Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Dias v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati

2013 WL 360355 (2013)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Dias v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

2013 WL 360355 (2013)

Facts

Christa Dias (plaintiff) worked as a computer-technology coordinator at two schools run by the Archdiocese of Cincinnati (defendant). Dias’s employment contract included a morals clause, which stated that all employees must comply with the Roman Catholic Church’s philosophy and teachings. Dias was in a same-sex relationship but did not inform anyone at the school because she was aware that the relationship violated the morals clause. Dias then became pregnant through artificial insemination, and informed Principal Jennifer O’Brien of the pregnancy. O’Brien told Dias that she would be terminated because she was pregnant and unmarried. Dias told O’Brien that she had become pregnant through artificial insemination rather than by premarital sex. O’Brien told Dias that she would still be terminated because pregnancy through artificial insemination violated the morals clause. Dias filed suit, alleging that the termination amounted to pregnancy discrimination and breach of the employment contract. The archdiocese filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the ministerial exception to Title VII was applicable and that because Dias breached the morals clause, she could not sue to enforce the employment contract. The court denied the motion to dismiss. During discovery, the archdiocese found additional facts relating to the applicability of the ministerial exception, that Dias had violated the morals clause of the employment contract, and that the archdiocese was not a proper defendant. Accordingly, the archdiocese moved for summary judgment again. In response, Dias also moved for summary judgment, arguing that the ministerial exception to Title VII was not applicable, that she should prevail on the pregnancy discrimination, and that under the integrated employer doctrine, the archdiocese was a proper defendant.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Spiegel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership