Hall v. Baptist Mem Health

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: June 13, 2000
• Docket: 98-6761
• Status: Published

Opinion

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 16 Hall v. Baptist Memorial No. 98-6761 Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 Health Care Corp. ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2000 FED App. 0199P (6th Cir.) File Name: 00a0199p.06

discharged because he did not share supervisor’s Mormon beliefs). Even if this case could be so characterized, the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS evidence shows that the College president had a list of available positions she offered to help Hall obtain if Hall FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT would have agreed to resign her position as a Student _________________ Services Specialist. Hall declined this reasonable accommodation and was terminated. ;  III. GLYNDA L. HALL,  Plaintiff-Appellant,  Accordingly, the judgment of the district court granting  defendant’s motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED. No. 98-6761 v.  > BAPTIST MEMORIAL HEALTH    CARE CORPORATION, d/b/a

 Baptist Memorial College of

Defendant-Appellee.  Health Sciences,  1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis. No. 98-02035—Bernice B. Donald, District Judge. Argued: December 10, 1999 Decided and Filed: June 13, 2000 Before: BOGGS and SUHRHEINRICH, *Circuit Judges; POLSTER, District Judge.

* The Honorable Dan Aaron Polster, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

1 2 Hall v. Baptist Memorial No. 98-6761 No. 98-6761 Hall v. Baptist Memorial 15 Health Care Corp. Health Care Corp.

_________________ showing that she was fired for any reason other than taking a leadership position in an organization that condones a COUNSEL lifestyle the College considers antithetical to its mission. Thus, the district court correctly found that Hall failed to ARGUED: Clyde W. Keenan, KEENAN, DABBOUS & show that this reason was a pretext for religious LAZARINI, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Paul E. discrimination. Prather, KIESEWETTER, WISE, KAPLAN, SCHWIMMER & PRATHER, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee. Hall endeavors to put a “reasonable accommodation” (as ON BRIEF: Clyde W. Keenan, KEENAN, DABBOUS & opposed to disparate treatment) spin on this issue. In LAZARINI, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Paul E. reasonable accommodation religious discrimination cases, a Prather, KIESEWETTER, WISE, KAPLAN, SCHWIMMER plaintiff must establish that it holds a sincere religious belief & PRATHER, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee. that conflicts with an employment requirement, that it informed the employer of the conflict, and that it was _________________ discharged or disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting requirement. Cooper v. Oak Rubber Co., 15 F.3d OPINION 1375, 1378 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Smith v. Pyro Mining Co., _________________ 827 F.2d 1081, 1085 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 989 (1988)). That analysis is not relevant to this case, since POLSTER, District Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Glynda L. Hall’s employer did not direct her to do anything that Hall sued her former employer, Defendant-Appellee Baptist conflicted with her religious beliefs, and Hall was not Memorial College of Health Sciences (the “College”), under terminated over a failure to perform any duties which Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(5), alleging that the College conflicted with her religious beliefs. See, e.g., Cooper, 15 unlawfully terminated her employment based on her religion. F.3d 1375 (Seventh Day Adventist sues employer for The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the requiring her to work on her Sabbath Day); Cowan v. Gilless, College. For the following reasons, we affirm. No. 95-5679 , 1996 WL 145873 (6th Cir. Mar. 29, 1996); I. Riselay v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., No. 90- 1779, 1991 WL 44319 (6th Cir. Apr. 2, 1991) (Christian Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation (“Health Care Scientist sues employer for failing to allow sick leave); Corporation” or “Corporation”) is a nonprofit corporation E.E.O.C. v. University of Detroit, 904 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. established with the purpose of “carrying out a health care 1990) (Catholic employed by closed-shop employer refuses mission consistent with the traditional and ongoing health to pay dues to union because of union’s affiliation with care missions of the Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee organizations supporting abortion); Stanley v. Lawson Co., Baptist Conventions and their affiliated Baptist churches with 993 F. Supp. 1084 (N.D. Ohio 1997) (Christian sues employer which the Corporation shares common religious bonds and who requires her to sell adult magazines); Favero v. convictions.” Joint Appendix (“JA”) 284-85. It is committed Huntsville Indep. Sch. Dist., 939 F. Supp. 1281 (S.D. Tex. to the “threefold ministry of Christ -- preaching, teaching and 1996) (Worldwide Church of God members sue employer for healing.” JA 308. To this end, the Corporation is authorized failing to give them extended leaves to observe their holy to “acquire, own, lease, manage, operate, sell, construct, days). But see Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat’l Laboratory, 773 finance, provide services to, generally deal with, and affiliate F. Supp. 304 (D. N.M. 1991) (employee alleges he was 14 Hall v. Baptist Memorial No. 98-6761 No. 98-6761 Hall v. Baptist Memorial 3 Health Care Corp. Health Care Corp.

