Catholic Relief Services (CRS) inappropriately denied spousal healthcare coverage to a gay employee, according to a memorandum from Judge Catherine C. Blake of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
“Unfortunately we cannot provide comment at this time as the case is in active litigation,” CRS Senior Director, Global Communications Kim Pozniak wrote in an email to The NonProfit Times. “We continue to work through the judicial system to resolve this important issue as soon as possible.”
When Baltimore-based CRS withdrew benefits from the spouse of plaintiff “John Doe,” a pseudonym for a data analyst currently employed by CRS, it did so in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination, according to the memorandum. Judge Blake rejected the argument that Title VII’s exemption for employees of religious entities would allow CRS “to discriminate not just in favor of co-religionists but also those who do not share particular beliefs or conduct standards tied to its religious identity.” As part of the memorandum, Judge Blake wrote the exemption “does not exempt religious organizations from the bar on forms of discrimination based on protected characteristics other than religion.”
According to the background section of the memorandum, in 2016 the plaintiff mentioned his husband to a CRS recruiter and was told – mistakenly – that all dependents would be covered. Doe started work with CRS in June 2016, and enrolled his husband in CRS’s spousal benefits program. That enrollment was initially approved, which CRS representatives maintained was a mistaken action on the organization’s part. In November 2016, a benefits manager at CRS informed Doe his husband’s health insurance would be dropped at the end of the month.
However, Doe’s husband remained covered. In July 2017, a benefits manager offered to move Doe’s husband to an insurance alternative similar to COBRA for a 36-month period and to give Doe a $5,000 raise or technical adjustment for the additional expenses that would be incurred, despite those expenses being estimated at around $6,400. CRS terminated the husband’s health insurance on Oct. 1, 2017.
In 2017, Doe was given a promotion along with an $8,000 raise, and in 2019 Doe was allowed to make a lateral move which also had an unspecified compensation adjustment.
According to the memorandum, CRS’s actions also violated the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act. Judge Blake wrote that she would refer questions regarding Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Despite the lawsuit, John Doe is still employed and actively working as a data analyst for CRS, according to Anthony May of Brown, Goldstein & Levy, one of John Doe’s attorneys.
May acknowledged Judge Blake’s opinion that actions taken by CRS management did not constitute retaliation. Doe and his attorneys have not made a decision regarding whether to appeal that finding. Similarly, CRS’s actions did not reach the threshold for punitive damages, and in light of the promotion and move Doe made CRS leadership could not be considered as having made retaliatory moves, according to Judge Blake.
In Judge Blake’s opinion, questions regarding whether Doe’s additional compensation offset various expenses and whether emotional trauma resulting from delays in Doe’s husband’s dental care and need to find alternative health insurance were better left to a jury.
A conference call with all parties to discuss further proceedings is pending but has not yet been scheduled, according to both an order accompanying the memorandum and Doe’s attorney May.
“The next step is that a jury decides what the damages are – how much is owed and what CRS needs to put in place,” May told The NonProfit Times.
