Two gay students were legally expelled from a theological seminary that was unaffiliated with a church because the Ninth Circuit ruled that Title IX’s exemption for religious organizations covers that institution as well as traditional church-affiliated ones.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Central District of California on December 13. Circuit judges Richard A. Paez, Paul J. Watford and Michelle Friedland ruled that the district court did not err when it dismissed a complaint by plaintiff-appellants Joanna Maxon and Nathan Brittsan, both of whom were expelled from the Fulton Theological Seminary because they are in same-sex marriages. They claimed that Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination did not apply to the seminary because it is not affiliated with a church.

The civil rights complaint began when Joanna Maxon, a wife and mother in a same-sex marriage, sued Fuller in 2019. Nathan Brittsan, also in a same-sex marriage, joined the suit in 2020. Both were graduate students who were pursuing additional degrees to advance their careers and open up additional professional opportunities.

Title IX is enforced by the U.S. Department of Education, which protects people from discrimination based on their sex. It says, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Title IX, however, does not apply to “educational institutions that are controlled by religious organizations to the extent that application of Title IX would be inconsistent with the religious tenets of the organization.”

Maxon and Brittsan argued that Fuller does not qualify for that exemption because it has its own board of directors and is independent of any church or religious body. The Ninth Circuit’s memorandum opinion, which is not for publication, did not agree. It explained that while the controlling statute does not define the term “religious organization,” the term “organization” is “broad enough to encompass an entity that is wholly contained within another entity.” Thus they found that Fuller Theological Seminary does qualify as an exempted institution.

The three-judge panel’s decision used the definition of “organization” that is normally provided by standard dictionaries. Black’s Law Dictionary, for example, defines an organization as a “group that was formed for a particular purpose.” Plaintiffs’ contended that ordinary usage of the term “organization” does require two separate entities – one to control and the other to be controlled. The court did not find this persuasive, primarily because no case law was provided as support.

The memorandum opinion then went into a review of Title IX, emphasizing that the Department of Education (DOE) has always found that Title IX lacks a requirement that educational institutions and controlling religious organizations be separate legal entities. The opinion cited further clarification that came from a 2020 DOE rule that said, if an “educational institution is a school or department of divinity,” that is “sufficient to establish that is controlled by a religious organization.” They found Fuller to fit this definition.

Appellants also asked the court to allow them to continue their proceedings because it was a question of fact whether there was a “legitimate conflict between the school’s religious tenets and Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination.” The panel denied this as well, saying they could not “second guess Fuller’s interpretation of its own religious tenets.” For support, it cited the seminary’s Sexual Standards policy that says sexual union must be reserved for marriage defined as the “covenant of union between one man and one woman.” The policy also includes an explanation that there is an “expectation that all members of the school community abstain from what it holds to be unbiblical sexual practices.”

The case began when Maxon and Brittsan were expelled when Fuller found out that each of them was in a same-sex marriage. Thus, Fuller was allowed to expel them because the decision to stop their education was a “religiously motivated decision” that properly fell under the exemption to Title IX.

The panel also disagreed with appellants’ contention that their complaint go forward because Fuller did not give proper notice to DOE as required by law. The panel said that the religious exemption is “automatic” and does not require notice.”

Appellants’ final argument centered on the District Court’s decision to dismiss their complaint without leave to amend. Once again, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court, stating it was “readily apparent” that there were no further facts that would “save their challenge.”