Pime v. Loyola University of Chicago
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
803 F.2d 351 (1986)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Loyola University of Chicago (Loyola) (defendant) was established as a private university with a Jesuit tradition. Under Loyola’s bylaws, the president and more than one-third of the board of trustees had to be members of the Jesuit order. However, as a result of Loyola’s growth, 93 percent of the academic administrators and 94 percent of the teaching staff were non-Jesuit. About 75 percent of the student population came from a Catholic background. In 1978 the Department of Philosophy faculty, wanting to ensure adequate Jesuit representation in the department, adopted a resolution providing that the three pending vacancies in the Philosophy Department should be filled by Jesuit philosophers. Jerrold Pime (plaintiff), a Jew, had been working in the Philosophy Department as a part-time lecturer. Pime left Loyola after being told that no full-time position would be available to him in the coming years. Pime sued for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), arguing that he was denied an employment opportunity on the basis of his religion. Loyola argued that its decision was lawful under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(1), which permitted employers to hire and employ employees on the basis of their religion if it was a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the enterprise. A district court agreed and granted judgment to Loyola following a bench trial. Pime appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fairchild, J.)
Concurrence (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.