Doe v. Catholic Relief Services

John Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, Misc. No. 28, September Term, 2022. Opinion by
Biran, J.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – MARYLAND FAIR EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES ACT, MD. CODE ANN., STATE GOV’T § 20-606 –
DISCRIMINATION – MEANING OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON “SEX” –
The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the prohibition against sex discrimination in the
Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t (“SG”) § 20-606
(2021 Repl. Vol., 2022 Supp.) (“MFEPA”), does not include a prohibition against sexual
orientation discrimination. Separate and apart from its ban on sex discrimination, MFEPA
expressly prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The plain
language of the statute and its legislative history demonstrate that the General Assembly
intended for the separate enumerations to be distinct categories of protection for
employees.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – MARYLAND EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL
WORK ACT, MD. CODE ANN., LAB. & EMPL. § 3-304 – DISCRIMINATION –
MEANING OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON “SEX” – The Supreme Court of
Maryland held that the prohibition against sex discrimination in the Maryland Equal Pay
for Equal Work Act, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-304 (2016 Repl. Vol.)
(“MEPEWA”), does not include a prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination.
MEPEWA prohibits wage discrimination based on “sex” and “gender identity.” The plain
language of the statute and its legislative history demonstrate that the General Assembly
did not intend for the prohibition against pay disparities based on sex to encompass a ban
on pay disparities based on sexual orientation.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – MARYLAND FAIR EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES ACT, MD. CODE ANN., STATE GOV’T § 20-604(2) –
DISCRIMINATION – EMPLOYMENT – RELIGIOUS ENTITY EXEMPTION –
The Supreme Court of Maryland held that MFEPA’s religious entity exemption,
SG § 20-604(2), bars claims for religious, sexual orientation, and gender identity
discrimination against religious organizations by employees who perform duties that
directly further the core mission(s) of the religious entity.
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Case No.: CCB-20-1815
Argued: June 2, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND*

Misc. No. 28

September Term, 2022

JOHN DOE

v.

CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES

Fader, C.J.
Watts
Hotten
Booth
Biran
Gould
Eaves,

JJ.

Opinion by Biran, J.
Watts, Hotten, and Eaves, JJ., dissent.

Filed: August 14, 2023

* At the November 8, 2022 general election, the
voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this amendment changing the name of the Court of
document is authentic. Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court of
2023-08-14 13:42-04:00 Maryland. The name change took effect on
December 14, 2022.

Gregory Hilton, Clerk
 I

Introduction

This Court is authorized to “answer a question of law certified to it by a court of the

United States or by an appellate court of another state or of a tribe, if the answer may be

determinative of an issue in pending litigation in the certifying court and there is no

controlling appellate decision, constitutional provision, or statute of this State.” Md. Code

Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (“CJP”) § 12-603 (2020 Repl. Vol).

On February 21, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

certified the following three questions to this Court:

1. Whether the prohibition against sex discrimination in the
Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann.,
State Gov’t § 20-606, prohibits discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation.

2. Whether, under Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-604(2),
the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act applies to a
religious corporation, association, education institution, or
society with respect to the employment of individuals of a
particular sexual orientation or gender identity to perform
work connected with all activities of the religious entity or
only those that are religious in nature.

3. Whether the prohibition against sex discrimination in the
Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, Md. Code Ann.,
Lab. & Empl. § 3-304, prohibits discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation.

We heard oral argument concerning the certified questions on June 2, 2023. We now

provide our answers below.
 II

Background

A. Statement of Facts

“The court certifying a question of law” to this Court “shall issue a certification

order.” CJP § 12-605(a). The certification order must contain “[t]he facts relevant to the

question, showing fully the nature of the controversy out of which the question arose[.]”

Id. § 12-606(a)(2). We now summarize the facts provided by the certifying court.

Catholic Relief Services-United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (“CRS”),

the defendant in the federal lawsuit, is a 501(c)(3) Catholic Church social services agency

constituted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. CRS follows the Catholic

teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman and ordered to the procreation

of children.

John Doe, the plaintiff in federal court, is a gay, cisgender man who is married to

another man. In 2016, Mr. Doe attended a job fair where he met CRS recruiter Anna

Cowell. The two discussed generally available positions at CRS, and Ms. Cowell later

followed up with Mr. Doe about pursuing a data analyst position with CRS. In his

conversations with Ms. Cowell, Mr. Doe asked whether CRS would provide health benefits

to his same-sex spouse. Ms. Cowell told Mr. Doe that all dependents are covered. In June

2016, CRS hired Mr. Doe as a Program Data Analyst. In this position, Mr. Doe worked on

2
advancing and facilitating select business functions within CRS’s Gateway business

platform and project portfolio system through an online platform known as Salesforce.1

Over the course of his employment, Mr. Doe has held various positions at CRS,

including Program Data Analyst, Gateway User Support (Advisor I), and Gateway Data

Quality and Analytics Advisor (Advisor II). In those positions, Mr. Doe’s responsibilities

included, among other things, reporting and data analytics, providing support to CRS

Gateway users, collaborating with other team members regarding development of content

for trainings and presentations, and making system enhancements to Gateway. Mr. Doe’s

responsibilities concerning the improvement, enhancement, design, use, and training of the

Gateway system mirrored those of his straight colleagues.

Upon Mr. Doe’s hiring in June 2016, he enrolled his same-sex spouse through

CRS’s benefits enrollment system. CRS accepted the enrollment. Several months after this

enrollment, Debra Jones, then Benefits and Staff Care Manager for CRS, alerted her

superior, David Palasits, Acting Executive Vice President for Human Resources, that Mr.

Doe had been misinformed about his spouse’s eligibility for benefits and that Mr. Doe’s

spouse had been enrolled in error. On November 10, 2016, Ms. Jones informed Mr. Doe

that CRS had mistakenly approved the enrollment of his same-sex spouse and that CRS

did not provide spousal health benefits to employees in same-sex relationships.

1
The certified facts provided by the district court state that Mr. Doe’s position “is
not the type of position that is covered by the First Amendment’s ministerial exception, as
that doctrine is discussed in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v.
EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 140
S. Ct. 2049 (2020).” We discuss the ministerial exception below.

3
 CRS personnel and Mr. Doe subsequently conferred about a potential coverage

alternative, but the parties were unable to reach an agreement. CRS terminated Mr. Doe’s

spouse’s health benefits, effective October 1, 2017. CRS did so because it considers the

provision of such benefits to be contrary to its Catholic values.

On June 1, 2018, Mr. Doe timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United

States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against CRS. On May 27,

2020, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter.

On June 12, 2020, Mr. Doe filed a lawsuit against CRS in the United States District

Court for the District of Maryland. His complaint includes claims under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., the federal

Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), as well as claims under the Maryland Fair

Employment Practices Act, Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t (“SG”) § 20-606(a)(1)(i) (2021

Repl. Vol., 2022 Supp.) (“MFEPA”), and the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act,

Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. (“LE”) § 3-304(b)(1) (2016 Repl. Vol.) (“MEPEWA”).2

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On August 3, 2022, the

district court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions. The court ruled

that CRS violated Title VII by revoking Mr. Doe’s dependent health insurance because of

his sex – in particular, because he was a man married to another man. The court also granted

summary judgment to Mr. Doe on his federal EPA claim, on the ground that CRS “provides

dependent benefits for the male spouses of female employees who perform work of similar

The district court’s certified facts note that Mr. Doe filed additional claims against
2

CRS under state statutory and common law, which the court subsequently dismissed.

4
skill and effort as Mr. Doe, but refused to provide such benefits to Mr. Doe because he is

a man married to a man[.]”

As for Mr. Doe’s claim under MFEPA, the court held that interpreting the statute

would require guidance from the Supreme Court of Maryland, given that it would implicate

important state public policy issues. The district court initially ruled on the MEPEWA

claim, holding that CRS violated MEPEWA because a woman married to a man would not

have lost spousal health insurance benefits as Mr. Doe did. On August 15, 2022, CRS

moved for reconsideration of the district court’s ruling on Mr. Doe’s MEPEWA claim. On

January 11, 2023, the district court granted CRS’s motion for reconsideration and ordered

the parties to confer and file proposed questions of law with respect to MFEPA and

MEPEWA. On February 21, 2023, the district court certified the above three questions of

law to this Court.

III

Standard of Review

“In responding to a certification from another court, this Court resolves only issues

of Maryland law, not questions of fact.” Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 482 Md.

223, 238 (2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition, we “may go

no further than the question certified.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

As we are deciding questions of law and not reviewing a lower court ruling, our analysis

necessarily is de novo. Dickson v. United States, 478 Md. 255, 260 (2022).

5
 IV

Discussion

All three questions before us involve issues of statutory interpretation. Our goal in

construing a statute is “to ascertain and effectuate the real and actual intent of the

Legislature.” Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257, 274 (2010). We “begin with the plain

language of the statute” and the “ordinary, popular understanding of the English language

dictates interpretation of its terminology.” Buarque de Macedo v. Auto Ins. Co. Hartford,

480 Md. 200, 215 (2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “If the statutory

language is unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose, the

inquiry as to legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute as written, without

resort to other rules of construction.” Id. (cleaned up).

“We construe the statute as a whole so that no word, clause, sentence, or phrase is

rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless, or nugatory.” Id. at 215-16 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Our analysis is “not confined to the specific

statutory provision at issue on appeal.” Berry v. Queen, 469 Md. 674, 687 (2020). Rather,

“the plain language must be viewed within the context of the statutory scheme to which it

belongs, considering the purpose, aim or policy of the Legislature in enacting the statute.”

