Hartwig v. Albertus Magnus College

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the court could adjudicate an employment claim where doing so “does not require the Court to address questions concerning the validity or plausibility of religious beliefs or choose between competing views of religious doctrine”
• stating a college was listed in the directory, “which is the definitive compilation of Roman Catholic Institutions in the United States”
• denying summary judgment on the ground that a trial would not cause excessive entanglement with religion, even though the defendant religious institution offered religious justifications for its employment decisions
• “the Free Exercise Clause does not shield all employment decisions by religiously-affiliated institutions”
• the appropriate analysis is the religiously affiliated nature of the institution and the employee’s role there, “not the particular issues which spring from the termination of his employment relationship and the resulting claims”
• “Courts, however, have also assessed common law rights in light of the Establishment Clause prohibition against ‘excessive entanglement,’ although not using the traditional three-part test fashioned by the Supreme Court in Lemon for the analysis of statutes.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).