In Milano v. Missouri Baptist Univ., No. 4:25-CV-1654-ZMB, 2026 WL 2920520 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2026), the court, inter alia, that the “ministerial exception” did not bar plaintiff’s discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As to this point, the court explained:
At least at this stage, the Court cannot conclude that Milano’s Title VII claims are barred by the ministerial exception. That doctrine, flowing from the First Amendment, excepts religious organizations like MBU from certain employment-discrimination claims related to matters of church governance. See Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 188–89 (2012); Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. 732, 747 (2020). MBU contends that Milano’s role, while not explicitly religious, nonetheless required her to lead students with a Biblically based Christian based perspective. Milano argues that she does not fall under the ministerial exception because her duties were primarily secular. Moreover, she asserts it would be improper to resolve that question on the limited factual record before the Court. She is correct, at least as to the latter point.
There is no rigid formula for determining whether an employee falls within the ministerial exception. But the Supreme Court has emphasized that the inquiry cannot be reduced to an employee’s title. Instead, the Court must examine what an employee does to assess whether she performs vital religious duties. While courts should address this issue as early as possible to avoid excessive entanglement in church matters, the ministerial exception operates as an affirmative defense to employment discrimination claims. In other words, at this stage, the Court is limited to the four corners of the complaint.
Here, the Petition does not describe Milano’s coaching duties in any detail and is silent as to any religious responsibilities she may have had. And while the Court could consider documents outside the pleadings by converting MBU’s motion to one for summary judgment, doing so here would not help MBU because its proffered mission statement does not indicate that all University employees perform vital religious duties. Particularly given the fact-intensive nature of this inquiry, the Court finds it inappropriate to decide the question on the limited record before it.
(Cleaned up.)
The court proceeded to hold, on the merits, that plaintiff failed to state a claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment, but sufficiently alleged retaliation.