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, “it may be beneficial to

analyze the statute’s relationship to earlier and subsequent legislation, and other material

that fairly bears on the fundamental issue of legislative purpose or goal, which becomes

the context within which we read the particular language before us in a given case.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We often review legislative history to

6
determine whether it confirms the interpretation suggested by our analysis of the statutory

language, Rowe v. Maryland Comm’n on Civ. Rts., 483 Md. 329, 343 (2023), although we

are not required to do so if the statutory language is unambiguous. See Wheeling v. Selene

Fin. LP, 473 Md. 356, 384-85 n.9 (2021).

If we conclude that “statutory language is ambiguous and thus subject to more than

one reasonable interpretation, or where the language is unambiguous when read in

isolation, but ambiguous when considered in the context of a larger statutory scheme,” we

“must resolve the ambiguity by searching for legislative intent in other indicia, including

the history of the legislation or other relevant sources intrinsic and extrinsic to the

legislative process.” Macedo, 480 Md. at 216 (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). “We avoid a construction of the statute that is unreasonable, illogical, or

inconsistent with common sense.” Mayor & Town Council of Oakland, 392 Md. 301, 316

(2006); see also Bell v. Chance, 460 Md. 28, 53 (2018) (throughout the interpretive process,

“we avoid constructions that are illogical or nonsensical, or that render a statute

meaningless”).

MFEPA and MEPEWA are remedial statutes. Therefore, we must construe both

statutes “liberally in favor of claimants seeking [their] protection.” Haas v. Lockheed

Martin Corp., 396 Md. 469, 495 (2007). Relatedly, “exemptions from remedial legislation

must be narrowly construed.” Lockett v. Blue Ocean Bristol, LLC, 446 Md. 397, 424 (2016)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

With these principles in mind, we turn to the three certified questions before us. We

have chosen to reorder the certified questions. We shall first address the questions

7
concerning the meaning of the prohibition against sex discrimination under MFEPA and

MEPEWA, and then consider the question concerning the religious entity exemption under

MFEPA. In addition, we exercise our discretion to rephrase the question regarding the

religious entity exemption. See CJP § 12-604 (“The [Supreme Court] of this State may

reformulate a question of law certified to it.”). We shall consider the following question:

What is the meaning of the phrase “to perform work connected with the activities of the

religious entity,” as used in MFEPA’s religious entity exemption, SG § 20-604(2)?

A. The Prohibition Against Discrimination on the Basis of “Sex” in MFEPA Does
Not Itself Also Prohibit Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Which Is
Separately Covered under MFEPA.

MFEPA provides that an employer may not “fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or

otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the individual’s

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” among other reasons,

“because of the individual’s ... sex, ... sexual orientation, [or] gender identity[.]” SG § 20-

606(a)(1)(i).

Mr. Doe argues that, for the purpose of answering the first certified question, we

should read MFEPA in lockstep with Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. In

2020, the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition against sex

discrimination includes a prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination. Bostock v.

Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). Mr. Doe contends that, although the General

Assembly amended MFEPA specifically to add sexual orientation as a protected category

before the Supreme Court decided Bostock, Bostock confirmed protections that already

existed under MFEPA’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex.

8
 CRS focuses on the separate enumerations of “sex” and “sexual orientation” in

MFEPA’s prohibition. According to CRS, because the General Assembly made both sex

discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination expressly actionable under MFEPA,

the General Assembly did not understand and intend that the prohibition against sex

discrimination would also prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. We agree with CRS.

1. Plain Language

There is no ambiguity in the language of SG § 20-606 as it pertains to sex

discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. MFEPA’s plain terms separately

prohibit both.

“Sexual orientation,” as the term is used in MFEPA, means “the identification of an

individual as to male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.”

SG § 20-101(i). “Sex” is not statutorily defined. The dictionary definition of “sex” – both

at the time MFEPA was enacted in 1965 and currently – refers to a categorical (especially

biological) distinction between male and female organisms. For example, Merriam

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “sex” as “either of the two major forms of individuals

that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male

especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures” or “the sum of the

structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that

distinguish males and females” or “the state of being male or female” or “males or females

9
considered as a group[.]”3 None of these definitions signal that “sex” also includes “sexual

orientation.”

Similarly, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, published in 1966,

defined “sex” as “one of the two divisions of organic esp. human beings respectively

designated male or female[.]”4

Furthermore, reading the prohibition against sex discrimination to include a

prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination would render MFEPA’s religious

entity exemption, SG § 20-604(2), nugatory. That provision exempts discrimination claims

against “a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect

to the employment of individuals of a particular religion, sexual orientation, or gender

identity to perform work connected with the activities of the religious entity.” Because we

must read MFEPA as a whole, we seek to harmonize the meaning of “sex” with the

language and purpose of the statute’s religious entity exemption.

If we were to read the statutory language in the way suggested by Mr. Doe, the

exemption for religious organizations would effectively be rendered a nullity. Every

plaintiff who sued a religious entity employer for alleged sexual orientation discrimination

would simply plead their claim as a sex discrimination claim to avoid the potential

application of the religious entity exemption. We agree with CRS that “it cannot possibly

3
Sex, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, available at https://perma.cc/5WPD-2AB3.
4
See Bostock, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1784-91, app. A & B (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting)
(providing definitions of “sex” from various dictionaries throughout the decades
surrounding the passage of Title VII).

10
have been the General Assembly’s intent to enact an exemption that any plaintiff could

plead around with ease.”

2. Legislative History of MFEPA

We next turn to legislative history as a check on our reading of MFEPA’s text. See

Elsberry v. Stanley Martin Cos., LLC, 482 Md. 159, 190 (2022) (“This Court may use

legislative history as a ‘check’ on its plain text interpretation.”). To put MFEPA’s

legislative history in context, we briefly examine the history of the statute and its

connections with Title VII.

This Court has recognized that MFEPA is “modeled on federal anti-discrimination

legislation.” Molesworth v. Brandon, 341 Md. 621, 632 (1996). MFEPA “became effective

July 1, 1965 – the day before the effective date of Title VII.” Makovi v. Sherwin-Williams

Co., 316 Md. 603, 607 (1989). When initially enacted, Title VII and MFEPA contained

similar employment discrimination prohibitions. Initially, both statutes prohibited, among

other things, discrimination based on sex.5

5
See Act of May 4, 1965, ch. 717, 1965 Md. Laws at 1044 (“It shall be an unlawful
employment practice for an employer: (a) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
individual’s race, color, creed, sex or national origin[.]”) (enacting MFEPA); Civil Rights
Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352, § 703(A)(1), 78 Stat. 241 (“It shall be an unlawful
employment practice for an employer – (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[.]”) (enacting Title VII).

11
 For a time, MFEPA was amended to match Title VII’s statutory changes so that the

two statutes maintained their strong similarities. See Molesworth, 341 Md. at 632-33

(“[T]he title of Chapter 493 of the Acts of 1973, which reduced from twenty-five to fifteen

the number of employees in the definition of ‘employer,’ indicates that the Act was passed

to ‘generally conform the State Fair Employment Practices Law to the 1972 Amendments

of Title VII, Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.’”).

However, MFEPA’s language did not remain materially identical to that of Title

VII. The issue before us involving the addition of sexual orientation as a protected category

is an example of its divergence.

The text of Title VII does not specifically prohibit discrimination based on “sexual

orientation.” As noted above, neither did MFEPA, initially. However, in 2001, the General

Assembly amended MFEPA to add sexual orientation as a protected category. The

legislative history of this amendment reflects that the General Assembly added a specific

reference to sexual orientation in MFEPA because it believed MFEPA did not yet prohibit

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A report authored by the Special

Commission to Study Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Maryland in 2000 (the “Special

12
Commission”)6 recited that “Article 49B[7] prohibits discrimination in employment,

housing and public accommodations based on an individual’s race, religion, creed, sex,

age, color, familial status (housing), national origin, marital status and physical or mental

disability.” INTERIM REP., SPECIAL COMM’N TO STUDY SEXUAL ORIENTATION

DISCRIMINATION IN MD. at 6 (2000) (“INTERIM REP.”). The Special Commission

continued: “The law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.” Id.

Further, 2001 testimony from the Maryland Commission on Human Relations

(“MCHR”)8 in favor of the legislation adding sexual orientation as a protected class in

MFEPA stated:

Under Maryland’s Human Relations Code, people are protected from
discrimination based on race, creed, sex, age, color, national origin, marital
status, physical and mental handicap in the areas of employment, housing
and public accommodations. Some jurisdictions in Maryland also have laws
that bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. These include
Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s counties, Rockville and
Baltimore City….

But those who live in unprotected jurisdictions have no recourse against
discrimination under Maryland Law or under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 on the basis of sexual orientation or the perception that their

6
This Commission was created by then-Governor Parris Glendening to study the
impacts of sexual orientation discrimination in the state, given that there was no state
prohibition against such discrimination. See Md. Exec. Ord. No. 01.01.2000.19 at 1-2,
amended by Exec. Ord. No. 01.01.2000.22. The Commission was tasked with developing
recommendations to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including
drafting legislative proposals for the General Assembly. See id. at 3-4.

Maryland’s antidiscrimination laws were formerly contained in Article 49B of the
7

Annotated Code of Maryland.
8
The Maryland Commission on Human Relations was subsequently renamed the
Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. This agency is charged with administering MFEPA
and other Maryland antidiscrimination provisions.

