A federal judge said this week Roncalli High School didn’t violated federal anti-discrimination laws when it didn’t renew the contract of a guidance counselor after learning of her same-sex marriage.
Lynn Starkey worked for the southside Catholic school for 40 years until school officials chose not to renew her contract in 2019. Starkey is married to a woman, and was put on leave months after another Roncalli counselor, Shelly Fitzgerald, was also put on leave due to her same-sex marriage.
The ruling came Wednesday, just weeks after the case was sent back to federal court. Roncalli High School appealed March 25 to have Starkey’s claims thrown out, but the seventh district of the U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal last month, leaving all complaints intact except for a retaliation claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act, which was thrown out in October.
In the opinion, the judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled Roncalli High School officials made their expectations of employees clear and had the right not to renew Starkey’s contract under the ministerial exception, which bars the application of anti-discrimination laws on religious institutions’ employment strategies, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“One may reasonably presume that a religious school would expect faith to play a role in that work, and Roncalli expressly entrusted Starkey with the responsibility of communicating the Catholic faith to students and fostering spiritual growth,” the judge’s opinion said.
“Starkey also served in a senior leadership role in which she helped shape the religious and spiritual environment of the school and guided the school on its religious mission.”
Kathleen DeLaney, of Indianapolis-based law firm DeLaney and DeLaney LLC, said her client was disappointed in the ruling.
“Lynn Starkey … is concerned about the potential impact on educators in the Catholic schools as well as students who are part of the LGBTQ community,” DeLaney said in a statement. “We intend to appeal the ruling to the (U.S. Court of Appeals) Seventh Circuit.”
