You are here: / / THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT...
, , ,

THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION BY EMPLOYEES OF A PRIVATE CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL; THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION PRECLUDES ACTIONS AGAINST RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS WHICH INTERFERE WITH RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE; THE ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT BY SCHOOL OFFICIALS DO NOT INVOLVE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the-hostile work-environment causes of action by employees of a private Catholic high school should not have been dismissed pursuant to the “ministerial exception” which, in certain circumstances, will preclude employment discrimination actions against a religious institution:

Plaintiffs … were all employed by … a private Catholic school . The case stems from plaintiffs’ allegations that the school’s Principal … regularly subjected them to vulgar, sexist, ageist, racist and homophobic remarks and epithets. Plaintiffs further allege that … the school’s Vice Principal … and … the school’s Dean of Men, regularly repeated [the Principal’s] vile language and assisted in his efforts to discriminate against staff. In addition, plaintiffs allege that … the head of defendant Archdiocese of New York … and the defendant Archdiocese knew about [the Principal’s] conduct but did nothing to stop it.

Plaintiffs’ claims for hostile work environment were improperly dismissed under the ministerial exception, which precludes some employment claims against religious institutions on First Amendment grounds … . Although the ministerial exception was created to protect churches from state interference in their decisions to employ and supervise ministerial employees, it was not intended as a shield from all types of workplace conduct … . * * *

Here, plaintiffs are correct that there is no religious justification for [the Principal’s] appalling conduct, and analyzing their hostile work environment claims would not require the Court to improperly interfere with religious doctrine or defendants’ personnel decisions. Boliak v Reilly, 2025 NY Slip Op 07088, First Dept 12-18-25

Practice Point: Some employment discrimination actions against religious institutions are barred by the ministerial exception. Here the allegations plaintiffs, employees of a private Catholic School, were harassed by school officials did not require a court’s interference with religious doctrine and therefore were not precluded by the ministerial exception.​

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Res Ipsa Loquitur Applied to Garage Door Suddenly Coming Down
PROOF THE MORTGAGE WAS ASSIGNED TO PLAINTIFF WITHOUT PROOF THE NOTE WAS ALSO ASSIGNED BEFORE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE SCAFFOLD FROM WHICH HE FELL DID NOT HAVE GUARDRAILS; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
SIX YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING DEFENDANT TO TRIAL WAS NOT MOTIVATED BY THE PEOPLE’S ATTEMPT TO GAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE; DISMISSAL ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS PROPERLY DENIED.
RECENT CHANGES TO THE STATUTES: (1) REQUIRING A LANDLORD TO MITIGATE DAMAGES WHEN A TENANT ABANDONS A RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BEFORE THE END OF THE LEASE; AND (2), APPLYNG A SECURITY DEPOSIT TO REPAIRS, INTERPRETED AND APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
Irrelevant Information in Presentence Report Should Not Have Been Allowed In “Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED... ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED THE RELEASE TO APPLY TO A PENDING FALSE...