13
 sexual orientation is other than heterosexual. Maryland is a national leader in
civil rights protections, but an important gap exists. Discrimination in
employment, housing, and public accommodations based on sexual
orientation denies equal rights.

MCHR Testimony Re: HB 307/SB 205 Antidiscrimination Act of 2001 at 1 (2001)

(“MCHR Testimony”).

This legislative history makes clear that the General Assembly amended MFEPA to

include sexual orientation as a protected class because it believed that MFEPA, as it existed

before 2001 – including its bar on sex discrimination – did not prohibit sexual orientation

discrimination.9

This understanding is reinforced by the fact that, at the same time the General

Assembly added sexual orientation as a protected category under MFEPA, it also amended

MFEPA’s religious entity exemption to add sexual orientation – but not sex – as a

permissible basis for at least some discrimination by religious organizations. To whatever

extent the General Assembly intended the religious entity exemption to apply,10 if the

General Assembly had believed that sexual orientation discrimination was also covered

under sex discrimination, it presumably would have made that clear in some fashion when

adding sexual orientation to the religious entity exemption.

9
The effort to add sexual orientation as a protected class in MFEPA took at least 25
years. In 1976, Delegate Alverda Booth of Baltimore County sponsored the first bill to
amend Article 49B to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment, housing,
and public accommodations. The legislation failed in committee. Multiple subsequent
efforts also were unsuccessful. The long campaign to add sexual orientation discrimination
to MFEPA achieved success with the Antidiscrimination Act of 2001.

We consider the General Assembly’s intent in enacting that exemption in
10

answering the third question below.

14
 Moreover, it is clear from the record materials before us that policymakers viewed

sexual orientation as its own discrete class, and determined that it was appropriate to amend

the religious entity exemption to add sexual orientation, in order to achieve a balance

between the rights of individuals to be free of sexual orientation discrimination and the

rights of religious organizations to further their religious beliefs. Thus, the Special

Commission recommended that the General Assembly amend the exemption to include

sexual orientation, given that some religious entities opposed the addition of sexual

orientation as a protected class. See INTERIM REP. at 19. If we were to read MFEPA as Mr.

Doe urges us to do, we would be ignoring the purposeful balancing that the General

Assembly incorporated in MFEPA when it amended the statute in 2001.

Mr. Doe primarily relies on Bostock, the 2020 case in which the Supreme Court held

that sex discrimination under Title VII includes discrimination based on sexual orientation

(and gender identity) because “[a]n employer who fires an individual for being homosexual

or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in

members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision[.]”

140 S. Ct. at 1737. The Court’s analysis rested on the principle that “because of sex” was

akin to “but for” causation. Id. at 1739. The Court held that “[s]o long as ... sex was one

but-for cause of [an employment] decision, that is enough to trigger the law.” Id.

It remains to be seen if, in light of our holding today, the General Assembly will

amend MFEPA in some fashion to harmonize it with the holding of Bostock. Regardless,

we are convinced that the General Assembly that initially enacted MFEPA in 1965, and

the General Assembly that amended MFEPA in 2001 to add sexual orientation as a

15
protected class, did not believe that sexual orientation discrimination was prohibited as a

result of the ban on sex discrimination. That the Supreme Court now has told us that sexual

orientation discrimination has been prohibited under Title VII all along does not mean that

we can or should ignore the General Assembly’s clear understanding at the time it added

sexual orientation as a protected category. See Chappell v. Southern Md. Hosp., Inc., 320

Md. 483, 494 (1990) (noting that this Court reads state antidiscrimination provisions in

harmony with Title VII “in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary”); see also Haas,

396 Md. at 492 (“While it certainly is permissible to have recourse to federal law similar

to our own as an aid in construction of Maryland statutory law, it should not be a substitute

for the pre-eminent plain meaning inquiry of the statutory language under examination.”).11

In sum, the prohibition against sex discrimination in MFEPA does not prohibit

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. MFEPA prohibits sexual orientation

discrimination based on its specific enumeration of “sexual orientation” as a protected

class.

11
In a brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, FreeState
Justice, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, Lambda Legal Defense and Education
Fund, Inc., Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association, National Center
for Lesbian Rights, National Employment Law Project, and the Public Justice Center,
Amici cite several instances in which, based on Bostock, courts or administering agencies
in other states have read bans on discrimination based on sex in their states’ analogs to
Title VII as encompassing a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender
identity. See, e.g., Rouch World, LLC v. Dep’t of C.R., 987 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. 2022)
(Michigan’s analog to Title VII). Unlike MFEPA, however, those state statutes (like Title
VII) do not list “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected categories alongside
“sex.”

16
 B. MEPEWA Does Not Prohibit Sexual Orientation Discrimination.

The relevant language of MEPEWA provides:

An employer may not discriminate between employees in any
occupation by: (i) paying a wage to employees of one sex or
gender identity at a rate less than the rate paid to employees of
another sex or gender identity if both employees work in the
same establishment and perform work of comparable character
or work on the same operation, in the same business, or of the
same type; or (ii) providing less favorable employment
opportunities based on sex or gender identity.

LE § 3-304(b)(1).

Similar to his argument regarding MFEPA, Mr. Doe argues that MEPEWA should

be read in harmony with its federal counterpart, the EPA. Although the EPA does not

include a specific reference to sexual orientation discrimination, Mr. Doe contends that the

logic of Bostock carries over to the EPA. Therefore, he says that we should construe

MEPEWA consistently with how he expects federal courts will construe the EPA, i.e.,

reading the ban on pay disparities based on sex to encompass a ban on pay disparities based

on sexual orientation.12 Thus, Mr. Doe asserts that, “as in Bostock, ‘but for’ Mr. Doe being

a man (married to a man), he would receive spousal benefits.” Mr. Doe further contends

that “[f]ollowing Bostock, the fact that MEPEWA does not explicitly mention sexual

orientation, while MFEPA does, is a distinction without a difference.”

12
Mr. Doe cites a federal district court decision from Hawaii in which the court
applied Bostock’s reasoning to an EPA claim at the pleading stage: “Given the Supreme
Court’s recent decision in the Title VII context that ‘it is impossible to discriminate against
a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that
individual based on sex,’ Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1741, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that
she has received unequal pay because of her sex.” Scutt v. Carbonaro CPAs n Mngmt Grp,
No. 20-00362, 2020 WL 5880715, at *11 (D. Haw. Oct. 2, 2020).

17
 CRS argues that the language in MEPEWA is unambiguous. CRS contends that the

prohibition against sex discrimination under MEPEWA does not include sexual orientation

because, unlike in MFEPA, the General Assembly purposefully omitted sexual orientation

as a protected category in MEPEWA. We agree with CRS.

1. Plain Text

We agree with CRS that there is no ambiguity in the language of LE § 3-304(b)(1).

This statute specifically prohibits pay disparities based on “sex” and “gender identity.”

There is no mention of sexual orientation in the statute. MEPEWA does not include a

definition for “sex,” but does define “gender identity.” Id. § 3-301(c) (referencing the

definition of gender identity found at SG § 20-101(e), which defines gender identity as “the

gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of a person, regardless of the

person’s assigned sex at birth, which may be demonstrated by: (1) consistent and uniform

assertion of the person’s gender identity; or (2) any other evidence that the gender identity

is sincerely held as part of the person’s core identity”).

As is the case with respect to MFEPA, reference to dictionary definitions both in

1966 (when MEPEWA was first enacted) and 2016 (when MEPEWA was amended to add

gender identity as a protected category) lead to the conclusion that the General Assembly

likely considered “sex” to refer to “one of the two divisions of organic esp. human beings

respectively designated male or female,” “the state of being male or female,” “males or

females considered as a group,” etc.13 In addition, the fact that the General Assembly

13
See notes 3 and 4 above and accompanying text.

18
expressly added protection to MEPEWA relating to “gender identity” in 2016, without also

adding similar protection relating to sexual orientation, supports this reading of the plain

text of the statute.

2. Legislative History

Legislative history also supports this conclusion. We begin by providing a brief

history of the connection between MEPEWA and its federal analog. The EPA was enacted

in 1963 as a part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, whereas MEPEWA was enacted in 1966.

See TASK FORCE ON THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF MD./FED. EMP. STANDARDS, DIV. OF

LAB. & INDUS., AN EVALUATION OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF MARYLAND/FEDERAL

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS at 119-21 (1978). When initially enacted, MEPEWA and its

federal counterpart offered similar equal pay protections by prohibiting sex-based

discrimination. Id. Initially, however, MEPEWA only offered protections for Maryland

employees who were not covered by the federal statute and excluded all those covered by

the EPA from its protection. Id. The General Assembly passed legislation in 1979 to extend

the scope of MEPEWA by removing the exclusion. See Act of May 14, 1979, ch. 237, 1979

Md. Laws at 859. This history is reflective of the early relationship between the EPA and

MEPEWA when the statutes were closely congruent.

In 2016, MEPEWA was amended to add the prohibition against pay disparities

based on gender identity. See Act of May 19, 2016, ch. 557, 2016 Md. Laws at 6624-33.

The General Assembly did not add sexual orientation as a protected category at that time.

Mr. Doe’s position would require us to conclude that the General Assembly chose not to

add sexual orientation as a protected category in MEPEWA because the legislators

19
believed it was already covered under the sex-based pay disparity prohibition. We have

found no evidence in the legislative history to support that conclusion. To the contrary, the

National Women’s Law Center suggested that the proposed legislation “could be further

strengthened by adding protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

We agree with CRS that “[i]t is not plausible that the same General Assembly that, in 2001

and 2014, updated MFEPA to protect against first sexual orientation and then gender

identity discrimination simply forgot to include sexual orientation as a protected category

in MEPEWA or assumed that sexual orientation (but not gender identity) would be

subsumed by sex.”

