Court Enforces Christian Conciliation Provision in Teacher’s Contract
A Federal District Court in Indiana ruled that a school teacher agreement requiring disputes to be submitted to Christian conciliation did not constitute a substantive waiver of her federal rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Dorothy Easterly, an English teacher and part-time administrator, filed the lawsuit against the Heritage Christian School, alleging that the school revoked her employment contract and offered her a position with substantially lower salary. She claimed the school’s actions were discriminatory on the basis of age and disability in violation of the ADEA and the ADA.
Easterly’s contract included a provision requiring her to exclusively resolve any employment issues using mediation and arbitration to be conducted in accordance with the “Rules for Procedure for Christian Conciliation” (“Christian Conciliation Rules”) established by Peacemaker Ministries.
Easterly argued that the arbitration provision was too vague and ambiguous to be enforceable because the contract referred to the Christian Conciliation Rules, but did not attach them to the contract, nor was she given any other information about their content at the time she signed the contract. The court rejected this argument, stating that Ms. Easterly could have obtained the arbitration rules from the school or even found them on the Internet.
The court also rejected Easterly’s second argument, that by submitting to the school’s arbitration procedure, she would be forced to give up her ability to defend her substantive rights under the ADEA, ADA, and Indiana contract law, and instead be forced to rely solely on biblical scripture to define her rights. The court stated that the Christian Conciliation Rules require the arbitrator to “take into consideration any state, federal, or local laws that the parties bring to their attention, but the Holy Scriptures (the Bible) shall be the supreme authority governing every aspect of the conciliation process.” If an arbitrator concluded that biblical principles conflicted with federal law, Easterly could seek court review of the arbitration decision on the basis that the arbitrator had improperly disregarded governing law. The court further noted that judicial review of decisions reached under the Christian Conciliation Rules would be no different than the court’s review of decisions made under arbitration rules established by secular institutions, such as the American Arbitration Association.
Easterly v. Heritage Christian Schools, Inc., 2009 WL 2750099, S.D. Ind., No. 08-cf-1714, 8/26/09).
To read the full court decision, click here.
|
