The Daily Oklahoman has this story about yesterday's denial of certiorari in Skryzpczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa. In that case, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of the Diocese of Tulsa in a Title VII case brought by a former employee of the Diocese. In an opinion by Judge McKay, the Tenth Circuit held that summary judgment was appropriate under the ministerial exception because although the employee's duties included administrative tasks, her position also required the development and planning of theological and other religious programs.
The court's holding appears to be a relatively straightforward application of the exception, so the denial of certiorari comes as no surprise (although it appears from a review of the Supreme Court docket that the Court requested a response to the petition, so at least one law clerk thought the petition had some merit). In fact, the Scryzpczak decision, which can be viewed here, is more noteworthy for its rejection of the plaintiff's affidavits that had been submitted by the plaintiff in response to the Diocese's summary judgment motion:
Despite Appellant’s contentions, [her] affidavits are exactly the type of conclusory affidavits that are insufficient to overcome summary judgment. Even if we accept these affidavits are based on personal knowledge, they do not set forth any facts, admissible or otherwise, that a court could consider as raising a material issue of fact. Instead, each affidavit merely parrots a general rule that a court could consider in determining the ministerial exception’s application and then states, in the affiant’s opinion, the legal conclusion the court should reach. Accordingly, we hold the district court did not err in its determination that Appellant was a minister for purposes of the exception.
