Hall v. Baptist Mem Health ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    16   Hall v. Baptist Memorial                  No. 98-6761                     Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
    Health Care Corp.                                                 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 FED App. 0199P (6th Cir.)
    File Name: 00a0199p.06
    discharged because he did not share supervisor’s Mormon
    beliefs). Even if this case could be so characterized, the     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    evidence shows that the College president had a list of
    available positions she offered to help Hall obtain if Hall                      FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    would have agreed to resign her position as a Student                              _________________
    Services Specialist.     Hall declined this reasonable
    accommodation and was terminated.
    ;
    
    III.                                GLYNDA L. HALL,
    
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court granting
    
    defendant’s motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED.                                                 No. 98-6761
    v.
    
    >
    BAPTIST MEMORIAL HEALTH           
    
    
    CARE CORPORATION, d/b/a
    
    Baptist Memorial College of
    Defendant-Appellee. 
    Health Sciences,
    
    1
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
    No. 98-02035—Bernice B. Donald, District Judge.
    Argued: December 10, 1999
    Decided and Filed: June 13, 2000
    Before: BOGGS and SUHRHEINRICH, *Circuit Judges;
    POLSTER, District Judge.
    *
    The Honorable Dan Aaron Polster, United States District Judge for
    the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    1
    2    Hall v. Baptist Memorial                     No. 98-6761      No. 98-6761                    Hall v. Baptist Memorial       15
    Health Care Corp.                                                                                  Health Care Corp.
    _________________                              showing that she was fired for any reason other than taking a
    leadership position in an organization that condones a
    COUNSEL                                   lifestyle the College considers antithetical to its mission.
    Thus, the district court correctly found that Hall failed to
    ARGUED: Clyde W. Keenan, KEENAN, DABBOUS &                         show that this reason was a pretext for religious
    LAZARINI, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Paul E.               discrimination.
    Prather, KIESEWETTER, WISE, KAPLAN, SCHWIMMER
    & PRATHER, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.                          Hall endeavors to put a “reasonable accommodation” (as
    ON BRIEF: Clyde W. Keenan, KEENAN, DABBOUS &                       opposed to disparate treatment) spin on this issue. In
    LAZARINI, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Paul E.               reasonable accommodation religious discrimination cases, a
    Prather, KIESEWETTER, WISE, KAPLAN, SCHWIMMER                      plaintiff must establish that it holds a sincere religious belief
    & PRATHER, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.                       that conflicts with an employment requirement, that it
    informed the employer of the conflict, and that it was
    _________________                              discharged or disciplined for failure to comply with the
    conflicting requirement. Cooper v. Oak Rubber Co., 15 F.3d
    OPINION                                    1375, 1378 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Smith v. Pyro Mining Co.,
    _________________                              
    827 F.2d 1081
    , 1085 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 
    485 U.S. 989
    (1988)). That analysis is not relevant to this case, since
    POLSTER, District Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Glynda L.           Hall’s employer did not direct her to do anything that
    Hall sued her former employer, Defendant-Appellee Baptist          conflicted with her religious beliefs, and Hall was not
    Memorial College of Health Sciences (the “College”), under         terminated over a failure to perform any duties which
    Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(5), alleging that the College         conflicted with her religious beliefs. See, e.g., Cooper, 15
    unlawfully terminated her employment based on her religion.        F.3d 1375 (Seventh Day Adventist sues employer for
    The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the        requiring her to work on her Sabbath Day); Cowan v. Gilless,
    College. For the following reasons, we affirm.                     No. 95-5679 , 
    1996 WL 145873
    (6th Cir. Mar. 29, 1996);
    I.                                  Riselay v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., No. 90-
    1779, 
    1991 WL 44319
    (6th Cir. Apr. 2, 1991) (Christian
    Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation (“Health Care          Scientist sues employer for failing to allow sick leave);
    Corporation” or “Corporation”) is a nonprofit corporation          E.E.O.C. v. University of Detroit, 
    904 F.2d 331
    (6th Cir.
    established with the purpose of “carrying out a health care        1990) (Catholic employed by closed-shop employer refuses
    mission consistent with the traditional and ongoing health         to pay dues to union because of union’s affiliation with
    care missions of the Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee           organizations supporting abortion); Stanley v. Lawson Co.,
    Baptist Conventions and their affiliated Baptist churches with     
    993 F. Supp. 1084
    (N.D. Ohio 1997) (Christian sues employer
    which the Corporation shares common religious bonds and            who requires her to sell adult magazines); Favero v.