comparison is also flawed because Hall has not alleged that with or be the parent organization of separately incorporated she was terminated for conducting an illicit affair, but for her hospitals, clinics, home health care organizations, membership in Holy Trinity. The district court correctly rehabilitation centers, health maintenance organizations, concluded that Hall failed to establish that a similarly-situated hospices, nursing homes, nursing and other schools, co-worker received more favorable treatment than she did. educational organizations and institutions. . . . ” JA 285. Even assuming that Hall had set forth a prima facie case, The chief executive officer and all directors of the Health she has failed to show that the reason for her termination was Care Corporation must be members of Baptist churches a pretext for discrimination based on her religion. The affiliated with the State Baptist Convention in the states of College contends that it terminated Hall because she assumed their residence. The Corporation submits annual reports and a leadership position in an organization that publicly certified audits to the Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee supported homosexual lifestyles, a view that clashed with the Baptist Conventions. The Corporation is the parent of Baptist Southern Baptist Convention’s outspoken denunciation of Memorial Hospital which, in turn, is the parent of Baptist homosexuality and the College’s avowed mission. Because Memorial College of Health Sciences. The Corporation she exerted influence over students and student activities at chooses the Hospital’s board of directors which, in turn, the College, her leadership position at Holy Trinity conflicted appoints the board of directors for the College. with her job. The Hospital’s charter states that it is a nonprofit The record in this case is consistent. It shows that the corporation organized for “charitable, educational, religious College tolerated employees of different faiths or no faiths, and scientific” purposes and that its purposes include e.g., Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, and atheists. It also “hospital and health care and education . . . in line with the shows that the president of the College concluded that where traditional and ongoing mission of the Baptist churches Hall went to church was her business, and that Hall suffered affiliated through their State Baptist Conventions in Arkansas, no adverse consequences when it became known that she was Mississippi and Tennessee with the Southern Baptist a member of Holy Trinity. Convention as now known and practiced among Baptists.” JA 297. The Hospital’s bylaws state that its primary purpose To show that the termination was based on her religion, is to provide “health services, education and scientific Hall must show that it was the religious aspect of her research in accordance with Christian principles as set out in leadership position that motivated her employer’s actions. Cf. [its charter] in line with the mission of the [Hospital].” JA Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097, 1118 (11th Cir. 1997). 300. In the event of the Hospital’s dissolution, all remaining There is no evidence that the religious nature of Hall’s assets must be transferred to the Health Care Corporation if leadership role at Holy Trinity contributed to her termination. that organization qualifies for tax-exempt status under Section Hall testified that the College would have fired her if she had 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. If the Corporation been elected president of a local gay and lesbian coalition, or does not qualify for tax-exempt status, the assets must be if she had made a televised speech opposing the Southern transferred to the Baptist Memorial Health Care System. If Baptists’ position on the issue of homosexuality. The fact the Health Care System does not qualify for tax-exempt that the organization in which she assumed a leadership status, the assets must be distributed to the State Baptist position is a church does not transform her dismissal into one Conventions of Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee. based on religion. Hall has made no additional evidentiary 4 Hall v. Baptist Memorial No. 98-6761 No. 98-6761 Hall v. Baptist Memorial 13 Health Care Corp. Health Care Corp.

