Search News


Browse Archives

News

Rebuke for Religion-Driven Policy

August 11, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A Roman Catholic college in North Carolina discriminated against employees by denying them health care coverage for contraceptives, and then retaliated against those who complained, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has determined.

Belmont Abbey College, which was founded by Benedictine Monks, changed health care coverage in December 2007 to exclude oral contraceptives, abortions, vasectomies and tubal ligations. That decision drew the rebuke of at least eight faculty members, who filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC. After first denying the discrimination complaint in March, the commission reversed its decision in a July 30 letter.

In its letter, the commission noted that failure to cover oral contraceptives constituted gender-based discrimination because it denied a benefit to women only. The commission did not find evidence, however, to support the claim that employees had been discriminated against based on their religion, since the policy applied to employees regardless of their religion.

In accordance with its own policies and federal law, the EEOC would not confirm or deny whether it had ever received charges, pursued an investigation or issued a ruling. As such, there's no indication of why the commission changed its determination.

When faculty members first challenged the revised Belmont Abbey health care plan, President William Thierfelder sent an e-mail message to students and faculty and staff members identifying by name the eight people who had complained to the EEOC. That action prompted faculty complaints of retaliation, and the EEOC agreed.

“Clearly, the president could have explained why the college was taking contraception benefits out of its new employee health insurance policy without stating each of your names as the persons who filed the charges,” Victoria Mackey, the EEOC senior investigator into the complaint, wrote in a March 5 letter to those who brought the charges. “By disclosing your names, a chilling effect was created on the campus whereby other faculty and staff members would be reluctant to file a charge of discrimination with the commission against the respondent for fear that their name would be in a memo from the president to faculty and staff at the college.”

Belmont Abbey officials did not respond to interview requests, but Thierfelder issued a statement late Monday afternoon. He denied that the college had discriminated or retaliated against anyone, and said the college would ask the EEOC to reconsider its decision yet again.

“We are disappointed that this matter has taken this very unusual twist, but we remain committed to ensuring that all of the college’s policies and practices follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, which includes valuing all life and treating individuals with dignity and respect, and providing equal opportunities for all,” the statement said.

Belmont Abbey employees and students are not required to be Catholic, and many of them aren’t. David Neipert, who was among the faculty members to file complaints, says he asked before he was hired whether being not Catholic would present a problem, and the president himself said it wouldn’t be an issue. But when Neipert challenged the health care coverage change, he says, he quickly felt discriminated against. Then an associate professor, Neipert says he was denied a promotion to full professor shortly after the controversy erupted.

While the EEOC didn’t find evidence to support the allegation that the promotion was denied because of religious discrimination, Neipert says he certainly thought his outspokenness played a role.

“It sounded to me like ‘You ain’t Catholic; you’re not going anywhere,’ ” Neipert said.

Neipert says the debate over health care, coupled with continuing tension between faculty members and the administration, were enough to make him want to leave Belmont Abbey. He’s now a visiting assistant professor at Texas A&M, where he teaches courses on international trade. The move cost Neipert a cut in both salary and rank, but he says “I just got tired of being in the middle of the boiling pot.”

Others who challenged the policy change, however, are staying put. Janette Blandford, an associate professor of philosophy and a practicing Catholic, says she wants to continue teaching at a Catholic institution -- just not the kind Thierfelder envisions.

“He’s not open to any form of Catholicism except his own twisted brand,” says Blandford, who does not subscribe to the church’s teachings on birth control. “I’m staying. He’s got to go.”

Thierfelder holds a doctoral degree in sports psychology and human movement from Boston University, but he came to Belmont Abbey from the business world. A former Olympic athlete, Thierfelder was president of York Barbell Company in York, Pa., before he became head of the college. His somewhat nontraditional background has led to a disconnect between Thierfelder and the faculty, according to Blandford. Blandford, who has tenure, says she expects the relationship to get rockier in the wake of the EEOC ruling.

“Do I think he’ll make attempts to do [retaliatory] things? Yeah,” she said. “Do I think he’ll fail? Definitely.”

State Law Has Religious Exemption

North Carolina is among at least 24 states with laws mandating that insurers that cover prescription drugs also cover any contraceptive approved by the Food and Drug Administration, according to the National Conference of State Legislators.

While the state’s law does provide an exemption for religious organizations, it narrowly defines what constitutes a religious organization:

  • The entity must be organized and operated for religious purposes and be tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
  • The inculcation of religious values is one of the primary purposes of the entity.
  • The entity employs primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.

