’s beliefs but how they were used to justify discrimination.
“Religious freedom is not a license to discriminate or harm LGBTQ workers,” she said. “Employers don’t have a right based on their religious beliefs to dock the compensation of an employee who happens to be LGBTQ. That’s not how religious freedom works.”