The College was founded by the Mississippi, Arkansas and Convention’s prohibition against the ordination of women. Tennessee Baptist Conventions. It receives financial support However, Miller was merely acting in accordance with the from both the Hospital and the Corporation. The College permissible procedures of her faith and was thus being treated recruits students in Baptist newspapers in seven states. It also no differently than any other non-Baptist who acted in recruits students at the State Baptist Conventions in accordance with the tenets of her faith. Miller was thus not Mississippi, Arkansas and Tennessee. similarly situated to Hall, in that she did not assume a leadership position in an organization that publicly supported The mission statement of the College provides that the homosexual lifestyles. College “is an outgrowth of the mission of Baptist Memorial Hospital, which is based on the three-fold ministry of Christ: In addition, the First Amendment does not permit federal preaching, teaching, and healing.” JA 386. The motto of the courts to dictate to religious institutions how to carry out their College, which is incorporated in its seal, is “higher education religious missions or how to enforce their religious practices. with a higher purpose.” JA 391, 920. The seal displays two As the district court in the instant case eloquently observed: hands representing service and scholarship on a Bible adjacent to a branch representing the tree of knowledge. JA In essence, [Hall] is requesting this court to tell the 391. The College informs students of its Christian mission [College] that it must be opposed to the ordination of and its relationship with Baptist principles at orientations and women with the same degree of conviction and intensity open houses. Students are required to take three hours of it has expressed in its opposition to the gay and lesbian religious studies, and to dress in a manner “that reflect[s] lifestyle, or suffer liability under Title VII. The federal Christian principles of appropriateness.” JA 408. The courts are not in the business of enforcing religious College holds prayer breakfasts and plans numerous chapel orthodoxy or requiring consistency and uniformity in programs led by local Baptist ministers. It has served as host religious beliefs or practices. If a particular religious for the World Changers, a mission organization sponsored by community wishes to differentiate between the severity the Southern Baptist Convention. of violating two tenets of its faith, it is not the province of the federal courts to say that such differentiation is On August 7, 1995, the College hired Glynda Hall as a discriminatory and therefore warrants Title VII Student Services Specialist. As a Student Services Specialist, liability. . . . Hall worked with students and the administration in organizing and planning activities of various campus student Hall, 27 F. Supp. 2d at 1039-40 (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, organizations. Hall was responsible for interpreting school 465 U.S. 668, 672 (1984) (citation omitted)). policies and ensuring that all student activities were consistent with the mission of the College. JA 1106. She was required Hall also contends that other similarly-situated employees to work with the Christian student organization, coordinating were treated more favorably than she. According to Hall, the its involvement with the Tennessee Baptist Convention College took no employment action against two employees student ministries department. This duty necessitated her whom it knew were having an adulterous relationship, attendance at meetings of the Tennessee Baptist Convention. contrary to Southern Baptist principles. This argument is meritless. As with Cynthia Miller, Hall has not established It is undisputed that Hall was a good employee who that the two employees assumed leadership positions in received no disciplinary actions during the term of her organizations supporting homosexual lifestyles. The 12 Hall v. Baptist Memorial No. 98-6761 No. 98-6761 Hall v. Baptist Memorial 5 Health Care Corp. Health Care Corp.