We conclude our analysis of MEPEWA by observing that this Court historically

reads state statutes that concern the same subject matter in pari materia. See State v. Neger,

427 Md. 528, 597 (2012); see also Donlon v. Montgomery Cnty. Pub. Schs., 460 Md. 62,

98 (2018) (“The underlying goal of in pari materia is to construe two common schemed

statutes harmoniously to give full effect to each enactment.”). MEPEWA and MFEPA are

two such “common schemed statutes.” They both work to remedy forms of employment

discrimination. If we were to read the prohibition against sex discrimination under

MEPEWA to include a prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination, then we

would need to interpret the prohibition against sex discrimination the same way under

MFEPA, which we have declined to do, for the reasons stated above. In short, we agree

with CRS that “[n]othing in the statutory text or the applicable legislative history suggests

that the General Assembly intended ‘sex’ to be more capacious in MEPEWA than in

MFEPA.”

20
 It may well be that, in the coming years, more federal courts will import the logic

of Bostock from Title VII to the EPA and hold that the EPA’s prohibition on wage

disparities based on “sex” encompasses a ban on pay disparities based on sexual orientation

and gender identity. However, our equal pay law is worded differently than the EPA. With

the 2016 amendment to MEPEWA, the statute’s plain terms now also prohibit pay

disparities based on gender identity. Adding sexual orientation as a protected category in

MEPEWA will require similar legislative action.14 It would be improper for us to make

that policy determination in lieu of the General Assembly.

C. The Meaning of “to Perform Work Connected with the Activities of the
Religious Entity” in MFEPA’s Religious Entity Exemption

Under MFEPA’s religious entity exemption, MFEPA’s protections do not apply to

claims against “a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with

respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion, sexual orientation, or

gender identity to perform work connected with the activities of the religious entity.”

SG § 20-604(2). Mr. Doe argues that the language of the exemption is ambiguous because

it does not specify what it means to perform “work connected with the activities of the

14
The General Assembly’s practice, as we understand it, has been to specifically
identify the categories it intends to protect in antidiscrimination statutes. As CRS points
out, the General Assembly has explicitly included sexual orientation as a protected
category (as well as sex and gender identity) in multiple statutes over the past decade. See,
e.g., Maryland Naturopathic Medicine Act, ch. 399, 2014 Md. Laws 2258, 2274
(prohibiting discrimination in licensing on the bases of, among other things, sex, sexual
orientation, and gender identity); Act of April 15, 2015, ch. 43, 2015 Md. Laws 213, 215
(prohibiting discrimination in internships on the bases of those same categories and others);
Act of May 8, 2020, ch. 428, 2020 Md. Laws 2235, 2238-39 (prohibiting discrimination
by healthcare providers on the bases of those same categories).

21
religious entity.” He contends that the context of the exemption and its legislative history

support an interpretation that renders the exemption coextensive with the First

Amendment’s “ministerial exception.” The ministerial exception, “grounded in the First

Amendment, … precludes application of [anti-discrimination] legislation to claims

concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.”

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 188 (2012).

This exception prevents the state from “depriving [a religious group] of control over the

selection of those who will personify its beliefs.” Id. The ministerial exception “applies to

any employee whose primary duties consist of teaching, spreading the faith, church

governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or participation in religious

ritual and worship.” Archdiocese of Wash. v. Moersen, 399 Md. 637, 644 (2007) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

According to Mr. Doe, an interpretation of MFEPA’s religious entity exemption

that bars claims brought by non-ministerial employees would frustrate MFEPA’s remedial

purpose and violate his rights under Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.15

15
Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights states, in part:

That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he
thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection
in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be
molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or
profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion,
he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe
the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious
rights[.]

22
 CRS contends that the exemption unambiguously exempts all claims for religious,

sexual orientation, and gender identity discrimination against religious entities, because all

work of every employee is “connected with” the “activities” of their employer. Using Mr.

Doe’s work as an example, CRS asserts that his job duties – although secular in nature –

are connected to CRS’s activities because they help carry out and improve the

organization’s operations.

We agree with Mr. Doe that the language of the exemption is ambiguous. However,

we do not agree with him that the exemption is coextensive with the First Amendment’s

ministerial exception. Neither do we agree with CRS’s contention that the exemption bars

all employment discrimination claims based on religious preference, sexual orientation,

and gender identity against religious entities. Giving the exemption its narrowest

reasonable reading, we conclude that the General Assembly intended to exempt religious

organizations from these kinds of MFEPA claims brought by employees who perform

duties that directly further the core mission (or missions) of the religious entity.

This Court has treated Article 36 as embodying the protections guaranteed by the
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Montrose Christian Sch. Corp. v.
Walsh, 363 Md. 565, 585 (2001) (“The free exercise guarantee of the Maryland
Constitution is in Article 36 of the Declaration of Rights[.]”); McMillan v. State, 258 Md.
147, 151 (1970) (“The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution and Article 36 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Maryland
give extensive protection to religious liberty.”). Thus, under both the federal and state
constitutions, “the State may abridge the religious practices of any individual only upon a
demonstration that some compelling state interest outweighs the interest of the individual
in his religious tenets.” McMillan, 258 Md. at 152.

23
 1. The Plain Language of the Exemption

We agree with Mr. Doe that MFEPA’s religious entity exemption is ambiguous. On

one hand, “the employment of individuals of a particular religion, sexual orientation, or

gender identity to perform work connected with the activities of the religious entity” can

be read broadly to apply to claims brought by any and all employees of a religious entity.

After all, every employee’s work presumably has at least some connection to the activities

of their employer, or the employer would not pay the employee to do the work.

On the other hand, if the General Assembly had intended to exempt religious entities

from employment discrimination claims based on religious preference, sexual orientation,

and gender identity brought by any and all of their employees, it could have simply ended

the exemption after “gender identity.” It did not do so. Rather, the General Assembly

exempted religious entities from these three kinds of MFEPA claims “with respect to the

employment of individuals … to perform work connected with the activities of the religious

entity.” SG § 20-604(2) (emphasis added). The italicized phrase thus can reasonably be

read as limiting the application of the exemption based on the type of work performed by

the employee.

We believe the second of these two possible readings is the correct one because it

gives effect to the italicized phrase. Interpreting these words as CRS urges would render

them surplusage, contravening a fundamental canon of statutory interpretation. See

Macedo, 480 Md. at 215-16 (“We construe the statute as a whole so that no word, clause,

sentence, or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless, or nugatory.”)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, we reject CRS’s contention that the

24
General Assembly intended to provide a blanket exemption for religious entities from these

kinds of MFEPA claims.

However, the plain text of the statute does not provide any further guidance as to

what constitutes “work connected with the activities” of a religious entity for the purpose

of applying the exemption. Did the General Assembly intend to exempt only claims

brought by employees who minister to worshippers, provide religious education, or

otherwise spread the faith? If not, which “activities” of a religious entity implicate the

exemption, and how “connected” must the “work” of an employee be to such “activities”

for the exemption to apply? All of the operative words in this phrase – “work,”

“connected,” and “activities” – can reasonably be read narrowly or broadly. In other words,

the relevant language is ambiguous.

As stated above, because MFEPA is a remedial statute, we narrowly construe its

exemptions. Lockett, 446 Md. at 424. To help understand what the narrowest reasonable

reading of the exemption is, we turn to the legislative history of this provision.

2. Legislative History

MFEPA’s religious entity exemption was included in the initial enactment of the

legislation. At that time, it mirrored the language of Title VII’s exemption, with both

statutes exempting claims against a religious entity “with respect to the employment of

individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such

[religious entity] of its religious activities[.]” Act of May 4, 1965, ch. 717, 1965 Md. Laws

1043, 1046 (MFEPA); Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, 255 (Title VII). Thus, both statutes

initially exempted claims against a religious entity where the plaintiff alleged

25
discrimination based on religion and where the plaintiff performed work connected with

the entity’s “religious activities.”

In 1972, Congress passed H.R. 1746, which amended Title VII’s religious entity

exemption by, as pertinent here, removing the “religious” qualifier prior to “activities,” so

that the provision exempted claims against religious entities “with respect to the

employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the

carrying on by such [religious entity] of its activities.” (Emphasis added.) See Pub. L. No.

92-261, 86 Stat. 103, 104. The Joint Explanatory Statement of Managers as the Conference

on H.R. 1746 to Further Promote Equal Employment Opportunities for American Workers

explained that “the Senate provision expanded the exemption for religious organizations

from coverage under this title with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular

religion in all their activities instead of the present limitation to religious activities. The

House bill did not change the existing exemptions. The House receded.” 1972

U.S.C.C.A.N. 2137, 2180; see also 118 Cong. Rec. H7539, H7567 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 1972)

(statement of Rep. Erlenborn in support of the Conference Report, noting that religious

institutions would have “a broad exemption for anyone employed by the religious

institution rather than only those people who might be utilized in religious work per se”).

In 1973, the General Assembly followed Congress’s lead, amending MFEPA’s

religious entity exemption to remove the “religious” qualifier.16 Thus, as of 1973, MFEPA

16
The title of the 1973 amendments to MFEPA indicate that the General Assembly
enacted them to “generally conform [MFEPA] to the 1972 amendments of Title VII[.]” See
Molesworth, 341 Md. at 632-33.

