Susana Verduzco was hired in a temporary position as a Human Resources and Payroll Administrator at St. Mary’s High School, a private religious school in California. Verduzco received positive feedback from her work, and as a result her supervisor, Monique Carter, inquired if she was interested in a non-temporary position. Verduzco affirmed her interest and was later told that she would be hired at the end of January 2023.
Shortly after this exchange, Verduzco informed Carter that she was pregnant. Verduzco said that Carter reacted negatively to the news, was surprised, and indicated that she would need to speak with the School’s President regarding Verduzco’s employment, as the pregnancy news was a “new revelation.”
Carter later informed Verduzco that they would not be hiring her as a permanent employee as the School needed someone who could be present for the entire school year. Verduzco was informed that if the position was available after she had her baby she could apply then.
Verduzco argued that after disclosing her pregnancy, Carter began regularly making inappropriate comments about her pregnancy. Verduzco further argued that Verduzco’s replacement made an inappropriate comment about Verduzco’s breasts, which Verduczo reported to Carter. Carter said that the employee meant no harm by the comment, though Carter spoke to the employee and told the employee that some people may find those comments offensive.
After Verduzco delivered her baby, she reached out to Carter to inquire about the non-temporary position but received no response. She then contacted the staffing agency that had placed her and was told she was no longer needed at the School.
As a result, Verduzco filed a pregnancy-related action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Verduzco argued that the School committed six FEHA violations: (1) discrimination based on her pregnancy status; (2) harassment based on her pregnancy status; (3) failure to provide protected medical leave; (4) failure to make reasonable accommodations for plaintiff’s pregnancy status; (5) failure to engage with plaintiff in a process to determine reasonable accommodations for her pregnancy status; and (6) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) applies to public and private employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies, and provides protection from harassment or discrimination in employment because of age, ancestry, color, creed, denial of family and medical care leave, disability, marital status, medical condition, national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. FEHA does not apply to religious associations or religious corporations not organized for private profit.
Despite this exception, Verduzco argued that St. Mary’s High School, a non-profit religious corporation, was an employer subject to FEHA. Verduzco argued, without any legal authority or explanation, that the School was acting as a nonprofit public benefit corporation rather than a religious corporation. Nonprofit public benefit corporations are not exempt from FEHA, and therefore, St. Mary’s High School should be subject to FEHA.
The Court found Verduzco’s argument unconvincing. The Court noted that the definition of employer does not concern itself with how a corporation functions but rather how it is organized. Furthermore, both a nonprofit public benefit corporation and a religious corporation must include in their articles of incorporation that they are either a “nonprofit public benefit corporation… organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law” or a “religious corporation organized under the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law.”
In this case, the School’s articles of incorporation contained language indicating that it was a religious corporation and not a nonprofit public benefit corporation. The Court thus granted the School’s motion to dismiss the FEHA claims against the School.
Note: This case serves as an important reminder that religious schools incorporated as religious corporations are not subject to FEHA. However, it is also important to note that a court would likely find an employer who is subject to FEHA to be in violation of the act if the employer made decisions not to hire employees based on their pregnancy status.
Verduzco v. St. Mary’s High Sch. (E.D.Cal. June 21, 2024) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 110243.