    convictions.” Joint Appendix (“JA”) 284-85. It is committed        Huntsville Indep. Sch. Dist., 
    939 F. Supp. 1281
    (S.D. Tex.
    to the “threefold ministry of Christ -- preaching, teaching and    1996) (Worldwide Church of God members sue employer for
    healing.” JA 308. To this end, the Corporation is authorized       failing to give them extended leaves to observe their holy
    to “acquire, own, lease, manage, operate, sell, construct,         days). But see Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat’l Laboratory, 773
    finance, provide services to, generally deal with, and affiliate   F. Supp. 304 (D. N.M. 1991) (employee alleges he was
    14    Hall v. Baptist Memorial                     No. 98-6761      No. 98-6761                   Hall v. Baptist Memorial       3
    Health Care Corp.                                                                                 Health Care Corp.
    comparison is also flawed because Hall has not alleged that         with or be the parent organization of separately incorporated
    she was terminated for conducting an illicit affair, but for her    hospitals, clinics, home health care organizations,
    membership in Holy Trinity. The district court correctly            rehabilitation centers, health maintenance organizations,
    concluded that Hall failed to establish that a similarly-situated   hospices, nursing homes, nursing and other schools,
    co-worker received more favorable treatment than she did.           educational organizations and institutions. . . . ” JA 285.
    Even assuming that Hall had set forth a prima facie case,           The chief executive officer and all directors of the Health
    she has failed to show that the reason for her termination was      Care Corporation must be members of Baptist churches
    a pretext for discrimination based on her religion. The             affiliated with the State Baptist Convention in the states of
    College contends that it terminated Hall because she assumed        their residence. The Corporation submits annual reports and
    a leadership position in an organization that publicly              certified audits to the Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee
    supported homosexual lifestyles, a view that clashed with the       Baptist Conventions. The Corporation is the parent of Baptist
    Southern Baptist Convention’s outspoken denunciation of             Memorial Hospital which, in turn, is the parent of Baptist
    homosexuality and the College’s avowed mission. Because             Memorial College of Health Sciences. The Corporation
    she exerted influence over students and student activities at       chooses the Hospital’s board of directors which, in turn,
    the College, her leadership position at Holy Trinity conflicted     appoints the board of directors for the College.
    with her job.
    The Hospital’s charter states that it is a nonprofit
    The record in this case is consistent. It shows that the          corporation organized for “charitable, educational, religious
    College tolerated employees of different faiths or no faiths,       and scientific” purposes and that its purposes include
    e.g., Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, and atheists. It also     “hospital and health care and education . . . in line with the
    shows that the president of the College concluded that where        traditional and ongoing mission of the Baptist churches
    Hall went to church was her business, and that Hall suffered        affiliated through their State Baptist Conventions in Arkansas,
    no adverse consequences when it became known that she was           Mississippi and Tennessee with the Southern Baptist
    a member of Holy Trinity.                                           Convention as now known and practiced among Baptists.”
    JA 297. The Hospital’s bylaws state that its primary purpose
    To show that the termination was based on her religion,          is to provide “health services, education and scientific
    Hall must show that it was the religious aspect of her              research in accordance with Christian principles as set out in
    leadership position that motivated her employer’s actions. Cf.      [its charter] in line with the mission of the [Hospital].” JA
    Shahar v. Bowers, 
    114 F.3d 1097
    , 1118 (11th Cir. 1997).             300. In the event of the Hospital’s dissolution, all remaining
    There is no evidence that the religious nature of Hall’s            assets must be transferred to the Health Care Corporation if
    leadership role at Holy Trinity contributed to her termination.     that organization qualifies for tax-exempt status under Section
    Hall testified that the College would have fired her if she had     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. If the Corporation
    been elected president of a local gay and lesbian coalition, or     does not qualify for tax-exempt status, the assets must be
    if she had made a televised speech opposing the Southern            transferred to the Baptist Memorial Health Care System. If
    Baptists’ position on the issue of homosexuality. The fact          the Health Care System does not qualify for tax-exempt
    that the organization in which she assumed a leadership             status, the assets must be distributed to the State Baptist
    position is a church does not transform her dismissal into one      Conventions of Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee.
    based on religion. Hall has made no additional evidentiary
    4     Hall v. Baptist Memorial                     No. 98-6761      No. 98-6761                     Hall v. Baptist Memorial       13
    Health Care Corp.                                                                                   Health Care Corp.
