The Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case brought by Reyzl Grace MoChridhe, a librarian, who alleges she was fired from the Academy of Holy Angels, a Catholic high school in Richfield, after she informed school administrators that she was transgender. Grace is co-represented in her lawsuit by Gender Justice and Wanta Thome PLC. They have filed charges against both the Academy of Holy Angels and its Archdiocese.
We spoke with Jess Braverman, who is the legal director at Gender Justice. Braverman has successfully litigated high impact cases involving sex discrimination in the broadest sense, including the constitutional right to abortion, trans rights in schools and prisons, and access to contraception (article continues below).
Watch Our Conversation
A question of whether the case can proceed
Braverman said the Minnesota Supreme Court is not considering the content of Grace’s allegations. Instead they are assessing a narrower question: should the case be allowed to proceed at all?
“In Minnesota, we have the Minnesota Human Rights Act. It’s illegal to discriminate against employees because they’re transgender or because they fail to conform to sex stereotypes,” said Braverman. “So the question is whether there’s some exemption either in the law or in the constitution that would allow a religious employer [to fire an employee anyway].”
The Archdiocese has asked the courts to dismiss this case on the basis that they do have an exemption to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Lower courts have sided with them, which is why Grace, Gender Justice and Wanta Thome have appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Braverman said they are asking the justices to let the case go forward to the discovery stage. This is when each side seeks evidence from the other to determine what happened.
“It’s really typical for cases to at least move forward to that stage,” Braverman said.
Ministerial versus secular roles
The case hinges on the difference between ministerial and secular employees at religious institutions. Braverman explained that in 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is a category of workers who are considered ministers of a faith, including rabbis, ministers, priests, and teachers of religious doctrine.
“Basically the idea is the courts aren’t going to tell […] a synagogue who your rabbi can be. They’re not going to tell a church who your priest can be,” said Braverman.
Religious institutions also have secular employees. They perform no religious function. These workers are typically custodial staff, administrative staff and IT workers.
“If you’re ministerial, you don’t have a lot of employment protections. If you’re secular, you tend to have those employment protections,” said Braverman.
Gender Justice and Wanta Thome PLC argue that Grace did not have a ministerial job. So far, Braverman said, the Academy and the Archdiocese are not contesting that.
Connection to Cooper v. USA Powerlifting?
Last year, Gender Justice secured a significant ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court in Cooper v. USA Powerlifting. The court ruled that the Minnesota Human Rights Act protects trans and non-binary people in all public accommodations. However, Braverman said that victory does not fully address this case.
“That case makes it clear that you can’t discriminate against transgender people in the state of Minnesota. That’s true in public accommodations; that’s true in employment,” Braverman said. “But it doesn’t really provide guidance on the specific question of do [religious institutions] qualify for some sort of statutory or constitutional exemption. That’s what’s going to have to be litigated in this case.”
What happens next?
The majority of Minnesota courts have a 90-day deadline to issue opinions. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court does not. Braverman is not expecting a decision for some time.
“I’d be surprised if it was as soon as six [months]. I think nine is reasonable. Nine to 12 is probably likely here, but that’s a guess based on past cases,” Braverman said.
And if the Supreme Court sides with Grace then there are several forks in the road. The archdiocese could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on a First Amendment claim. However, Braverman is doubtful they would.
“The U.S. Supreme Court takes very few cases and they can only take it under certain circumstances,” Braverman said. “We would have arguments why they can’t or it’s premature.”
The more likely next steps depend on the type of ruling the Minnesota Supreme Court issues. They could rule on some but not all parts of the case. If so, Grace would have to go back to the appeals court to work out those unresolved parts. Or, the Supreme Court could provide a comprehensive ruling that resolves everything. If they do, then the case would go back down to the original court and they would begin the discovery stage.
Grace remains hopeful
Braverman said Grace understands the realities of the process — that outcomes are not guaranteed and that the timeline is long. What most pains Grace is not working at the Academy.
“She loved that job,” Braverman said. “She had a lot of support from her colleagues, from students, and it’s just really heartbreaking to lose a job you love, to lose something you feel like is your calling over who you are, over something you can’t really do anything about and shouldn’t have to change in order to keep your livelihood.”