1241, 1246 (6th Cir. 1995). If the plaintiff makes a prima employment. On June 4, 1996, she was given a performance facie case, a presumption of discrimination arises. In order to evaluation with all “exemplary” and “accomplished” scores. overcome this presumption, the defendant must articulate a JA 876-85. On June 27, 1996, she received a letter extending legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff’s her contract through 1997, along with a raise. termination. Id. If the defendant can do so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the articulated reason was In the spring of 1996, Hall began the process of becoming merely a pretext for the real reason, unlawful discrimination. a lay minister at Holy Trinity Community Church (“Holy Id. Trinity”) -- a church she had been attending since February 1995. According to Hall, Holy Trinity is a non- It is undisputed that Hall is a member of a protected class denominational Christian church that reaches out to all (a member of Holy Trinity Community Church), that she was persons seeking a relationship with Jesus Christ. The qualified for her position as a Student Services Specialist at congregation includes many gay and lesbian members, the College, and that she suffered an adverse employment including Hall. Holy Trinity teaches that there is nothing decision. Hall has not alleged that she was replaced by inherently inconsistent between the homosexual lifestyle and someone outside the protected class; thus, our de novo review Christianity. It solicits homosexual members through focuses on whether Hall has shown that she was treated less advertisements in Second Stone, a national publication for favorably than similarly-situated persons not a member of the gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians. protected class. In other words, Hall has the burden of establishing that comparable co-workers who engaged in The Southern Baptist Convention is outspoken against substantially the same conduct as she were treated better. homosexual lifestyles. Its formal resolution on the issue of Hollins v. Atlantic Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir. homosexuality states that the Convention “deplores 1999) (citing Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 homosexuality as a perversion of divine standards and as a F.3d 1078, 1084 (6th Cir. 1994)). violation of nature and natural affections.” JA 310. Moreover, “while God loves the homosexual and offers The district court found that Hall did not show that any salvation, homosexuality is not a normal lifestyle and is an similarly-situated non-protected employee had received more abomination in the eyes of God.” Id. favorable treatment by the College. In the words of the district court, Hall did not show, for example, that the College In the summer of 1996, Dr. Paul Barkley, a Southern “had ever treated an employee who assumed a leadership Baptist minister and Hall’s supervisor, asked Hall where she position in an organization expressing public support for attended church. She informed him that she attended Holy homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle any differently Trinity. Because of Barkley’s suspicion that Holy Trinity than it treated her.” Hall v. Baptist Memorial Health Care condoned homosexual lifestyles and the Southern Baptist Corp., 27 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1038 (W.D. Tenn. 1998). Convention’s clear denunciation of such alternative lifestyles, he informed the College president, Dr. Rose Temple, about On appeal, Hall argues that another employee, Cynthia Hall’s attendance there. Temple told Barkley that the College Miller, was similarly situated to Hall but treated more would not intervene in Hall’s choice of where to attend favorably. Miller became an ordained minister in the church. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, but was allowed to continue her employment despite the Southern Baptist 6 Hall v. Baptist Memorial No. 98-6761 No. 98-6761 Hall v. Baptist Memorial 11 Health Care Corp. Health Care Corp.

