Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D. Minn.: Title VII claim of Christian university accounting professor barred by ministerial exception, (Jun 9, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“With no clear direction on how vastly it can be applied, the ministerial exception is looking like a dangerously broad exception to anti-discrimination laws” that needs a more narrowed interpretation.

Though a close call, a federal court in Minnesota found that an accounting professor at a Christian University was a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception—she was entrusted with promoting Christianity and integrating faith into her teaching—and thus it granted summary judgment against her Title VII race discrimination claim. Because it was less clear whether the exception barred its consideration of the professor’s negligent supervision claim, the court denied summary judgment without prejudice on that claim and invited the parties to engage in more limited discovery on that issue (Schmidt v. University of Northwestern-St. Paul, No. 23-2199 (JRT/JFD) (D. Minn. June 5, 2025)).

Application. When the employee applied for a professor of accounting position with the university in 2017, the job description emphasized that “all employees act as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ by actively partnering with the University to disciple students in growing intellectually and spiritually, and with Northwestern Media to lead people to Christ and nurture believers to mature in their faith.” In addition, the job qualifications included the ability to “maintain a personal relationship with Jesus Christ,” and be “a consistent witness for Jesus Christ.” The university also required applicants to explain their personal faith, their philosophy of Christian higher education, and their plans to integrate Christianity into their teaching.

In her application, the professor included a description of her years of teaching as an adjunct professor; 11 as an ordained minister, and seven as a non-ordained minister. She also wrote that her relationship with God was the strongest it has ever been and that she intended “to transition the same Biblical truths that I’ve instilled within my current students (through using scripture to integrate a keen understanding, integrating learning, practice, and faith; using the Bible to identify instructional methods in accounting (i.e. apostles, tax collectors), etc., at the [University] to ensure they develop the values and attitude of Christ.” According to the professor, she was never told she was expected to integrate Christianity into her teaching.

Hired. On the day she was hired, she received an email with a welcome letter, a copy of the Philosophy of Education Statement emphasizing that “the study of the Bible is central to our approach to education,” and the Faculty Handbook, which stated that faculty are expected to be “guided by biblical principles and objectives.” The professor began her classes with prayer and a student-read devotional. Her syllabi included the university’s mission statement and words of biblical wisdom.

Sued. Shortly after she was hired, she alleged that she was subjected to derogatory comments, racial epithets, and microaggressions regarding herself and her family, her car was vandalized on campus, and at some point, she discovered “Leave N****r” scrawled on her new vehicle. She sued the university, asserting claims under Title VII and state-law, among others, and the university, arguing that her claims were barred by the ministerial exception—an affirmative defense grounded in the religion clauses of the First Amendment that prohibits courts from interfering with employment disputes between religious institutions and their “ministers”—moved for summary judgment.

Religious institution. Finding first that the university is a religious institution, the court explained that there is no requirement that a religious institution belong to an established denomination. Moreover, said the court, it is a Christian institution whose stated mission is to provide Christ-centered higher education and support students’ growth intellectually and spiritually and it aims to “expressly set [itself] apart from public schools that [it] believe[s] do not reflect [its] values.”

Minister. As to whether the professor qualified as a minister, the court pointed to four factors generally considered in that analysis—whether the religious institution held the employee out as a minister; whether the employee’s position required a significant degree of religious training; whether the employee held herself out as a minister; and whether the employee’s job duties reflected a role in “conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.”

Religious training. Regarding the religious training factor, the court noted that though the professor had significant experience as a minister when she applied to the university, she ultimately took a job teaching secular courses and there was no evidence her position required significant religious training.

Holding self out as minister. Turning to the second factor, the court found evidence suggesting the professor held herself out as a minister. Not only did she list her ministerial background on her application, she emphasized her relationship with God, described the opportunity to enhance the university’s mission statement as “an honor and a blessing,” and explained her intent to instill “Biblical truths” within her students by “using scripture to integrate a keen understanding” and “integrating learning, practice, and faith using the Bible to identify instructional methods in accounting.”

Job duties. Although less clear, the court found the evidence also suggested that the professor’s job duties reflected a role in “conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.” Specifically, there was evidence she started classes with prayer and student-led readings of devotionals and she provided the Christ-centered mission statement and messages on the Christian perspective and Biblical wisdom in her class syllabi. Further, her employment agreements and the faculty handbooks stated that she was expected to help carry out the university’s mission.

For her part, however, the professor argued that she only integrated Christianity into her teaching under duress and only after she reported the alleged discrimination and harassment and she only incorporated biblical messaging on her syllabi after being threatened by an “inebriated, gun toting agent.” But there was no evidence, other than her own self-serving statements, to support these contentions, the court observed, and that she carried out the mission of the school as she was entrusted to do, even if unwillingly, did not negate a finding that she was a minister.

Concluding that the professor was a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception, the court explained that despite teaching secular subjects, she was entrusted with promoting Christianity and integrating the faith into her teaching and was expected to model the Christian faith for her students in and outside the classroom.

Danger. The court, however, acknowledged “the danger that applying the ministerial exception to secular teachers at religious schools like [the professor] poses to such teachers’ ability to seek relief from the courts.” “With no clear direction on how vastly it can be applied,” the court stated, “the ministerial exception is looking like a dangerously broad exception to anti-discrimination laws” that needs a more narrowed interpretation. Nonetheless, the court, granting summary judgment in part to the university, found that the exception barred its consideration of the employee’s Title VII discrimination claim.

Negligent supervision. It was unclear to the court, however, whether the professor’s negligent supervision claim implicated ecclesiastical matters and whether the ministerial exception applied to it. Denying summary judgment against this claim, the court asked the parties to engage in limited discovery on this issue.

The case is No. 23-2199 (JRT/JFD).

Judge: Tunheim, J.

Attorneys: Damon L. Ward (Ward Law Group) and Samuel Henry (Law Offices of Samuel C. Henry) for Rolanda Schmidt. Kathryn M. Nash (Lathrop GPM) for University of Northwestern-St. Paul.

Companies: University of Northwestern-St. Paul

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination Procedure StateLawClaims TortClaims MinnesotaNews