Faculty who complained about the health care coverage changes say Belmont Abbey fails to meet most -- if not all -- of the criteria for an exemption. While the college is a 501(c)(3) organization, most of the employees are not Catholic, and religious indoctrination is not the college’s primary aim, according to Blandford.

There are about 200 Catholic colleges and universities in the United States, but the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities does not track how many offer insurance coverage for contraception. The association's president also declined to comment on the details of the Belmont case.

While Belmont Abbey has indicated its intention to challenge the ruling, the EEOC will move forward with conciliation efforts, according to its policy. The details of the proposed settlement are confidential, but one faculty member said the agreement provides monetary compensation for retaliation and requires the college to reinstate its insurance coverage for contraception. Faculty members could also bring their own legal action in federal court.

Regardless of what happens next, it’s clear that the professors who challenged the policy see something of a victory already. Jim Giermanski, a now-retired faculty member who complained to the EEOC, says he’s “delighted” with the outcome.

“A finding of discrimination and a finding of retaliation are serious,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Complying with the law is also a serious matter.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Rebuke for Religion-Driven Policy

  • so much for freedom of religion . . .
  • Posted by PiledHigher&Deeper , PhD at European on August 11, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Isn't all the US rhetoric about freedom of religion finally finished? When the government steps in to tell an institutions which of its beliefs it can hold--and live according to--then there is no freedom. As far as I know, no Catholic/religious institutions are FORCING employees to work for them. It seems rather tolerant that these institutions allow people of other faiths (or even no faith at all) to hold employment there, so long as they do not undermine the institutional mission/vision. To allow such undermining would be a little like the armed forces going out and recruiting pacifists.

  • To European PhD:
  • Posted by KW at New York University on August 11, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • The government is stepping into the situation to reprimand the college because they infringed on their employees civil rights. Just because the college is Catholic-affiliated does not allow it to dictate how its employees run their lives. The US Constitution allows for a right to privacy and birth control methods fall within that right. How an employee (most often female) chooses to control their reproductive health does not impact how they do their job. Plus, oral contraceptives are also used for female health beyond just birth control. When a woman cannot have access to a medication because of institutional policy, it's a violation of civil rights.

  • declining to subsidize
  • Posted by Kalynne Pudner , Philosophy at Auburn University on August 11, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • I'm not sure I see how declining to subsidize someone else's abortion, sterilization or artificial contraception, when according one's integral religious commitments these things are gravely immoral, constitutes "dictat[ing] how its employees run their lives." BAC isn't telling its employees they will be fired for contracepting, sterilizing or obtaining an abortion. As far as I can tell, they aren't even telling Professor Blandford that she can't practice her own brand of Catholicism which, being in defiance of that Church's Magisterium, is more properly called "twisted" than Thierfelder's.

  • It's the law
  • Posted by KB on August 11, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • If North Carolina law mandates that employers offering prescription coverage include contraception in that coverage, then Belmont Abbey is breaking the law by not doing so. It does not fall into the exempt categories, since its employees are not necessarily Catholic and it purports to educate rather than indoctrinate. It's not a question of religious freedom; it's a question of adhering to the laws of the state in which the institution exists. If the administrators want to move Belmont Abbey to some state where discrimination in health coverage based on the religious beliefs of the administrators rather than the employees is legal, they are free to do so.

  • Catholic dogma at a Catholic institution must be considered
  • Posted by Just some guy on August 11, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • The difference in this situation is that according to Catholic dogma the practices that are not being funded are moral wrongs in which Catholics are not able to participate. By making the school pay for these services you seek to make the school perform a grave wrong in the eyes of the faith. The birth control issue is charged. Consider other points of Catholic dogma like opposition to nuclear arms or the death penalty. If a faculty member wanted to use a school program to support one of these and the school had a standard against supporting them would oppose be so quick? If you choose to teach at a relisgiously affiliated school you must expect that faith to have some effect on your job and compensation.

  • Posted by catholic mom on August 11, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • I do not believe that Belmont Abbey is telling people how to live their lives, it is just not willing to pay for it. If the professor does not follow the teachings of the catholic church but chooses to call herself a catholic tells me that it is her version of the catholic faith that may be twisted.

  • another way to address the problem
  • Posted by Willfred Toboggan on August 11, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • A number of responders have suggested that those who want coverage for birth control should find work at an institution that supports this practice. I’ve got a different idea: institutions that engage in practices that contravene federal standards should forego access to federal funding (grants and also federally subsidized loans for their enrollees) and other state subsidies, and waive their tax-exempt status, in which case they would be free to engage in the practices that they find essential and the federal standards deem unacceptable.