    The College was founded by the Mississippi, Arkansas and          Convention’s prohibition against the ordination of women.
    Tennessee Baptist Conventions. It receives financial support        However, Miller was merely acting in accordance with the
    from both the Hospital and the Corporation. The College             permissible procedures of her faith and was thus being treated
    recruits students in Baptist newspapers in seven states. It also    no differently than any other non-Baptist who acted in
    recruits students at the State Baptist Conventions in               accordance with the tenets of her faith. Miller was thus not
    Mississippi, Arkansas and Tennessee.                                similarly situated to Hall, in that she did not assume a
    leadership position in an organization that publicly supported
    The mission statement of the College provides that the            homosexual lifestyles.
    College “is an outgrowth of the mission of Baptist Memorial
    Hospital, which is based on the three-fold ministry of Christ:        In addition, the First Amendment does not permit federal
    preaching, teaching, and healing.” JA 386. The motto of the         courts to dictate to religious institutions how to carry out their
    College, which is incorporated in its seal, is “higher education    religious missions or how to enforce their religious practices.
    with a higher purpose.” JA 391, 920. The seal displays two          As the district court in the instant case eloquently observed:
    hands representing service and scholarship on a Bible
    adjacent to a branch representing the tree of knowledge. JA           In essence, [Hall] is requesting this court to tell the
    391. The College informs students of its Christian mission            [College] that it must be opposed to the ordination of
    and its relationship with Baptist principles at orientations and      women with the same degree of conviction and intensity
    open houses. Students are required to take three hours of             it has expressed in its opposition to the gay and lesbian
    religious studies, and to dress in a manner “that reflect[s]          lifestyle, or suffer liability under Title VII. The federal
    Christian principles of appropriateness.” JA 408. The                 courts are not in the business of enforcing religious
    College holds prayer breakfasts and plans numerous chapel             orthodoxy or requiring consistency and uniformity in
    programs led by local Baptist ministers. It has served as host        religious beliefs or practices. If a particular religious
    for the World Changers, a mission organization sponsored by           community wishes to differentiate between the severity
    the Southern Baptist Convention.                                      of violating two tenets of its faith, it is not the province
    of the federal courts to say that such differentiation is
    On August 7, 1995, the College hired Glynda Hall as a              discriminatory and therefore warrants Title VII
    Student Services Specialist. As a Student Services Specialist,        liability. . . .
    Hall worked with students and the administration in
    organizing and planning activities of various campus student        
    Hall, 27 F. Supp. 2d at 1039-40
    (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly,
    organizations. Hall was responsible for interpreting school         
    465 U.S. 668
    , 672 (1984) (citation omitted)).
    policies and ensuring that all student activities were consistent
    with the mission of the College. JA 1106. She was required            Hall also contends that other similarly-situated employees
    to work with the Christian student organization, coordinating       were treated more favorably than she. According to Hall, the
    its involvement with the Tennessee Baptist Convention               College took no employment action against two employees
    student ministries department. This duty necessitated her           whom it knew were having an adulterous relationship,
    attendance at meetings of the Tennessee Baptist Convention.         contrary to Southern Baptist principles. This argument is
    meritless. As with Cynthia Miller, Hall has not established
    It is undisputed that Hall was a good employee who                that the two employees assumed leadership positions in
    received no disciplinary actions during the term of her             organizations supporting homosexual lifestyles. The
    12   Hall v. Baptist Memorial                     No. 98-6761      No. 98-6761                   Hall v. Baptist Memorial       5
    Health Care Corp.                                                                                 Health Care Corp.
    1241, 1246 (6th Cir. 1995). If the plaintiff makes a prima         employment. On June 4, 1996, she was given a performance
    facie case, a presumption of discrimination arises. In order to    evaluation with all “exemplary” and “accomplished” scores.
    overcome this presumption, the defendant must articulate a         JA 876-85. On June 27, 1996, she received a letter extending
    legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff’s            her contract through 1997, along with a raise.
    termination. 