26
also exempted religious discrimination claims against a religious entity by an individual

whose work was “connected with the carrying on by [the entity] of its activities.”

Title VII’s provision today still exempts claims against a religious entity “with

respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected

with the carrying on by such [entity] of its activities.” 42 U.S.C § 2000e-1(a). MFEPA’s

exemption, however, has been further amended. At the same time that the General

Assembly added sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories in MFEPA

(2001 and 2014, respectively), it also amended MFEPA’s religious entity exemption to add

those categories alongside religion.17

The legislative history concerning the amendment to MEFPA’s religious exemption

in 2001 is sparse. Without referring to the exemption, MCHR’s testimony concerning the

Antidiscrimination Act of 2001 stated that the proposed legislation would not “force faith-

based organizations to extend jobs to those who do not live in accordance with their

religious beliefs.” MCHR Testimony at 2.

3. Analysis

CRS contends that the removal in 1973 of the “religious” qualifier before

“activities” in the exemption is significant. According to CRS, that change, in keeping with

the change to Title VII’s exemption, was intended to allow religious entities to make

employment decisions based on religion with respect to employees whose work is

17
Over time, the General Assembly also made some nonsubstantive changes to the
language of the exemption (such as removing the reference to “carrying on”) that have no
bearing on our analysis.

27
connected to both the religious entity’s religious and secular activities. Thus, in CRS’s

view, this means that the General Assembly (like Congress in Title VII) intended in 1973

to provide religious entities with the ability to make employment decisions based on

religion not just with respect to positions that are covered by the First Amendment’s

ministerial exception.18 That remained the case, CRS contends, when the General

Assembly added sexual orientation and gender identity to the exemption in 2001 and 2014,

respectively.

Mr. Doe acknowledges that, “[i]n 1972, Title VII’s exemption was broadened to

extend protections beyond ‘religious activities,’ but only for discrimination based on

religious creed.” He contends that “[a]lthough the General Assembly later added the terms

‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity,’ the statutory context and legislative history do

not suggest that they were intended to give religious employers carte blanche to

discriminate.” As stated above, Mr. Doe argues that the only reading of the exemption that

18
Indeed, as noted above, CRS’s position is that, in 1973, the General Assembly
amended MFEPA to exempt all claims against religious entities for discrimination based
on religion. Thus, CRS continues, when the General Assembly added sexual orientation
and, later, gender identity to the exemption, it intended to similarly exempt all MFEPA
claims against religious entities for discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender
identity.

We acknowledge that, in a Title VII religious discrimination case, the Fourth Circuit
agreed with CRS’s interpretation of the 1972 amendment removing the word “religious”
before “activities” in Title VII’s exemption. See Kennedy v. St. Joseph’s Ministries, Inc.,
657 F.3d 189, 192 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[A]s originally enacted, the exemption applied only to
personnel decisions related to carrying out an organization’s religious activities…. The
revised provision, adopted in 1972, broadens the exemption to include any activities of
religious organizations, regardless of whether those activities are religious or secular in
nature.”). As we have explained above, we decline to read the phrase “to perform work
connected with the activities of the religious entity” in SG § 20-604(2) as surplusage.

28
avoids a constitutional problem is the one that interprets the exemption as coextensive with

the First Amendment’s ministerial exception.

We agree with CRS that the General Assembly did not intend to make MFEPA’s

religious entity exception coextensive with the First Amendment’s ministerial exception.

The deletion of “religious” prior to “activities” in the exemption was a material change.

Prior to that deletion, the exemption (which then only covered claims of religious

discrimination) arguably was coextensive with, or at least closely related to, the First

Amendment ministerial exception. After the deletion, however, the exemption covered

claims of religious discrimination “connected with” a religious entity’s “activities,” not

just its “religious activities.” The broader term “activities” encompasses a religious

organization’s secular ventures. When the General Assembly added sexual orientation and

gender identity to the exemption, it did not reinsert “religious” before “activities” or

otherwise change the exemption to reflect an intent no longer to exempt claims by

employees who perform work “connected with” a religious entity’s secular activities.

The question remains, however, given the exemption’s limiting language, what type

of work constitutes “work connected with” the entity’s “activities?” We cannot ignore the

fact that the General Assembly added sexual orientation as a protected category in MFEPA

– and to its religious entity exemption – in 2001, not in 1972-73. Even if we were to assume

for the sake of argument that, prior to the 2001 amendments to MFEPA adding sexual

discrimination as a protected category, the General Assembly intended to permit religious

entities to discriminate in favor of co-religionists throughout their organizations, American

society changed radically in its views toward homosexuality between 1973 and 2001 (and

29
toward gender identity by 2014). See generally ANDREW R. FLORES, NATIONAL TRENDS

IN PUBLIC OPINION ON LGBT RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES, WILLIAMS INST., UCLA

SCH. L. 5 (Nov. 2014), available at https://perma.cc/KUE7-P3DH (discussing how

changing perceptions have led to increased public awareness and support for LGBT rights).

Thus, if ever it was appropriate to interpret the phrase “work connected with the activities

of the religious entity” to mean all types of work performed by all employees of a religious

entity, we do not believe that is the meaning the General Assembly ascribed to this phrase

when it amended the exemption in 2001 and 2014.19 Put another way, we disagree with the

notion that, as of the time the General Assembly amended MFEPA to prohibit

discrimination based on sexual orientation (and, later, gender identity), it intended at the

same time to allow religious entities to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or

19
The comment in MCHR’s 2001 testimony that the Antidiscrimination Act of 2001
would not “force faith-based organizations to extend jobs to those who do not live in
accordance with their religious beliefs,” MCHR Testimony at 2, does not convince us
otherwise. First, that comment did not explicitly reference the proposed amendment to the
religious entity exemption or quote the exemption’s language. Thus, it is not clear whether,
assuming MCHR was referring to the exemption, the drafter(s) of the testimony grappled
with the ambiguity in the language of the exemption that we have analyzed in this opinion.
Second, the comment was seemingly broader than even the broadest possible interpretation
of the exemption, as it did not limit permissible discrimination to the two kinds of
discrimination that were going to be mentioned in the exemption if the proposed legislation
was enacted (religious and sexual orientation discrimination). Third, in 2009, MCHR’s
longtime general counsel described the religious entity exemption as limited to claims by
employees whose “employment is connected with the religious activities of the entity.”
Glendora C. Hughes, The Evolution of Maryland’s Commission on Human Relations Law,
Md. B.J. at 25 (July/Aug. 2009). Although we believe that particular interpretation of the
exemption was incorrect, see page 29 above, it demonstrates that, if MCHR ever was of
the view that the exemption allows religious entities to discriminate against all employees
on the basis of sexual orientation, that view changed within a decade. In short, this isolated
comment in the MCHR testimony is a thin reed upon which to base the argument that CRS
advances before us.

30
gender identity against employees whose duties are materially indistinguishable from those

performed by individuals at secular organizations, irrespective of the religious entity’s core

activities. The exemption’s use of “connected with” links the “work” of the employee to

the “activities” of the organization. As we see it, the narrowest reasonable reading of this

language is that, in order for the exemption to apply, the employee’s duties must directly

further the core mission(s) – religious or secular, or both – of the religious entity.

Determining whether this standard is met in a particular case should not require

analysis of religious doctrine or otherwise result in courts being caught in a “theological

thicket.” El Bey v. Moorish Sci. Temple of Am., Inc., 362 Md. 339, 357 (2001) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted). We offer the following guidance to courts that are

called upon to analyze the applicability of the exemption.

First, focusing on the duties of the employee and the core mission(s) of the entity

entails a fact-intensive inquiry that requires consideration of the totality of the pertinent

circumstances.

Second, when we refer to duties “directly” furthering the core mission of a religious

entity, we mean duties that are not one or more steps removed from taking the actions that

effect the goals of the entity. For example, consider a janitor who cleans the headquarters

office of a religious entity which has as its core mission supplying housing to low-income

communities. The janitor’s work allows other staff members to work in a clean

environment and better focus on their duties in helping to provide low-cost housing to the

needy. In this case, the janitor’s work indirectly furthers the core mission of the religious

entity.

31
 Contrast that example with the executive director of a medium-sized religious

charity, which has as its core mission the raising of funds to build new schools in

underserved communities. Assume that this person’s job duties include managing other

staff members to ensure that all fundraising events are scheduled, advertised, and

ultimately successful. The entity uses the proceeds collected from the fundraisers to help

pay for the construction of new schools. In this case, the executive director’s duties directly

further the entity’s core mission.

Third, the size of the religious entity may be relevant. A 30-person religious

non-profit may well have fewer employees whose work does not directly further the core

mission(s) of the entity than an organization with a 300-person staff.

Fourth, a religious entity may have both religious and secular core missions, and

more than one of each.

Fifth, in determining what constitutes a core mission of a religious entity, a trial

court may consider, among other things: the description of its mission(s) that the entity

provides to the public and/or regulators; the services the entity provides; the people the

entity seeks to benefit; and how the entity’s funds are allocated.20

20
This is by no means an exhaustive list of factors that a court may consider in
determining the core mission(s) of a religious entity for purposes of SG § 20-604(2). Again,
a court should consider the totality of the circumstances that shed light on an entity’s core
mission(s). However, we observe that, for purposes of MFEPA’s exemption, a religious
entity’s core mission is not synonymous with the entity’s religious doctrine. While a
religious entity may genuinely subscribe to the tenet that all of its employees’ work – no
matter the nature of their duties – is inextricably intertwined with the values of its religion,
MFEPA is a creature of the Legislature, not Maryland’s religious entities. Courts must
analyze the activities of a religious entity in determining the core mission(s) of the entity
for the purpose of applying the exemption.