  • Posted by WTF on August 11, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Lots of Catholics use birth control. And it's only a hypocritical Catholic who fails to realize that reality.

    'Nuff said.

  • Posted by Adjunct George on August 11, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • What is wrong with buying your own contraception devices? You have the freedom to buy your own. Who is buying the condums for the students? Is that next? Freedom of religion is dead - KIlled by the illiberal left.

  • Correction
  • Posted by Simon Donoghue , Director of Theatre at Belmont Abbey College on August 11, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • I certainly cannot speak as to how David Niepert "felt" about the decision by the Professional Affairs Committee (a standing committee of the faculty assembly, not an arm of the administration) to recommend against his promotion to full professor. However, I was a member of the committee, and I categorically deny (1) that his "outspokenness" played a role in the decision or (2) that the actions of the committee were in any way influenced by the current administration. I resent the imputation that the committee members were so influenced. In this case the adminstration followed the recommendation of the faculty committee charged with the examination of his application.

  • Posted by stm60 on August 11, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • WTF, first and foremost, you should learn a bit about Catholicism. Practicing Catholics can and do practice ('use?') birth control and can stay fully within Church teachings. There are certain types of contraceptive, or anti-contraception devices that are not permitted by Church teachings.

    In any case, I think what you meant to say was that only Catholics in 'denial' would not realize that many nominal Catholics make use of what the Church would consider improper means of birth control. A 'hypocritical' Catholic would be someone using prohibited contraceptive devices and still considering themselves 'good' Catholics will receiving the sacraments.

    And no, I'm not being picky. This is an education site. Typos are ok, but we should use words properly!

  • Leftist faculty
  • Posted by Jay Buchanan , Attorney on August 11, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • Why would one work for a Catholic institution and then try to undermine the religious tenets of that institution? Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government can abrogate freedom of religion in order to further 'reproductive freedom?' Why is it that the 'brave' leftists at the ACLU, ADL and all of the college faculty across the nation never target Muslim institutions? Or Jewish institutions? The left is completely intolerant of opposing points of view. They preach tolerance and inclusion but only tolerate and include those they agree with. Everything else is hate speech.

  • No vast left wing conspiracy at the Abbey
  • Posted by T. Shaw on August 11, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • 1) Yes, Belmont Abbey is not within the law. No doubt about it and they must comply. Although an argument could be made that denial of paid for contraception unfairly hurts women and not both sexes. Who does a condom protect more? Who pays child support. I could argue both sexes are hurt. However, I am not the law.

    2) Although fully within their rights I am disapointed at the staff who are protesting. People need to realize that they have to adapt to where they teach or work. Personally, I don't think the school's actions are unreasonable. The cost of contraceptives can't be too burdensome for a tenured professor when balanced against the positives that drew him/her there - one of which I would guess would be the interaction with the monks of the Abbey and its Catholic culture. However, if the a few staff members choose to protest... well, school's got to comply.

    3) I don't think it is anti-Catholicism or left wing plot. Just some mean-spirited or small minded staff.

    4) Prof Neipert? Got passed over for promotion huh? Well, I guess it sounds better if it was because of your courageous stand against Rome and not a lack of papers, high evaluations or whatever.

  • Title IV
  • Posted by Tod on August 11, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • According to http://www.belmontabbeycollege.edu/admissions/scholarships/index.aspx, BAC is a Title IV institution. Compliance with Title IV would seem to conflict with the second bullet above in NC state law: The inculcation of religious values is one of the primary purposes of the entity.

    BAC is free to keep its Catholic identity and inculcate whatever values it wishes, but is not free to accept federal support for such a mission.

  • Title IV
  • Posted by Ken on August 11, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Title IV and its accompanying jurisprudence means that institutions of higher educaiton are not able to discriminate on the basis of religion in admissions decisions. Funding contraceptive purchases does not fall under this category. If Title IV were applied according to the previous poster's comment, students at all religious schools would be ineligible for federal student aid, which is clearly not the case given the practices of the Department of Education.

  • Belmont Abbey College
  • Posted by Ann LAURAITES on August 11, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Would somenone please enlighten me as to why Catholics are obliged to go against their conscience by providing health care for contraception? Are people so blind that they cannot see the suffering this causes Catholics who are trying to live their faith in these very difficult time. I can understand so called Catholics who thinks they can live as Catholics while rejecting Church teaching behaving in this way, of course,because they have convinced themselves that they know better than the Church founded by Jesus Christ, they know better than the Holy Spirit and so they are compelled to call those who accept Church teaching, twisted.

