A sex discrimination lawsuit filed against Moody Bible Institute can proceed after a federal appeals court ruled the litigation poses no threat to the Chicago school’s constitutionally protected religious autonomy.
The evangelical institution said it fired communications instructor Janay Garrick in 2017 for openly criticizing its teachings that women should not hold ministry leadership positions. When she sued, Moody cited constitutionally based religious exemptions in a motion to dismiss that was rejected by the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois.
In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh District later upheld the lower court’s decision, concluding that Moody’s religious liberties are protected in a case focused not on theology, but on claims of sexual discrimination in the workplace.
Janay Garrick
“Moody’s argument that it will experience irreparable harm without immediate review and reversal of the district court’s order is unavailing. Religious autonomy to shape and control doctrine will not be threatened,” the appellate court ruled.
The decision is a victory for the rule of law and represents a warning to powerful political and religious groups attempting to use religious liberty as a weapon, said Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The organization represents Garrick after she initially represented herself.
“Janay Garrick was fired because she tried to combat rampant sex discrimination at the college,” Laser said. “Our courts should not allow religious freedom to be distorted as a license to discriminate against women and deny them basic civil rights.”
Moody’s appeal hinged on the principle of church autonomy contained in the First Amendment and on exemptions granted to faith organizations in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The constitutional protections reenforce the wall of separation between church and state by preventing the government, including the courts, from interfering with the theological tenets and self-governance of religious groups. Title VII exemptions excuse faith groups from employment laws against discrimination based on race, religion, gender or national origin.
The district court initially granted Moody’s request for dismissal because some of Garrick’s accusations included disputes over complementarianism, a theological view that Scripture requires women be subordinate to men. However, Garrick was allowed to amend her complaint to focus on elements unrelated to the school’s theological positions, according to a summary included in the appellate court decision.
Her second amended complaint focused on a hostile work environment, retaliation and discrimination and disparate treatment based on sex.
When Moody challenged again, the district court dismissed Garrick’s claim of a hostile work environment but also denied the school’s assertion it should not have to answer the remaining claims of retaliation and discrimination. The appellate court assured the college its rights to doctrinal authority will not be infringed moving forward.
“Discovery may not explore the sincerity or significance of complementarianism in Moody’s religious doctrine, question the validity of that belief, or challenge policies related to it.”
“We are sympathetic to Moody’s concerns that its beliefs might be put under a microscope, but the district court should safeguard against such infringement,” the court said. “To be clear, discovery may not explore the sincerity or significance of complementarianism in Moody’s religious doctrine, question the validity of that belief, or challenge policies related to it.”
For Garrick, the “rampant sex discrimination” began soon after being hired at Moody, AU said in an announcement of the appellate decision.
“She was denied benefits offered to her male counterparts and directed to teach a heavier course load than them. She was also subjected to demeaning and hostile behavior: male colleagues critiqued her clothing, openly ridiculed her and questioned the ability of women to complete basic tasks. Garrick also saw that female students suffered sex discrimination on campus — they were ostracized because of their sexuality and publicly humiliated.”
In a 2023 legal brief, AU attorneys said the mistreatment worsened when Garrick tried to get help from her supervisor. Eventually, the school conjured up a theological explanation for its actions against her, AU contends.
“At first, Moody gave inconsistent, confusing and contradictory reasons for its retaliation. But finally it settled on one: When she was hired three years prior, Garrick explicitly stated that — like several other employees — she maintained some personal religious beliefs that differed from Moody’s. Citing the difference in religious belief, Moody fired her.”
With the college’s motions to dismiss out of the way, Garrick now may proceed to litigate her case and try to vindicate her experience at Moody.
But Laser said Garrick’s situation represents just the tip of the iceberg. “This case brings to light a dangerous trend: backed by a shadowy network of conservative legal activists, religious employers are urging courts to rewrite the rules of legal procedure so that they can weaponize religious freedom against their employees.”
Related articles:
McRaney hearing explores whether there are any times courts may decide ‘religious’ matters
Judge rules against World Vision, saying not all employees are ‘ministerial’ in nature