32
 We believe that our interpretation of SG § 20-604(2)’s language properly gives

effect to the General Assembly’s intent to balance the protections afforded to religious

entities under the exemption with the statute’s remedial purpose to eliminate discrimination

in the workplace. However, we recognize that, under our interpretation of the exemption,

some employees of a religious entity may bring claims against their employer for all forms

of discrimination that are actionable under MFEPA, while other employees may sue the

entity for all forms of discrimination except for discrimination based on religion, sexual

orientation, or gender identity. We leave it to Maryland’s legislators to decide whether to

retain or eliminate the difference in MFEPA’s coverage among employees of the same

religious entities. We may not “rewrite the law for them, no matter how just or fair we may

think such a new law or public policy would be. The formidable doctrine of separation of

powers demands that the courts remain in the sphere that belongs uniquely to the judiciary

– that of interpreting, but not creating, the statutory law.” Stearman v. State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co., 381 Md. 436, 454 (2004).

We do not decide whether the religious entity exemption applies to Mr. Doe’s sexual

orientation discrimination claim under MFEPA. That presumably will be determined in

Mr. Doe’s federal lawsuit. Nor do we decide whether application of the statutory exemption

to Mr. Doe’s claim would violate Mr. Doe’s rights under Article 36 of the Maryland

33
Declaration of Rights, as applied to Mr. Doe. That, too, is a question to be determined in

federal court, if necessary.21

V

Conclusion

The three certified questions we have considered are:

1. Whether the prohibition against sex discrimination in
MFEPA, SG § 20-606, prohibits discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation.

2. Whether the prohibition against sex discrimination in
MEPEWA, LE § 3-304, prohibits discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation.

3. What is the meaning of the phrase “to perform work
connected with the activities of the religious entity,” as
used in MFEPA’s religious entity exemption,
SG § 20-604(2)?

For the reasons stated above, we answer the first and second certified questions in

the negative. Under our interpretation of the statutory language quoted in the third certified

21
The district court certified a question of statutory interpretation to this Court
concerning the meaning of certain language in MFEPA’s religious entity exemption. We
have provided our answer in this opinion. Other questions relating to the exemption that
might be raised in Mr. Doe’s case in federal court, or in future cases, are not before us. In
particular, it would go beyond the scope of our authority under CJP § 12-603 to opine on
the constitutionality of MFEPA’s exemption, as applied to Mr. Doe’s sexual orientation
discrimination claim. However, we think it is appropriate to observe that our interpretation
of MFEPA’s exemption is facially constitutional under Article 36 of the Declaration of
Rights, given that a sexual orientation discrimination claim brought by a minister would
necessarily be barred under both the First Amendment ministerial exception and our
interpretation of the religious entity exemption. See, e.g., Koshko v. Haining, 398 Md. 404,
426 (2007) (explaining that “a party challenging the facial validity of a statute must
establish that no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).

34
question, MFEPA’s religious entity exemption applies with respect to claims by employees

who perform duties that directly further the core mission(s) of the religious entity.

CERTIFIED QUESTIONS OF LAW
ANSWERED AS SET FORTH ABOVE.
COSTS TO BE DIVIDED EQUALLY
BETWEEN THE PARTIES.

35
 United States District Court
for the District of Maryland
Case No. 1:20-cv-01815-CCB
IN THE SUPREME COURT
Argued: June 2, 2023
OF MARYLAND*

Misc. No. 28

September Term, 2022
______________________________________

JOHN DOE

v.

CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES
______________________________________

Fader, C.J.
Watts
Hotten
Booth
Biran
Gould
Eaves,

JJ.
______________________________________

Dissenting Opinion by Watts, J., which Eaves,
J., joins.
______________________________________

Filed: August 14, 2023

*At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional
amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court
of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
 Respectfully, I dissent. I would hold that the prohibitions on sex-based

discrimination in both the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“MFEPA”), Md.

Code Ann., State Gov’t (1984, 2020 Repl. Vol.) (“SG”) §§ 20-601 to 20-611, and the

Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (“MEPEWA”), Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl.

(1991, 2016 Repl. Vol.) (“LE”) §§ 3-301 to 3-309, bar employment discrimination on the

basis of sexual orientation, as discrimination based on sexual orientation necessarily is

discrimination based in part on sex. I would hold that SG § 20-604(2), the exception in the

MFEPA for religious entities, is narrow and does not permit a religious non-profit to deny

spousal benefits to an employee who is married to a person of the same sex and who works

in data analysis.

John Doe,1 Appellant, sued his employer Catholic Relief Services (“CRS”) (a

Catholic non-profit), Appellee, in the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland on federal and state claims of employment discrimination after CRS denied Mr.

Doe spousal healthcare benefits for his husband while providing such benefits to the

husbands of his female colleagues. CRS ascribes to Catholic religious teachings, including

the idea “that marriage is between one man and one woman and ordered to the procreation

of children.” Mr. Doe is a cisgender gay man, married to another man, who began working

at CRS in 2016 as a data analyst. Mr. Doe’s work “focuses on advancing and facilitating

select business functions within CRS’s Gateway business platform and project portfolio

1
Due to privacy concerns, the trial court permitted Mr. Doe to proceed
pseudonymously.
system through an online platform known as Salesforce.”2

Initially, CRS accepted enrollment of Mr. Doe’s husband in its benefits program.3

Several months later, CRS informed Mr. Doe that this enrollment was in error and contrary

to CRS’s policy of not providing benefits to employees’ same-sex spouses. CRS and Mr.

Doe discussed possible alternative arrangements, but none was agreed on. In 2017, CRS

terminated Mr. Doe’s spousal health “benefits because it considers the provision of those

benefits to be contrary to its Catholic values.” This termination of spousal benefits

precipitated Mr. Doe’s lawsuit.

In light of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bostock v.

Clayton County, Georgia, --- U.S. ---, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1744 (2020), that under Title VII

an employer’s discrimination against an employee based on sexual orientation is

“necessarily” based on sex, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr.

Doe on his federal Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims. See Doe v. Catholic Relief Services,

No. CV CCB-20-1815, 2022 WL 3083439, at *4, *8 (D. Md. Aug. 3, 2022), on

reconsideration in part, No. CV CCB-20-1815, 2023 WL 155243 (D. Md. Jan. 11, 2023).

However, without precedent from this Court on the proper interpretation of the state

equivalents to those laws, the MFEPA and MEPEWA, the District Court concluded that

2
The District Court held, and Mr. Doe agrees, that Mr. Doe’s position “does not
involve CRS’s spiritual or ministerial functions”; CRS acknowledges that Mr. Doe’s
position does not fall within the ministerial exception but maintains that Mr. Doe’s work
is not secular because as a Catholic employer it views all work as in service to God.
3
The CRS recruiter who met Mr. Doe at a job fair, leading to Mr. Doe’s hiring,
informed him that CRS would provide health benefits to all dependents, in response to Mr.
Doe’s inquiry “whether CRS would provide health benefits to his same-sex spouse.”

-2-
this Court would be best suited to assess the significance of Bostock and determine the

state laws’ applicability to Mr. Doe’s claims. See Doe, 2022 WL 3083439, at *8-9; Doe,

2023 WL 155243, at *1-2.

Although the MFEPA and MEPEWA largely mirror their federal counterparts, key

differences led the District Court to certify the questions of statutory interpretation to this

Court. Both Title VII and the MFEPA prohibit employment discrimination based on sex,

but the Maryland law, unlike the federal one, explicitly prohibits discrimination based on

sexual orientation. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; SG § 20-606. Unlike Title VII, which

exempts religious entities from religious discrimination claims only, see 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-1(a), the MFEPA also includes an exception for certain religious entities “with

respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion, sexual orientation, or

gender identity to perform work connected with the activities of the religious entity.” SG

§ 20-604(2). Both the federal and Maryland equal pay laws forbid discrimination in wages

and other compensation based on sex, and neither mentions sexual orientation, while only

the Maryland law also prohibits such discrimination based on gender identity. See 29

U.S.C. § 206(d)(1); LE § 3-304(b)(1)(i).

I. MFEPA, Sex, and Sexual Orientation Discrimination

The MFEPA establishes a “State policy” of “assur[ing] all persons equal

opportunity in receiving employment and in all labor management-union relations,

regardless of race, color, religions, ancestry or national origin, sex, age, marital status,

sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability unrelated in nature and extent so as to

reasonably preclude the performance of the employment[.]” SG § 20-602(1). “[T]o that

-3-
end,” the State’s policy is stated as one of “prohibit[ing] discrimination in employment by

any person.” SG § 20-602(2). Pursuant to this policy, the MFEPA prohibits an employer

from (among other things) discriminating against an employee “with respect to . . .

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of” the employee’s

protected traits, including sex and sexual orientation. SG § 20-606(a)(1)(i).

When interpreting statutory language, our goal is to determine legislative intent,

beginning

with the plain language of the statute, and ordinary, popular understanding
of the English language dictates interpretation of its terminology. If the
statutory language is unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute’s
apparent purpose, the inquiry as to legislative intent ends ordinarily and we
apply the statute as written, without resort to other rules of construction. We
neither add nor delete language so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the
plain and unambiguous language of the statute, and we do not construe a
statute with forced or subtle interpretations that limit or extend its
application. Rather, we construe the statute as a whole so that no word,
clause, sentence, or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless,
or nugatory.

