## Facts

- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued multiple related home-healthcare entities (collectively “Preferred”) under Title VII on behalf of seven employees/applicants.
- Preferred’s CEO publicly identified as an evangelical Christian and infused religious practices and messaging into workplace operations, including a Christian mission statement, prayer-oriented activities, religious symbolism in company materials, and religiously themed management programming.
- The EEOC alleged (1) a company-wide pattern or practice of religious harassment and discrimination and (2) individual disparate-treatment and hostile-environment claims, including demotions, terminations, and a failure-to-hire allegedly based on religious criteria.
- One key claimant, Sondra Sievers (a Catholic branch manager), was allegedly demoted after a survey process and required to attend a leadership program with religious content, including questioning about “sins”; after she stated she discussed sins with her priest, she was deemed unsuitable for leadership.
- Sievers was replaced by a person alleged to be more aligned with the CEO’s religious views and was later terminated; Preferred asserted performance and misconduct reasons, which the EEOC contested as pretextual.
- Preferred raised timeliness defenses under Title VII’s charge-filing rules and asserted affirmative defenses contending that adjudicating the EEOC’s claims would create unconstitutional entanglement with religion.

## Issues

1. Whether the EEOC produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find a pattern or practice of religious discrimination and harassment under Title VII.
2. Whether the evidence on the individual claims (hostile work environment and disparate treatment) created triable issues on religious motivation, legitimate reasons, and pretext.
3. Whether portions of the EEOC’s claims were barred as untimely or outside the permissible scope of the administrative charge and investigation.
4. Whether considering Preferred’s religious practices and messaging as evidence would violate the Establishment Clause, warrant striking evidence or sustaining affirmative defenses.
5. Whether certain affirmative defenses based on broad religious-autonomy or Establishment Clause theories failed as a matter of law.

## Decision

- Preferred’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part; some claims were dismissed, while other pattern-or-practice and individual claims survived for trial.
- Preferred’s evidentiary “Establishment Objections” (treated as a motion to strike) were largely denied; the court allowed religious-context evidence to the extent relevant to Title VII elements.
- The EEOC’s motion for partial summary judgment on Preferred’s affirmative defenses was granted in part; the court struck or limited defenses that sought categorical immunity from Title VII scrutiny.
- The court held some claims time-barred, including a failure-to-hire claim for one claimant and certain components not sufficiently tied to a timely administrative charge.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII pattern-or-practice claim requires evidence that discrimination was the employer’s standard operating procedure, not isolated events.
- A religious hostile work environment requires unwelcome conduct based on religion that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive environment.
- Disparate-treatment claims at summary judgment are evaluated under the burden-shifting framework: prima facie case, employer’s legitimate reason, and evidence of pretext.
- Courts may consider workplace religious practices, symbolism, and religiously framed programs as evidence of motive or hostile environment without violating the Establishment Clause, so long as the court does not adjudicate religious truth and instead evaluates workplace effects.
- Title VII’s charge-filing limits and charge-scope rules bar claims not timely raised or not like or reasonably related to the allegations that could reasonably be expected to grow from the administrative investigation.
- An employer’s religious character does not provide blanket insulation from Title VII liability for non-ministerial employees; religious expression may be lawful, but religious coercion or religion-based adverse action may be actionable.

## Conclusion

The court narrowed the case at summary judgment but allowed significant Title VII religion-based harassment and disparate-treatment theories to proceed, held that religious-context evidence could be used to prove discrimination without unconstitutional entanglement, limited broad Establishment Clause defenses, and dismissed certain untimely or charge-exceeding claims.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Preferred Mgmt. Corp., 216 F. Supp. 2d 763 (S.D. Ind. 2002)