    Id. If the
    defendant can do so, the burden shifts
    back to the plaintiff to prove that the articulated reason was       In the spring of 1996, Hall began the process of becoming
    merely a pretext for the real reason, unlawful discrimination.     a lay minister at Holy Trinity Community Church (“Holy
    
    Id. Trinity”) --
    a church she had been attending since February
    1995.     According to Hall, Holy Trinity is a non-
    It is undisputed that Hall is a member of a protected class     denominational Christian church that reaches out to all
    (a member of Holy Trinity Community Church), that she was          persons seeking a relationship with Jesus Christ. The
    qualified for her position as a Student Services Specialist at     congregation includes many gay and lesbian members,
    the College, and that she suffered an adverse employment           including Hall. Holy Trinity teaches that there is nothing
    decision. Hall has not alleged that she was replaced by            inherently inconsistent between the homosexual lifestyle and
    someone outside the protected class; thus, our de novo review      Christianity. It solicits homosexual members through
    focuses on whether Hall has shown that she was treated less        advertisements in Second Stone, a national publication for
    favorably than similarly-situated persons not a member of the      gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians.
    protected class. In other words, Hall has the burden of
    establishing that comparable co-workers who engaged in               The Southern Baptist Convention is outspoken against
    substantially the same conduct as she were treated better.         homosexual lifestyles. Its formal resolution on the issue of
    Hollins v. Atlantic Co., Inc., 
    188 F.3d 652
    , 661 (6th Cir.         homosexuality states that the Convention “deplores
    1999) (citing Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29            homosexuality as a perversion of divine standards and as a
    F.3d 1078, 1084 (6th Cir. 1994)).                                  violation of nature and natural affections.” JA 310.
    Moreover, “while God loves the homosexual and offers
    The district court found that Hall did not show that any         salvation, homosexuality is not a normal lifestyle and is an
    similarly-situated non-protected employee had received more        abomination in the eyes of God.” 
    Id. favorable treatment
    by the College. In the words of the
    district court, Hall did not show, for example, that the College      In the summer of 1996, Dr. Paul Barkley, a Southern
    “had ever treated an employee who assumed a leadership             Baptist minister and Hall’s supervisor, asked Hall where she
    position in an organization expressing public support for          attended church. She informed him that she attended Holy
    homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle any differently           Trinity. Because of Barkley’s suspicion that Holy Trinity
    than it treated her.” Hall v. Baptist Memorial Health Care         condoned homosexual lifestyles and the Southern Baptist
    Corp., 
    27 F. Supp. 2d 1029
    , 1038 (W.D. Tenn. 1998).                Convention’s clear denunciation of such alternative lifestyles,
    he informed the College president, Dr. Rose Temple, about
    On appeal, Hall argues that another employee, Cynthia            Hall’s attendance there. Temple told Barkley that the College
    Miller, was similarly situated to Hall but treated more            would not intervene in Hall’s choice of where to attend
    favorably. Miller became an ordained minister in the               church.
    Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, but was allowed to
    continue her employment despite the Southern Baptist
    6    Hall v. Baptist Memorial                   No. 98-6761      No. 98-6761                    Hall v. Baptist Memorial       11
    Health Care Corp.                                                                                Health Care Corp.
    On September 15, 1996, Hall was ordained as a lay minister    at 1345 (quoting 
    Little, 929 F.2d at 951
    ). Accordingly, the
    at Holy Trinity. Hall did not invite Barkley to her ordination   court in Ward v. Hengle, 
    124 Ohio App. 3d 396
    , 400 (1997),
    ceremony because she feared she would be fired if Barkley        held that the trial court need not even determine whether a
    discovered she was a lesbian and that Holy Trinity welcomed      church waived its Title VII exemption from religious
    homosexual members. Shortly after her ordination, however,       discrimination claims based on a statement in its employment
    she informed Barkley that she was a lesbian. Hall brought        handbook that it would not discriminate against its personnel
    Barkley a copy of Second Stone to show him that there were       on the basis of religion. See also Siegel, 13 F. Supp. 2d at
    a number of churches and denominations that welcomed and         1344 (government funds are most likely available to all
    supported the gay and lesbian community. She showed him          institutions of higher learning whether or not they have a
    an advertisement in the newspaper for Holy Trinity.              religious affiliation).
