United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019-03-18
42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; Title VII religion-based hostile work environment and retaliation claims (plus ADA) against a church employer; summary judgment for the employer under the religious organization exemption, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a), affirmed (9th Cir.); result: claimant-lost; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-1(a)
Uncertainty
Element employer: basis: decided on an undisputed summary-judgment record with the burden on the employer; the contested questions were legal (scope of the exemption), so `law` rather than `no-evidence`.
Element employer: cites: no law-side id exists for the 2000e-1(a) exemption; a dedicated exception id would be more accurate than `employer`.
Misfit
The hostile-environment and retaliation elements themselves are never reached: the exemption disposes of both claims. The ADA ruling is outside this statute.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 33
| Case | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) | adverse-action-a2 statutory route or exception | employment-agency-route statutory route or exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garcia v. Salvation Army — 918 F.3d 997 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | ✗ not · lawNot counted: applied/procedural | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 33
| Case | labor-organization-route statutory route or exception | training-program statutory route or exception | Impermissible motivating factor in mixed-motive cases (§ 2000e-2(m)) | Bona fide occupational qualification (§ 2000e-2(e)(1)) | Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment | Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garcia v. Salvation Army — 918 F.3d 997 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 33
| Case | Bona fide seniority/merit system or professionally developed ability test (§ 2000e-2(h)) | Failure to reasonably accommodate religious observance or practice (§§ 2000e-2(a)(1), 2000e(j)) | Retaliation for protected Title VII activity (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) | communist-organization statutory route or exception | Employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (McDonnell Douglas step 2) | indian-preference statutory route or exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garcia v. Salvation Army — 918 F.3d 997 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–24 of 33
| Case | Subsection (n) limits challenges to covered litigated or consent judgments or orders | judgment-order-scope statutory route or exception | k2-intentional-limit statutory route or exception | k3-controlled-substance statutory route or exception | labor-organization-causation statutory route or exception | national-security statutory route or exception |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garcia v. Salvation Army — 918 F.3d 997 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 25–30 of 33
| Case | no-preference-imbalance statutory route or exception | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | Qualified for the position / meeting legitimate employer expectations | religious-institution statutory route or exception | test-score-discrimination statutory route or exception | Rejected "bottom-line" racial or gender balance defense to a discriminatory pass/fail barrier (Connecticut v. Teal) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garcia v. Salvation Army — 918 F.3d 997 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 31–33 of 33
| Case | Strong-basis-in-evidence defense for race-conscious action taken to avoid disparate-impact liability (Ricci v. DeStefano) | Rejected defense that an adverse CBA arbitration precludes a Title VII action (Alexander v. Gardner-Denver) | Mixed-motive same-decision partial affirmative defense (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B)) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Garcia v. Salvation Army — 918 F.3d 997 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garcia v. Salvation Army — 918 F.3d 997 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-1(a); theory: the religious organization exemption (2000e-1(a)) applies to this employer and reaches these claims; subject: theory=the religious organization exemption (2000e-1(a)) applies to this employer and reaches these claims The exemption applied is 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a) (Title VII "shall not apply to an employer with respect to ... a religious corporation ..."), NOT the 2000e-2(e)(2) educational-institution exception that the law file declares as `religious-institution`. It is recorded on `employer` because the route `religious-organization` is defined as "covered employer for the claim, or exempt". Polarity is relative to the Salvation Army being a COVERED employer for these claims: religious character and the religion-based nature of the claims cut against. Two rulings: (A) the Salvation Army, a church, is a religious organization (15% sales revenue does not defeat that); (B) the exemption is not limited to hiring and firing: it reaches religion-based hostile-environment and retaliation claims. | church-employer-exempt-from-religion-based-harassment-and-retaliation-claims | In 2002, the Corps hired Garcia to work as an assistant to the pastor, a position she held until July 2010, when Arlene and Dionisio Torres became the new pastors.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [1505:1668] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213.The Salvation Army holds regular religious services.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [6533:6585] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213.Here in the United States, the Salvation Army operates through 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporations.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [1093:1189] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213.Three days later, Garcia filed an internal grievance of her own against Torres, claiming that she "fe[lt] discriminated against and excluded and isolated" at work ever since leaving the church.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [2445:2638] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213.In applying the ROE, we determine whether an institution's "purpose and character are primarily religious" by weighing "[a]ll significant religious and secular characteristics."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [5609:5786] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213.Because the ROE permits religious organizations to discriminate based on religion, retaliation claims based on religious discrimination fail against protected organizations because the practice "opposed" is not "unlawful."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [12775:12997] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213.The record establishes that, as a church, the Salvation Army is "clearly" religious.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [7015:7099] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213.Absent prejudice resulting from the Salvation Army's failure to timely raise the defense, however, the ROE forecloses Garcia's Title VII claims for retaliation and hostile work environment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [30952:31141] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213. |
| Garcia v. Salvation Army — 918 F.3d 997 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Covered entity: employer, employment agency, or labor organization | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-1(a); theory: whether the exemption is jurisdictional or was forfeited by not being pleaded; subject: theory=whether the exemption is jurisdictional or was forfeited by not being pleaded Procedural ruling: the district court erred in treating the exemption as jurisdictional (Arbaugh); it is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and can be forfeited, but here the late assertion caused no prejudice, so the exemption still applies. Polarity is relative to the exemption being unavailable (i.e. the Salvation Army remaining a covered employer). | exemption-not-pleaded-in-answer-but-raised-at-summary-judgment-without-prejudice | The Salvation Army did not raise the ROE in its answer but insists that it pleaded enough to put Garcia on notice.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [21331:21445] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213.But as a former member of the Salvation Army's congregation, Garcia was intimately familiar with its religious focus and mission.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [23433:23562] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213.Even so, "[i]n the absence of a showing of prejudice ... an affirmative defense may be raised for the first time at summary judgment."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [22763:22897] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213.We hold that the ROE is nonjurisdictional and subject to procedural forfeiture.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [30872:30951] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213.Absent prejudice, the Salvation Army permissibly invoked the ROE at summary judgment, and it applies to foreclose Garcia's Title VII claims.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [23981:24121] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213. |
| Garcia v. Salvation Army — 918 F.3d 997 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-1(a) Not contested and not analysed; the claim is mistreatment for having left the employer's church. | former-church-adherent | In late 2011, Garcia and her husband "left the Church" and stopped attending the Salvation Army's religious services, but Garcia continued her work as social services coordinator.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_918.jsonl#/f3d/918/0997-01; Unicode character offsets [1875:2054] (end exclusive); SHA-256 4482ee745ce02a4e1c2f69943f5c6ce8899574c95ee0886292f463dd63e1e213. |