On September 15, 1996, Hall was ordained as a lay minister at 1345 (quoting Little, 929 F.2d at 951). Accordingly, the at Holy Trinity. Hall did not invite Barkley to her ordination court in Ward v. Hengle, 124 Ohio App. 3d 396, 400 (1997), ceremony because she feared she would be fired if Barkley held that the trial court need not even determine whether a discovered she was a lesbian and that Holy Trinity welcomed church waived its Title VII exemption from religious homosexual members. Shortly after her ordination, however, discrimination claims based on a statement in its employment she informed Barkley that she was a lesbian. Hall brought handbook that it would not discriminate against its personnel Barkley a copy of Second Stone to show him that there were on the basis of religion. See also Siegel, 13 F. Supp. 2d at a number of churches and denominations that welcomed and 1344 (government funds are most likely available to all supported the gay and lesbian community. She showed him institutions of higher learning whether or not they have a an advertisement in the newspaper for Holy Trinity. religious affiliation). Barkley relayed this information and the newspaper to For these reasons, the district court did not err in Temple. Temple testified that she perceived Hall’s position determining that the College was exempt from the Title VII at the College to be one of considerable influence over prohibition against discrimination based on religion. students, that Holy Trinity’s views on homosexuality were inconsistent with those of the Southern Baptist Convention B. and thus the College, and that this inconsistency created a conflict of interest. Accordingly, on November 20, 1996, Hall also argues that the district court erred in finding that Temple asked Hall to resign. Temple told Hall that if she she failed to establish her prima facie case or that she failed would agree to resign, Temple would help her obtain another to prove that the College’s articulated reason for firing her more appropriate position within the College, the Hospital or was pretextual. A plaintiff may prove discrimination under the Health Care Corporation for which she was qualified. Title VII through direct or circumstantial evidence. In the Hall refused this offer and the College terminated her for a absence of direct evidence of discrimination, a plaintiff must “conflict of interest.” The termination took place on establish its case under the framework first enunciated in December 3, 1996. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 582-83 (6th Cir. Hall filed a complaint with the EEOC on January 16, 1997, 1992). and was issued a right-to-sue letter on December 5, 1997. She subsequently filed a complaint alleging employment The McDonnell Douglas framework consists of three discrimination based on religious grounds in the Western stages. First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of District of Tennessee on January 14, 1998. Cross motions for discrimination. In order to establish her prima facie case, summary judgment were filed by the parties. On November Hall must show that (1) she is a member of a protected group; 23, 1998, the district court granted summary judgment in (2) she was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) she favor of the College and dismissed the case. Hall filed a was qualified for the position; and (4) she was replaced by timely appeal from the district court’s decision. someone outside the protected class or was treated less favorably than a similarly-situated employee outside the Hall raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district protected class. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Texas court erred in finding that the College was a religious Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53 institution entitled to an exemption from Title VII’s (1981); Talley v. Bravo Pitino Restaurant, Ltd., 61 F.3d 10 Hall v. Baptist Memorial No. 98-6761 No. 98-6761 Hall v. Baptist Memorial 7 Health Care Corp. Health Care Corp.