    Barkley relayed this information and the newspaper to            For these reasons, the district court did not err in
    Temple. Temple testified that she perceived Hall’s position      determining that the College was exempt from the Title VII
    at the College to be one of considerable influence over          prohibition against discrimination based on religion.
    students, that Holy Trinity’s views on homosexuality were
    inconsistent with those of the Southern Baptist Convention                                      B.
    and thus the College, and that this inconsistency created a
    conflict of interest. Accordingly, on November 20, 1996,           Hall also argues that the district court erred in finding that
    Temple asked Hall to resign. Temple told Hall that if she        she failed to establish her prima facie case or that she failed
    would agree to resign, Temple would help her obtain another      to prove that the College’s articulated reason for firing her
    more appropriate position within the College, the Hospital or    was pretextual. A plaintiff may prove discrimination under
    the Health Care Corporation for which she was qualified.         Title VII through direct or circumstantial evidence. In the
    Hall refused this offer and the College terminated her for a     absence of direct evidence of discrimination, a plaintiff must
    “conflict of interest.” The termination took place on            establish its case under the framework first enunciated in
    December 3, 1996.                                                McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 
    411 U.S. 792
    (1973).
    Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 
    964 F.2d 577
    , 582-83 (6th Cir.
    Hall filed a complaint with the EEOC on January 16, 1997,      1992).
    and was issued a right-to-sue letter on December 5, 1997.
    She subsequently filed a complaint alleging employment              The McDonnell Douglas framework consists of three
    discrimination based on religious grounds in the Western         stages. First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of
    District of Tennessee on January 14, 1998. Cross motions for     discrimination. In order to establish her prima facie case,
    summary judgment were filed by the parties. On November          Hall must show that (1) she is a member of a protected group;
    23, 1998, the district court granted summary judgment in         (2) she was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) she
    favor of the College and dismissed the case. Hall filed a        was qualified for the position; and (4) she was replaced by
    timely appeal from the district court’s decision.                someone outside the protected class or was treated less
    favorably than a similarly-situated employee outside the
    Hall raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district   protected class. McDonnell 
    Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802
    ; Texas
    court erred in finding that the College was a religious          Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 
    450 U.S. 248
    , 252-53
    institution entitled to an exemption from Title VII’s            (1981); Talley v. Bravo Pitino Restaurant, Ltd., 
    61 F.3d 10
       Hall v. Baptist Memorial                      No. 98-6761      No. 98-6761                     Hall v. Baptist Memorial        7
    Health Care Corp.                                                                                    Health Care Corp.
    Corporation. Thus, the College has a direct relationship with        prohibition against religious discrimination; (2) whether the
    the Baptist church.                                                  district court erred in finding that the statutory Title VII
    exemption was not waivable; and (3) whether the district
    The College atmosphere is permeated with religious                court erred in finding that Hall did not state a prima facie case
    overtones. It recruits students in Baptist publications and at       of religious discrimination, and in finding that the College’s
    Baptist Conventions. Prospective students are informed of            proffered nondiscriminatory reason was not pretextual.
    the religious mission of the College at open houses. Incoming
    students are informed of this mission at orientation. The                                           II.
    College seal includes a picture of the Bible and the words
    “higher education with a higher purpose.” All students are             Summary judgments are reviewed de novo. E.E.O.C. v.
    required to take three hours of religious studies and must           University of Detroit, 
    904 F.2d 331
    , 334 (6th Cir. 1990). The
    comply with a dress code that reflects “Christian principles of      College has the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of
    appropriateness.” JA 408. The College holds numerous                 any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
    prayer breakfasts and chapel programs. It has held several           477 U.S 317, 327 (1986). If the College meets that
    commencements at Baptist churches and hosted Baptist-                requirement, the burden shifts to Hall to present sufficient
    sponsored programs. The fact that the College trains its             admissible evidence on which a jury could return a verdict in
    students to be nurses and other health care professionals does       her favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 
    477 U.S. 242
    ,
    not transform the institution into one that is secular. See, e.g.,   249-50 (1986).
    Mississippi College, 
    626 F.2d 477
    (four-year co-educational
    liberal arts college owned and operated by the Mississippi                                          A.
    Baptist Convention is a “religious educational institution”);
    Siegel v. Truett-McConnell College, Inc., 
    13 F. Supp. 2d 1335
             Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states that it shall be
    (N.D. Ga. 1994) (private co-educational college of liberal arts      an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to
    and sciences founded by the Georgia Baptist Convention is a          discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against
    “religious educational institution” under Title VII).                an individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
    conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
    Hall contends that even if the College is a religious             individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. . . .”
    educational institution, it waived the Title VII exemption for       42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).              In recognition of the
    such institutions because it represented itself as being an          constitutionally-protected interest of religious organizations
    equal opportunity employer and because it received federal           in making religiously-motivated employment decisions,
    funds. However, the statutory exemptions from religious              however, Title VII has expressly exempted religious
    discrimination claims under Title VII cannot be waived by            organizations from the prohibition against discrimination on
    either party. 