We do not read statutory language in a vacuum, nor do we confine strictly
our interpretation of a statute’s plain language to the isolated section alone.
Rather, the plain language must be viewed within the context of the statutory
scheme to which it belongs, considering the purpose, aim, or policy of the
Legislature in enacting the statute. We presume that the Legislature intends
its enactments to operate together as a consistent and harmonious body of
law, and, thus, we seek to reconcile and harmonize the parts of a statute, to
the extent possible consistent with the statute’s object and scope. To the
extent there is ambiguity in statutory language, we strive to resolve it by
searching for legislative intent in other indicia, including the history of the
legislation or other relevant sources intrinsic and extrinsic to the legislative
process. We also often review legislative history to determine whether it
confirms the interpretation suggested by our analysis of the statutory
language. Further, we check our interpretation against the consequences of
alternative readings of the text, which grounds the analysis. Doing so helps
us avoid a construction of the statute that is unreasonable, illogical, or
inconsistent with common sense.

-4-
Rowe v. Maryland Comm’n on Civil Rights, 483 Md. 329, 342-43, 292 A.3d 294, 301-02

(2023) (cleaned up). This Court has described the clear legislative intent of the Maryland

human relations law, including the MFEPA, as being to “eradicate the vestiges of

discrimination in the categories designated.” Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. v.

Comm’n on Human Relations, 290 Md. 333, 344, 430 A.2d 60, 66 (1981). The MFEPA

is a remedial statute, which we interpret broadly “in favor of claimants seeking its

protection.” Haas v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 396 Md. 469, 494-95, 914 A.2d 735, 750-51

(2007). Further, courts interpret the MFEPA consistent with its federal corollary, absent

“legislative intent to the contrary[.]”4 See Chappell v. S. Md. Hosp., Inc., 320 Md. 483,

494, 578 A.2d 766, 772 (1990); Peninsula Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Adkins, 448 Md. 197, 219,

137 A.3d 211, 223 (2016) (looking to federal ADA and Rehabilitation Act cases for

guidance on similar disability non-discrimination language in MFEPA).

This Court has never considered the language of the MFEPA in light of the questions

presented in this case. However, in Bostock, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1744, the Supreme Court of

the United States concluded that for purposes of Title VII, “it is impossible to discriminate

against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that

individual based on sex.” Looking to the meaning of the plain language of the statute, the

Supreme Court articulated discrimination on the basis of sex in Title VII to mean “an

employer who intentionally treats a person worse because of sex—such as by firing the

4
Of course, federal courts’ interpretations of Title VII are not binding with respect
to our interpretation of the MFEPA. See Haas, 396 Md. at 492, 914 A.2d at 749.

-5-
person for actions or attributes [that the employer] would tolerate in an individual of

another sex[.]” Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1740. The Supreme Court stated that this analysis

constituted “a straightforward rule” that is not affected by factors other than sex

contributing to the decision, or the employer’s treatment of women or men as a group. See

id. at 1741. Significant to the Supreme Court’s conclusion was that the relevant language

focused on the individual employee subject to discrimination and not employees of certain

sexes as a group. See Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1740-41.

The rule could also be “put differently,” the Supreme Court concluded, “if changing

the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer[.]” Id. at 1741.

The Supreme Court held that under Title VII, an employee’s “homosexuality or

transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions” because of the necessary role

that sex plays in discrimination based on such a status. Id. The Supreme Court provided

an example of

an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The
two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all
respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer
fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to
men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates
in his female colleague. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles
out an employee to fire based in part on the employee’s sex, and the affected
employee’s sex is a but-for cause of his discharge.

Id. “Any way you slice it,” the Supreme Court stated, “the employer intentionally [takes

adverse action] in part because of the affected individuals’ sex[.]” Id. at 1746. The

Supreme Court reasoned that although an employer might have an “ultimate goal” of

discriminating “on the basis of sexual orientation[,] [] to achieve that purpose the employer

-6-
must, along the way, intentionally treat an employee worse based in part on that

individual’s sex.” Id. at 1742. This follows from the Supreme Court’s holding that

although sexual orientation and sex are distinct concepts, discrimination based on the

former “necessarily entails discrimination” based on the latter. Id. at 1746-47.

Because of the breadth of the plain meaning of the statutory language used in Title

VII, as confirmed by its precedent, the Supreme Court rebuffed the suggestion “that the

statutory language bears some other meaning . . . because few in 1964 expected

today’s result,” based on its plain text analysis. Id. at 1750 (emphasis in original). Such

an approach, the Supreme Court stated, “impermissibly seeks to displace the plain meaning

of the law in favor of something lying beyond it.” Id. The Supreme Court laid out a number

of problems with an analysis based on the expectations of the legislators who approved the

statutory language: the difficulty of demonstrating that a result is so unexpected as to be

inconsistent with that legislative intent, the possibility “that objections about unexpected

applications will not be deployed neutrally[,]” and the reality that limiting “Title VII’s plain

text only to applications some (yet-to-be-determined) group expected in 1964” would

require overturning significant precedent concerning now-obvious unlawful sex

discrimination that was hotly contested when decided. Id. at 1750-53. Instead, the

Supreme Court advised, “Congress’s key drafting choices—to focus on discrimination

against individuals and not merely between groups and to hold employers liable whenever

sex is a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s injuries—virtually guaranteed that unexpected

applications would emerge over time.” Id. at 1753.

This Court has recognized that even if prohibited discrimination is only one of the

-7-
reasons for an adverse employment action it does not relieve the employer of liability. See

Molesworth v. Brandon, 341 Md. 621, 645 n.8, 672 A.2d 608, 620 n.8 (1996) (explaining

that “Title VII meant to condemn even those decisions based on a mixture of legitimate

and illegitimate considerations” (quoting Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 240

(1989) (plurality opinion)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Supreme Court of Iowa, in Vroegh v. Iowa Dep’t of Corrs., 972 N.W.2d 686,

701-02 (Iowa 2022), declined to adopt Bostock’s reasoning in a case interpreting that

state’s employment non-discrimination law, which, like Maryland’s, forbids

discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity (among other

categories). The Court relied on its controlling precedent that the prohibition on

discrimination because of sex in this context does not also prohibit discrimination based

on sexual orientation. Id. at 700-01 (cleaned up). The Bostock dissent was also persuasive

to the Supreme Court of Iowa. See id. at 702. The Court determined that by adding sexual

orientation and gender identity to the statute as protected categories, after the Court’s

earlier ruling that they were not covered by the prohibition on sex-based discrimination,

the legislature sought to add those as distinct categories, whereas interpreting sex to include

those grounds would be duplicative. See id. at 702-03.

The Supreme Court of Michigan, in Rouch World, LLC v. Dep’t of Civil Rights,

987 N.W.2d 501, 512-13 (Mich. 2022), reversed its precedent that the Michigan non-

discrimination law’s prohibition of discrimination because of sex did not encompass sexual

orientation, both because Bostock overruled the federal precedent on which the prior

Michigan case relied and because the Court found that Bostock “offers a straightforward

-8-
analysis” of analogous statutory text. As in Bostock, the Supreme Court of Michigan

determined that even under a narrow definition of “sex,” which it explicitly declined to

adopt, “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily involves

discrimination because of sex[,]” because a choice to discriminate based on sexual

orientation “is dependent on the individual’s sex[.]” Id. at 513. The Court concluded that

sexual orientation discrimination implicates sex because determining sexual orientation

necessarily relies on referencing the person’s sex as well as often involving discrimination

based on sex stereotypes, which courts have recognized as impermissible sex

discrimination. See id.

I would hold that under the MFEPA, sex and sexual orientation are not mutually

exclusive categories for purposes of employment discrimination but rather are overlapping,

as well explained by the Supreme Court of the United States in Bostock. I agree with and

would adopt the Supreme Court’s reasoning that “[s]ex plays a necessary and undisguisable

role” in an employer’s decision to fire, not hire, or otherwise deny employment benefits to

someone based on homosexuality, because such actions target “that person for traits or

actions [the employer] would not have questioned in members of a different sex.” See

Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1737. Because “the express terms of a statute give us [the] answer”

here, see id., I agree with the Majority that the language at issue is unambiguous, but I

would reach the opposite conclusion as to its meaning.

This logical outcome does not mean that sex and sexual orientation are the same for

purposes of MFEPA. Rather, the point is that in order to discriminate against a person

because of their sexual orientation, the discriminator necessarily takes into account the

-9-
person’s sex and the sex to which they are attracted. “In other words, the determination of

sexual orientation involves both the sex of the individual and the sex of their preferred

partner; referring to these considerations jointly as ‘sexual orientation’ does not remove

sex from the calculation.” Rouch World, 987 N.W.2d at 515. Indeed, how could one

“identif[y] [] an individual as to male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality, or

bisexuality”—the definition of sexual orientation for the MFEPA—without considering

the person’s sex? See SG § 20-101(i).

Mr. Doe’s circumstance makes the reasoning clear. Under the test described by the

Supreme Court to ascertain the cause5 of discrimination, we “change one thing at a time

and see if the outcome changes.” Id. at 1739. Here, changing the sex of the plaintiff from

male to female results in a different outcome, because, unlike Mr. Doe as a man married to

a man, his colleagues who are women married to men receive spousal benefits. But-for

Mr. Doe’s sex, he would receive spousal benefits for his husband.

