## Facts

- John W. Moranski worked for General Motors Corporation (GM) and identified as a born-again Christian.
- GM maintained an internal “Affinity Group” program under which recognized groups could receive company resources, including funding and access to facilities and equipment.
- GM’s written Affinity Group Guidelines stated that affinity groups were generally organized around a shared social identity, not merely a shared interest or activity (such as golf or theater).
- The Guidelines also stated that groups seeking recognition could not be organized to advance or advocate particular religious or political positions.
- GM had recognized multiple affinity groups, including groups for employees with disabilities, gay and lesbian employees, women, veterans, and employees associated with various ethnicities and national origins.
- Moranski applied to create an affinity group called the “GM Christian Employee Network,” describing it as interdenominational and not tied to any single church or denomination.
- GM denied the application, citing the Guidelines’ exclusion of groups organized around a religious position.
- Moranski obtained an EEOC right-to-sue letter and filed suit in federal district court, alleging that GM’s denial discriminated against him because of his Christian faith in violation of Title VII.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and Moranski appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether GM’s refusal to grant affinity-group recognition to Moranski’s proposed Christian employee network, under Guidelines that exclude all groups advocating religious positions, stated a claim of religious discrimination under Title VII.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- The court held that Moranski’s complaint did not plausibly allege discrimination “because of” religion where GM’s Guidelines treated all religious-position groups the same and did not distinguish among religions.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII disparate-treatment liability requires plausible allegations that an employer took an adverse action with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the employee’s religion.
- A policy that denies participation in an employer-sponsored program to all groups organized around religious positions—without singling out any particular faith—does not, by itself, show less favorable treatment based on religion.
- Comparators for a religious-discrimination claim are other religious adherents or groups; pointing to nonreligious affinity groups does not establish that one religion was treated worse than another when the employer excludes all religious-position groups.
- At the pleading stage, when a complaint and incorporated documents show a uniformly applied exclusion of religious-position groups, the plaintiff must allege additional facts (such as selective enforcement or differential treatment among religions) to support an inference of discrimination because of religion.

## Conclusion

Moranski’s proposed Christian employee group was denied affinity-group status under GM’s written Guidelines excluding groups organized to advocate religious positions, and the Seventh Circuit held that this evenhanded exclusion of all religious-position groups did not plausibly allege discrimination because of religion under Title VII, so dismissal for failure to state a claim was affirmed.


Moranski v. General Motors Corp., 433 F.3d 537 (2005)