    Little, 929 F.2d at 951
    ; Siegel, 13 F. Supp. 2d        the basis of religion:
    at 1345. The exemptions reflect a decision by Congress that
    religious organizations have a constitutional right to be free         This subchapter shall not apply to . . . a religious
    from government intervention. 
    Id. “Once Congress
    stated                corporation, association, educational institution, or
    that ‘[t]his title shall not apply’ to religiously-motivated           society with respect to the employment of individuals of
    employment decisions by religious organizations,” neither              a particular religion to perform work connected with the
    party could expand the statute’s scope. Siegel, 13 F. Supp. 2d         carrying on by such corporation, association, educational
    institution, or society of its activities.
    8      Hall v. Baptist Memorial                      No. 98-6761    No. 98-6761                    Hall v. Baptist Memorial        9
    Health Care Corp.                                                                                 Health Care Corp.
    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a). Another, more specific exemption            point. In determining whether the College qualifies for the
    applies only to religious educational organizations:                statutory exemption, the court must look at all the facts to
    decide whether the College is a religious corporation or
    It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a           educational institution. 
    Killinger, 113 F.3d at 198-99
    . It is
    school, college, university, or other educational               appropriate to consider and weigh the religious and secular
    institution or institution of learning to hire an employee      characteristics of the institution. E.E.O.C. v. Townley Eng’g
    of a particular religion if such school, college, university,   & Mfg.Co., 
    859 F.2d 610
    (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489
    or other educational institution or institution of learning     U.S. 1077 (1989); E.E.O.C. v. Mississippi College, 626 F.2d
    is, in whole, or in substantial part, owned, supported,         477 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 
    453 U.S. 912
    (1981).
    controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a
    particular religious corporation, association, or society,        In this case, the district court properly weighed the facts and
    or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or    identified the specific religious and secular characteristics of
    other educational institution or institution of learning is     the College. Based on that analysis, the district court
    directed towards the propagation of a particular religion.      concluded that the College had set forth sufficient evidence to
    support its characterization of the College as a religious
    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2).                                          educational institution. We agree.
    The decision to employ individuals “of a particular                The College qualifies for the exemption under the plain
    religion” under § 2000e-1(a) and § 2000e-2(e)(2) has been           language of § 2000e-2(e)(2) because it is a “school, college,
    interpreted to include the decision to terminate an employee        university, or other educational institution or institution of
    whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those      learning . . . [that] . . . is, in whole, or in substantial part,
    of its employer. See, e.g., Little v. Wuerl, 
    929 F.2d 944
    , 951      owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a . . . religious
    (3rd Cir. 1991); Killinger v. Samford Univ., 
    113 F.3d 196
    ,          corporation.” 
    Id. Moreover, the
    record shows that the
    198 (11th Cir. 1997). In Little, for example, the court             Baptists created the Health Care Corporation with the sole
    concluded that the Title VII exemption included the decision        purpose of making the interrelated religious/service mission
    of a parochial school to terminate a tenured Protestant teacher     of the Baptists a reality. It accomplished this by authorizing
    who had failed to validate her second marriage by first             the Corporation to “separately incorporate hospitals, clinics,
    seeking an annulment of her previous marriage through the           home health care organizations, rehabilitation centers, health
    proper canonical procedures of the Catholic church. 929 F.2d        maintenance organizations, hospices, nursing homes, nursing
    at 951. Similarly, in Killinger, the court concluded that the       and other schools. . . .” JA 285. The College and the Hospital
    Title VII exemption included the decision of a Baptist              are mere examples of those facilities.
    university to remove a Baptist faculty member from his
    teaching position because his religious beliefs differed from         The College was founded by three sectarian organizations:
    those of the 
    dean. 113 F.3d at 198
    .                                 the Mississippi, Arkansas and Tennessee Baptist
    Conventions. It is a subsidiary of the Hospital which is a
    Hall argues on appeal that the district court erred in finding    subsidiary of the Health Care Corporation, and it receives
    that the College was a “religious educational institution”          funds from both the Hospital and the Corporation. The
    entitled to the Title VII exemption from religious                  “preaching, teaching, and healing” mission of the College is
    discrimination claims. There is no Sixth Circuit precedent on       subsumed in the missions of the Hospital and the