Global Courant
A Christian-owned wellness center is exempt from federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The unanimous three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Braidwood Management, which runs an alternative health center in Texas, cannot be sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission because of its policy that employees engaged in with homosexual or gender non-conforming behavior will be fired.
Circuit judge Jerry Smith wrote for the majority that without the shield, the company would be forced to “wholeheartedly comply” with policies it deems “sinful,” upholding a ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth.
However, the court overturned O’Connor’s ruling that allowed Braidwood to file the case as a class action on behalf of other religious companies. That means that the exemption now only applies directly to Braidwood.
Smith was joined by Circuit Judges Edith Clement and Cory Wilson. All three justices were appointed by Republican presidents.
The EEOC and an attorney for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Braidwood sued the EEOC after the agency updated are enforcement guidelines in 2021 to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that bias against gay and transgender workers is a form of unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .
The company said it was run according to Christian beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality and upholding specific gender roles. It had applied for a court order to protect it from EEOC enforcement under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 federal law that limited the ability of government agencies to tax a person’s religious freedom.
The company is separately suing the Biden administration over the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that health insurance, including those funded by employers, cover preventive care services, including HIV-preventive drugs, which Braidwood says also conflicts with his beliefs. O’Connor, who is also in charge of that case, ruled in favor of the company in that case, although the injunction has been partially on hold for now.
