# Ralph L. Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church and Bishop Joseph A. Yeakel

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · January 19, 1990 · 894 F.2d 1354

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479946

## Case

- **Full name:** Ralph L. MINKER, Appellant, v. BALTIMORE ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF UNITED METHODIST CHURCH and Bishop Joseph A. Yeakel, Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** January 19, 1990
- **Citations:** 894 F.2d 1354; 282 U.S. App. D.C. 314; 52 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 39,586; 51 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1372; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 670; 1990 WL 9870
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gesell
- **Judges:** Mikva, Buckley, Gesell
- **Cited by:** 140 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by Dayner v. Archdiocese of Hartford, 301 Conn. 759 (2011).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479946

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that it does not matter whether the factors relied upon by the church were independently ecclesiastical or *1129 not, for since they relate to a pastoral appointment decision they are automatically intertwined with religious doctrine
- holding that it does not matter whether the factors relied upon by the church were independently ecclesiastical or not, for since they relate to a pastoral appointment decision they are automatically intertwined with religious doctrine
- explaining that the “neutral principles test ... permits a court to interpret provisions of religious documents involving property rights and other nondoctrinal matters as long as the analysis can be done in purely secular terms”
- noting, in a different context, that where inquiry into a matter was forbidden "even for the purpose of showing it to be pretextual," the claim need not be dismissed because "it may turn out that the potentially mischievous aspects . . . are not contested . . . or are subject …

## Opinion text

GESELL, District Judge,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result and respectfully note my concerns. The opinion deals comprehensively with a difficult case and an even more challenging problem. It seeks without benefit of a factual record to balance our deep-seated respect for First Amendment religious protection against the virus of discrimination based on age, *1362 sex, race and national origin which appears in every aspect of our society. General propositions are stated in a manner that may appear to lay down firm guidance for subsequent religious discrimination cases. In my opinion this is unnecessary. In the future there may well be some who seek to avoid scrutiny of a primary discriminatory objective in the selection or creation of religious officials by exploiting a marginal First Amendment religious claim. I believe the wiser course would be to allow the law to evolve in this difficult area case-by-case, aided, wherever necessary, by meaningful records developed on factual motions or trial. It is too early to anticipate whether some of the absolutes announced in the opinion will withstand the test of time or be considered appropriate under all circumstances.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479946. Public record. Not legal advice.