Corporation. Thus, the College has a direct relationship with prohibition against religious discrimination; (2) whether the the Baptist church. district court erred in finding that the statutory Title VII exemption was not waivable; and (3) whether the district The College atmosphere is permeated with religious court erred in finding that Hall did not state a prima facie case overtones. It recruits students in Baptist publications and at of religious discrimination, and in finding that the College’s Baptist Conventions. Prospective students are informed of proffered nondiscriminatory reason was not pretextual. the religious mission of the College at open houses. Incoming students are informed of this mission at orientation. The II. College seal includes a picture of the Bible and the words “higher education with a higher purpose.” All students are Summary judgments are reviewed de novo. E.E.O.C. v. required to take three hours of religious studies and must University of Detroit, 904 F.2d 331, 334 (6th Cir. 1990). The comply with a dress code that reflects “Christian principles of College has the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of appropriateness.” JA 408. The College holds numerous any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, prayer breakfasts and chapel programs. It has held several 477 U.S 317, 327 (1986). If the College meets that commencements at Baptist churches and hosted Baptist- requirement, the burden shifts to Hall to present sufficient sponsored programs. The fact that the College trains its admissible evidence on which a jury could return a verdict in students to be nurses and other health care professionals does her favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, not transform the institution into one that is secular. See, e.g., 249-50 (1986). Mississippi College, 626 F.2d 477 (four-year co-educational liberal arts college owned and operated by the Mississippi A. Baptist Convention is a “religious educational institution”); Siegel v. Truett-McConnell College, Inc., 13 F. Supp. 2d 1335 Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states that it shall be (N.D. Ga. 1994) (private co-educational college of liberal arts an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to and sciences founded by the Georgia Baptist Convention is a discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against “religious educational institution” under Title VII). an individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such Hall contends that even if the College is a religious individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. . . .” educational institution, it waived the Title VII exemption for 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). In recognition of the such institutions because it represented itself as being an constitutionally-protected interest of religious organizations equal opportunity employer and because it received federal in making religiously-motivated employment decisions, funds. However, the statutory exemptions from religious however, Title VII has expressly exempted religious discrimination claims under Title VII cannot be waived by organizations from the prohibition against discrimination on either party. Little, 929 F.2d at 951; Siegel, 13 F. Supp. 2d the basis of religion: at 1345. The exemptions reflect a decision by Congress that religious organizations have a constitutional right to be free This subchapter shall not apply to . . . a religious from government intervention. Id. “Once Congress stated corporation, association, educational institution, or that ‘[t]his title shall not apply’ to religiously-motivated society with respect to the employment of individuals of employment decisions by religious organizations,” neither a particular religion to perform work connected with the party could expand the statute’s scope. Siegel, 13 F. Supp. 2d carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities. 8 Hall v. Baptist Memorial No. 98-6761 No. 98-6761 Hall v. Baptist Memorial 9 Health Care Corp. Health Care Corp.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a). Another, more specific exemption point. In determining whether the College qualifies for the applies only to religious educational organizations: statutory exemption, the court must look at all the facts to decide whether the College is a religious corporation or It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a educational institution. Killinger, 113 F.3d at 198-99. It is school, college, university, or other educational appropriate to consider and weigh the religious and secular institution or institution of learning to hire an employee characteristics of the institution. E.E.O.C. v. Townley Eng’g of a particular religion if such school, college, university, & Mfg.Co., 859 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 or other educational institution or institution of learning U.S. 1077 (1989); E.E.O.C. v. Mississippi College, 626 F.2d is, in whole, or in substantial part, owned, supported, 477 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 912 (1981). controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, In this case, the district court properly weighed the facts and or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or identified the specific religious and secular characteristics of other educational institution or institution of learning is the College. Based on that analysis, the district court directed towards the propagation of a particular religion. concluded that the College had set forth sufficient evidence to support its characterization of the College as a religious 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2). educational institution. We agree. The decision to employ individuals “of a particular The College qualifies for the exemption under the plain religion” under § 2000e-1(a) and § 2000e-2(e)(2) has been language of § 2000e-2(e)(2) because it is a “school, college, interpreted to include the decision to terminate an employee university, or other educational institution or institution of whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those learning . . . [that] . . . is, in whole, or in substantial part, of its employer. See, e.g., Little v. Wuerl, 929 F.2d 944, 951 owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a . . . religious (3rd Cir. 1991); Killinger v. Samford Univ., 113 F.3d 196, corporation.” Id. Moreover, the record shows that the 198 (11th Cir. 1997). In Little, for example, the court Baptists created the Health Care Corporation with the sole concluded that the Title VII exemption included the decision purpose of making the interrelated religious/service mission of a parochial school to terminate a tenured Protestant teacher of the Baptists a reality. It accomplished this by authorizing who had failed to validate her second marriage by first the Corporation to “separately incorporate hospitals, clinics, seeking an annulment of her previous marriage through the home health care organizations, rehabilitation centers, health proper canonical procedures of the Catholic church. 929 F.2d maintenance organizations, hospices, nursing homes, nursing at 951. Similarly, in Killinger, the court concluded that the and other schools. . . .” JA 285. The College and the Hospital Title VII exemption included the decision of a Baptist are mere examples of those facilities. university to remove a Baptist faculty member from his teaching position because his religious beliefs differed from The College was founded by three sectarian organizations: those of the dean. 113 F.3d at 198. the Mississippi, Arkansas and Tennessee Baptist Conventions. It is a subsidiary of the Hospital which is a Hall argues on appeal that the district court erred in finding subsidiary of the Health Care Corporation, and it receives that the College was a “religious educational institution” funds from both the Hospital and the Corporation. The entitled to the Title VII exemption from religious “preaching, teaching, and healing” mission of the College is discrimination claims. There is no Sixth Circuit precedent on subsumed in the missions of the Hospital and the