#macw hashtag - Bluesky

James McCrea

@jamesmccrea.bsky.social

3 months ago

I’m a hater, but the numbers don’t lie.
#MacW

0 0 0 0

Minnesota Appellate Court Watch

@minnappct.watch

4 months ago

IN COURT OF APPEALS A25-0559 Reyzl Grace MoChridhe, Appellant, vs. Academy of Holy Angels, Respondent, Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Respondent. Filed December 1, 2025 Affirmed Larkin, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-24-11601 Jess Braverman, Brittany Stewart (pro hac vice), Gender Justice, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Joni M. Thome, Katherine Rollins, Wanta Thome PLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant) Katie M. Connolly, Sara Gross Methner, Sara L. Lewenstein, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Thomas B. Wieser, Thomas Wieser Law, West St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Holy Angels) Paul J. Zech, Scott D. Blake, Felhaber Larson, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Lorie S. Gildea, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Archdiocese) Leslie L. Lienemann, Celeste E. Culberth, Culberth & Lienemann, LLP, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Brian T. Rochel, Kitzer Rochel, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

As this case shows—on the face of MoChridhe’s complaint—the decision not to offer her renewed employment at Holy Angels was based only on a religious reason: her stated inability to abide by the directives in the Guiding Principles, as applied in the school setting. Thus, consideration of MoChridhe’s claims would require consideration of the Archdiocese’s religious reason for the employment decision, would interfere with the Archdiocese’s internal decision to require compliance with the Guiding Principles in the school setting—which relates to the church’s mission to educate young people in its faith— and would foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion. The potential 27 inapplicability of the ministerial exception does not change that conclusion, and there is no precedent indicating that it must.5

In conclusion, we recognize the apparent tension between the government’s interest in eliminating discrimination and the religious freedoms protected by the First Amendment. “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.” Hosanna Tabor, 565 U.S. at 196 (emphasis added); see Geraci, 526 N.W.2d at 399 (“There is a tension between eradicating discrimination and permitting the free exercise of religion; however, in this case, the balance weighs in favor of the First Amendment.”). Based on our application of precedent to the particular facts of this case—as alleged in MoChridhe’s complaint—we hold that because the allegations in MoChridhe’s complaint, construed in her favor, establish that the district court’s adjudication of her claims would violate the religious protections of the First Amendment as a matter of law, the district court properly dismissed MoChridhe’s employment discrimination claims against the Archdiocese for failure to state a claim under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e).

In a precedential opinion, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirms the dismissal of a transgender woman's discrimination case against a Catholic school, ruling the 1st Amendment protects the school because declining to employ trans people "affects the faith and mission of the church itself." #MACW

12 3 1 1