  • It's Not the First Time EEOC Has Been Wrong
  • Posted by HR Guy on August 11, 2009 at 8:30pm EDT
  • This was an administrative ruling. I think it's out of line and not consistent with Constitutional or other legal precedents. Looks like it will take a court to set things aright or to establish this as a new and disturbing legal principle.

  • Oh Please...
  • Posted by D Martin on August 11, 2009 at 11:00pm EDT
  • Oh please, can't we all just get along...first of all the Catholic church itself only endorses one method of birth control, namely natural family planning, which is very effective. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, we are not supposed to be running around with fifteen kids that we can't feed or take care of...They do not support birth control pills, which have been which btw can have SERIOUS side effects, plan b which the manufacturer of will give you reasons why its not technically abortion...hey just because that egg got fertilized doesn't mean its a baby yet...lets just argue semantics so that we can feel better about murdering unborn human beings...but would these folks PLEASE quit insulting my intelligence and the intelligence of folks catholic and yes even a few evangelicals who feel the same...and hold the same logic as I do...Conveinence does not make it right...and it does not erase the guilt of my youth. Had someone shown me the facts that I now know, I would have come to the same conclusions then as now...unfortunately the teaching is that it stops ovulation, not that it makes the body reject the human being...If you want to buy your own fine...but please don't force me to buy them for you...and most especially don't force a Catholic religious entity to buy them for you either...If your conscience allows you to use them, then go to a doctor...pay the bill, and get them...

  • It's Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
  • Posted by SarannaThornton , Professor/Economics at Hampden-Sydney College on August 12, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- as amended by the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act -- it is *illegal* to discriminate in terms and conditions of employment (which includes benefits such as health insurance) based on pregnancy or pregnancy related conditions. Under the PDA if an employer's health insurance plan covers prescription medication or prescription devices that are designed to prevent a variety of medical conditions (e.g., high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.), then the employer's health insurance must cover prescription medications and devices intended to prevent pregnancy on terms that are equally as generous. Condoms aren't covered because they are not a *prescription* device to prevent pregnancy.

    Freedom of religion is not an issue in this particular case because the school doesn't meet the legal standards for being a religious institution -- in contrast to a religious seminary for example.

    There are moral/religious issues which we can debate. And, people who disagree with the stipulations of this particular part of Title VII can work to have federal law amended. But, for now it is the law and the school is required to obey it.

  • please retitle this article
  • Posted by Jim at Bellevue on August 12, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Title should be spoiled child demands promotion shouting "I'm gonna tell my mommy!"

    Let's see. The proposed healthcare legislation doesn't save money, reduce costs or cover everyone. Do you think it could be about control and not healthcare?

    I don't want the government handing out the candy on my playground.

  • Why do you have to be so Catholic?
  • Posted by Jane Simmons on August 12, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • "Why would one work for a Catholic institution and then try to undermine the religious tenets of that institution?"

    I spent 8 years at a Jesuit university and my experience was that there are numerous faculty members who were unable to obtain employment at a non-Jesuit school. In their eyes they accepted a job at the Jesuit school because that was the best they could get and they hoped it would be temporary.

    Those faculty members often try to change the Jesuit institution into the type of school in which they originally wanted to work. They don't seem to care or understand that many employees and students were attracted to that university because of its belief systems, not in spite of them.

  • Posted by MattMcF on August 12, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • From the Code of Canon Law (if you are commenting on this article and do not know what that is, I would appreciate you looking into it).

    Speaking of Catholic Universities:

    The conferences of bishops and diocesan bishops concerned have the duty and right of being watchful so that the principles of Catholic doctrine are observed faithfully in these same universities.

    So a college that calls itself Catholic must follow Catholic doctrine, which is what I believe Belmont Abbey has done by this policy change.

    Speaking on the issue at hand:

    A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

    This statement has been interpreted to include the anyone who assists in procuring a completed abortion.

    The administration of Belmont Abbey has just taken action to comply with the Code of Canon Law.

  • clarification of position
  • Posted by David Neipert , Former Associate Professor at Belmont Abbey College on August 12, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • I am one of the Belmont Abbey faculty members who filed a complaint with the EEOC. I do not promote abortions. I know of no law requiring the college to pay for abortions and sterilizations. The college was within its rights to remove these from its medical plan and I have no objection whatsover. The law does require the college to include birth control pills in its prescription plan under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is what we are trying to promote. We are not in conflict with the anti-abortion movement as good contraception means fewer abortions. Some minority of Catholics have a problem with contraception but everyone, even a church, has to obey the law whether they agree or not. That is why we can prosecute terrorists who think god inspired them to do violence. Governments make laws, not churches which is why this is a better place to live than Iran. This case is about requiring employers to treat women's health issues the same way they treat men's with respect to prescription medicine. It is not about abortion or religion.

