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
FAIR MARKET RENT APPEAL PROPERLY DISMISSED.
NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission Had the Authority to Mandate the Use of a Particular Vehicle as a NYC Taxi
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED ON DEBRIS AND FELL INTO A TWO-TO-THREE-FOOT-DEEP PIT FROM WHICH THE PLYWOOD COVER HAD BEEN REMOVED TRIGGERING POTENTIAL LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY; TWO DEFENDANTS MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 FOR THE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO TIE OFF LANYARD WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALL, ABSENCE OF A GUARDRAIL ON THE SCAFFOLD REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE IMPROPERLY SECURED BEAM WHICH STRUCK HIM FELL DID NOT PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM BEING AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Reporter’s Information Subject to Qualified Protection​
PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ALTERATION WHEN HE FELL FROM AN A FRAME LADDER AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, RECOVERY NOT PRECLUDED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF WAS THE ONLY WITNESS OR ON THE GROUND OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER A VIDEOTAPE OF THE EVENT AT WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DID NOT WARRANT THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DURING THE JURY TRIAL.

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...