Hellwege v. Tampa Family Health Ctrs. – April 2015 (Summary)

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

Hellwege v. Tampa Family Health Ctrs., No. 8:14-cv-1576-T-33AEP (M.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2015)

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted in part and denied in part a health center’s motion to dismiss a complaint filed by an advanced practice nurse alleging that she was denied employment as a nurse midwife based on her religious beliefs and associations in violation of state and federal law.

The health center advertised that it had openings for four nurse-midwife positions. The APN emailed the health center to inquire about the position and attached her resume. In her resume, the midwife listed that she was a member of the American Association of Pro–Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), a pro-life organization that does not believe in prescribing hormonal contraceptives in particular situations. An employee of the health center responded telling the midwife that, due to her membership with the AAPLOG, the health center could not move forward in the interviewing process.

The midwife then filed a complaint alleging that the health center had refused to allow her to apply due to her religious beliefs and membership in an organization, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §300a-7 (“Church Amendments”), Title VII, and state law. The health center then filed a motion to dismiss.

The court examined the Church Amendments which contain “conscience provisions” enacted to make it clear that “receipt of Federal funds did not require the recipients of such funds to perform abortions or sterilizations.” The Church Amendments contain clear language prohibiting discrimination and recognizing individual rights stemming from “religious beliefs or moral conviction.” In reviewing the Church Amendments, the court found that the law created a right but it did not create a right of action. Specifically, the court found that in passing the Church Amendments, Congress did not intend to create a private remedy. Rather, as set forth in the law, enforcement is left to the Office of Civil Rights. The court granted the health center’s motion to dismiss the claim involving the Church Amendments.

However, the court held that the midwife had alleged the essential elements of a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state law. Specifically, she alleged that she was a member of a protected class, that she applied for and was qualified for a position, that despite her qualification she was not hired, and that the position remained open. The court took note of the health center’s argument that the midwife was not qualified for the position, but could not rule on that argument at this stage of the proceedings. The court allowed the midwife’s failure-to-hire claim to go forward.