  • The real truth
  • Posted by Catholic Voice on August 12, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Because there are many non-Catholics reading all the information involved in this alledged discrimination incident, there are a few facts that should be clarified. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is clearlly written for practicing Catholics to know and understand what is expected of them. There are no different "forms" of Catholocism than what is written in this catechism, which is in conformity with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Belmont Abbey College is complying with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Anything that varies from this resource of knowledge is not considered Catholic, and if a Catholic decides to go against these rules, they are blessed with the opportunity to seek the Sacrament of Reconciliation with a contrite heart. Belmont Abbey College is striving in every way to glorify God which is a good indication of the perfect leadership of the college.

  • Posted by Rosie on August 13, 2009 at 7:30am EDT
  • So there is a Catholic University who is finally willing to act like a Catholic University and people are crying discrimmination. Professors are apparently not required to be Catholic to work there but that doesn't mean the University has to stop being Catholic and go against Catholic doctrine so as to provide birth control, abortions via the health care options. To the female Catholic Professor in this article I would say, "You are either Catholic or you aren't. You can't pick and choose what to believe." I pray this university stands strong in their defense.

     

  • No hard feelings
  • Posted by David Neipert , former professor at Belmont Abbey College on August 13, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Thanks for the comment and Simon Donoghue. Attending your theater productions were one of the best aspects of working at BAC and I don't carry any ill will about being denied the promotion. If I still lived in the area I would still be attending. Thanks for the great entertainment! David Neipert

  • Reply to Neipert's Clarification
  • Posted by Ronny on August 13, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • "This case is about requiring employers to treat women's health issues the same way they treat men's with respect to prescription medicine. It is not about abortion or religion."

    Of course it is about abortion and religion.

    To certain people, the teaching of the Catholic Church in whole or part on matters of sexuality and human reproduction is offensive, and any effort by an institution to conform to this teaching is deemed oppressive. The law for them is just a cudgel with which to beat the Church into submission--she has the audacity to acknowledge a higher law than man's, and for that she must be punished.

    Moreover, it will not stop with prescribed contraceptives, and honest pro-abortion activists will readily acknowledge this ambition. Though you may want to draw a bright line at forcing religiously affiliated institutions only to cover the pill, the equality argument can and has been pushed further to claim that abortion as a constitutionally protected medical procedure should be go uncovered by insurance no less than prescription contraceptives. Once the legal exemption for religiously affiliated institutions covering the pill falls, abortion is likely not far behind--all under the banner of equality, of course.

  • Not being able to see the forest for the trees
  • Posted by Jim McManus on August 15, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • This discussion illustrates the profound problems with employment based health care. It's fundamentally discriminatory and problematic.

    If the government wants to dictate what health care we get, it should provide it directly or through sensible tax policy that treats everyone equally.

    The suggestion that the Catholic Church might have something in common with Iran and terroism illustrates the mindset of Belmont Abbey's critics.

  • What do you expect, Jim?
  • Posted by DFS on August 15, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Such is the mindset of most of academia.

    Else, why would such down-trodden, heroic indiviuals have any bones to pick with us?

  • Freedom to Practice
  • Posted by PsW , VP at Southeastern Bible College on August 20, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Belmont Abbey College should be allowed to provide benefits that are consistent with it's faith and beliefs. It should not matter if many employees are not Catholic, they have chosen to work at an institution that IS Catholic and should therefore be prepared to live within the restrictions that come by working for such a school.

  • To Saranna Thornton
  • Posted by Catholic Lawyer , Father of eight. on October 8, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Sure, a Catholic Institution must follow the law. But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution holds the Constitution and its amendments as higher law than any act of Congress including the Civil Rights Act.

    While there are certainly court decisions that have weighed on the issue, it is incomprehensible sophistry to interpret the Constitutional protection of the freedom of religion in a way that would force religious institutions like a Catholic college or university to violate tenets of the Catholic Faith in order to adhere to a lesser Congressional mandate.

    In other words, I don't care what your Civil Rights Act says. If it purports to require a religious employer to violate its beliefs, it should be found unconstitutional to that extent. Secular employers? Fine. Tell them they have to provide coverage for birth control pills with their insurance plan. But keep your laws off my Faith.