Just as the Supreme Court explained in Bostock, the existence of additional

reasoning for the denial of benefits to Mr. Doe—his sexual orientation—does not negate

this but-for causation because the MFEPA is “meant to condemn even those decisions

5
The Supreme Court called this a “but-for” test, which could give the impression
that it was applying a different test than we have established regarding causation under
Maryland law. See Ruffin Hotel Corp. of Md. v. Gasper, 418 Md. 594, 610, 17 A.3d 676,
685 (2011). However, the Supreme Court in Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1742, discussed how
discrimination can occur despite additional non-discriminatory factors, which is the same
test that we apply in determining causation of discrimination, aligned with Supreme Court
decisions in Price Waterhouse, 490, U.S. at 240 (plurality opinion), and Desert Palace, Inc.
v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 101 (2003), which we have called the “motivating factor” test. See
id. at 609-11, 17 A.3d at 685-86; see also Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1739-40.

- 10 -
based on a mixture of . . . considerations” when one of the considerations is impermissible

discrimination. See Molesworth, 341 Md. at 645 n.8, 672 A.2d at 620 n.8. If an employer

fires or penalizes an employee for being late to work, such an action obviously does not

implicate the MFEPA. But this does not allow the employer to sanction only female

employees for being late, while imposing no sanction on male employees. The additional

reason does not preclude sex as the basis for the firing in the second case. Likewise, CRS’s

desire to deny Mr. Doe spousal benefits because of his same-sex marriage does not mean

that the organization did not take his sex into account in making this determination.

On the question of whether Bostock is persuasive, I agree with the Supreme Court

of Michigan in Rouch World. And the Michigan court’s reasoning, shared by several other

courts—that sex stereotyping implicates sex discrimination—further supports the

conclusion that sex and sexual orientation are not mutually exclusive categories under the

MFEPA. For instance, an adverse employment action against a male employee for talking

about his love of his husband or wearing “feminine” colors or jewelry could be

characterized both as sex stereotyping, i.e., not what “real men” do, and as discrimination

based on sexual orientation. See Rouch World, 987 N.W.2d at 513 n.13.

Respectfully, I am not persuaded by the Supreme Court of Iowa’s reasoning in

Vroegh. The interpretation of sexual orientation discrimination as necessarily implicating

sex discrimination would not make the addition of “sexual orientation” as a protected

category duplicative, as the Supreme Court of Iowa held. Rather, a legislature or a State

General Assembly may wish to ensure that all the bases are covered and take a “belt and

suspenders” approach as asserted by amici. This approach can be seen in laws that use

- 11 -
language that, at first glance, potentially might be perceived as duplicative but rather is

intended to thoroughly cover the topic, such as the Iowa law’s prohibition of discrimination

on the basis of both “creed” and “religion,” see Vreogh, 972 N.W.2d at 700 (quoting Iowa

Code § 216.6(1)(a)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Simply because the General

Assembly has determined that a person’s “homosexuality . . . is not relevant to employment

decisions” does not detract from the fact that “it is impossible to discriminate against a

person for being homosexual . . . without discriminating against that individual based on

sex.” See Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1741. And, unlike the Iowa Supreme Court, this Court

has never ruled that the MFEPA’s ban on sex-based discrimination does not include sexual

orientation.

Clearly, in 2000, when Governor Parris N. Glendening established the Special

Commission to Study Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Maryland, and that

Commission made its recommendations for legislative changes to the MFEPA to include

a bar on sexual orientation discrimination, many people viewed the MFEPA bar on sex-

based discrimination as not extending to sexual orientation. See Special Comm. to Study

Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Maryland, Interim Report 1, 6 (Dec. 15, 2000). It is

ironic that the Majority today decides that a statute which over 20 years ago the General

Assembly explicitly amended to ensure it would prevent sexual orientation discrimination

now should be read more narrowly than its federal counterpart, which has never been so

amended. Contrary to CRS’s contentions that the addition of sexual orientation to the

MFEPA in 2001 should undermine Mr. Doe’s argument, I would find that it strengthens it.

To be sure, prior to Bostock, the General Assembly’s addition of sexual orientation

- 12 -
to the MFEPA showed an intent that the MFEPA be interpreted differently than Title VII,

at the time, with respect to sexual orientation. See Chappell, 320 Md. at 494, 578 A.2d at

772. But with Bostock, the MFEPA and Title VII are now aligned in prohibiting

discrimination because of sexual orientation. And with no difference in the language of

the MFEPA and Title VII with regard to sex-based discrimination, reliance on Bostock

would be warranted under our precedent. See Chappell, 320 Md. at 494, 578 A.2d at 772.

Further, interpreting the ban on sex discrimination to prohibit sexual orientation

discrimination is entirely in keeping with the MFEPA’s goal of eradicating the “vestiges

of discrimination.” See Equitable Life, 290 Md. at 344, 430 A.2d at 66. This interpretation

recognizes that the MFEPA is a remedial statute, entitled to broad construction in favor of

those the law is intended to protect: Mr. Doe, in this case.6

As the plain language is unambiguous—CRS cannot discriminate against Mr. Doe

because of his sexual orientation without discriminating against him “because of . . . sex”—

there is no need to resort to “extratextual considerations” that might suggest another

conclusion. Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1737. As already discussed, when in 2001 the General

6
This interpretation would not, as CRS contends, make the exemption in SG § 20-
604(2) obsolete because all people claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation
could, according to CRS, bring sex-discrimination claims and not mention sexual
orientation. This is because, although sexual orientation discrimination occurs in part
“because of” sex, SG § 20-604(2) nonetheless exempts from the MFEPA (to some degree,
as discussed below) a religious entity’s “employment of individuals of a particular [] sexual
orientation,” which would always be implicated in a case where sexual orientation
discrimination is concerned. In this case, Mr. Doe has alleged a cognizable sex
discrimination claim, but his complaint nonetheless could be covered by SG § 20-604(2),
because it concerns CRS’s “employment of” Mr. Doe as an “individual of a particular []
sexual orientation[.]”

- 13 -
Assembly added “sexual orientation” as a protected class to the MFEPA, see 2001 Md.

Laws 2115-2118 (Ch. 340, S.B. 205), legislators, the Special Commission, the governor,

and many members of the public thought that the prohibition on sex-based discrimination

did not shield employees from sexual orientation-based discrimination. I see two problems

with relying on this fact to support the Majority’s conclusion.

First, at that time, this Court had never specifically addressed the question. So, it

was reasonable for the General Assembly to presume that sexual orientation was not

covered because of some federal courts’ precedent on that specific point regarding Title

VII. See, e.g., Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 99 F.3d 138, 143 (4th Cir. 1996)

(stating, in dicta, that “Title VII does not afford a cause of action for discrimination based

upon sexual orientation”); DeSantis v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 608 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1979),

overruled in part by Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001);

Williamson v. A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69 (8th Cir. 1989), overruled by

Horton v. Midwest Geriatric Mgt., 963 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2020); and DeCintio v

Westchester Co. Med. Ctr., 807 F.2d 304 (2nd Cir. 1986). The General Assembly’s

reliance on these federal court cases is clear from testimony on the legislation to add sexual

orientation to the MFEPA by the Maryland Commission on Human Relations,7 the

government agency that enforces the MFEPA, that Marylanders then had “no recourse

against discrimination under [the MFEPA] or under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 on the basis of sexual orientation or the perception that their sexual orientation is

7
The agency is now named the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. See SG §
21-201.

- 14 -
other than heterosexual.” Maryland Commission on Human Relations, Testimony Re: HB

307/SB 205 Antidiscrimination Act of 2001 at 2 (2001). Plus, in 2001, the criminalization

of homosexual acts was still constitutional under Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 189

(1986), as the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was

two years away.

As such, the General Assembly, “like many institutions,” may have “made

assumptions defined by the world and time of which it [wa]s a part.” See Obergefell v.

Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 665 (2015). But this does not mean that outdated assumptions

should govern the correct interpretation of the statutory language at issue, which is what

this Court must decide. Rather, to the extent the General Assembly relied on older federal

case law in interpreting Title VII, that reliance is no longer appropriate as revealed by

Bostock. See Rouch World, 987 N.W. at 508 (determining that Bostock called into

question the state precedent’s vitality, because that precedent relied on past federal court

decisions that Bostock abrogated).

That the General Assembly wanted to be sure that sexual orientation was protected

under MFEPA, in light of the legal landscape of 2001, does not mean that the legislators

intended for the law’s protection against discrimination “because of . . . sex” to not include

sexual orientation.8 As for the intent of the General Assembly in 1973 when the statute

That “sex” and “sexual orientation” are distinct concepts and treated as such by the
8

General Assembly, as the Majority states, see Maj. Slip Op. at 14, does not alter the broad
nature of the language of the MFEPA, which operates to prohibit employment
discrimination due to sexual orientation that necessarily occurs because of sex. See
Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1746-47 (describing that “when Congress chooses not to include any

- 15 -
was originally enacted, akin to its federal counterparts, the General Assembly may not have

been “thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the

years . . . . But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s

demands.” Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1737. Like Congress with Title VII, the General

Assembly in 1973 used “starkly broad terms” to create a “sweeping standard” prohibiting

employment discrimination because of sex, and no amendments to the text since then show

an intent to adopt “a more parsimonious approach[,]” i.e., a more limited approach. See

id. at 1753, 1739. Simply put, the General Assembly’s addition of sexual orientation to

the MFEPA in 2001 showed an intent to ensure people were protected from employment

discrimination based on sexual orientation, which does not bear on the question of how the

plain text regarding discrimination “because of . . . sex” operates. See id. at 1747, 1750-

53 (discussing why speculation about the reasons why particular words were or were not

included in Title VII or other statutes does not displace the plain text meaning of the

language at issue).

II. The Scope of the MFEPA and the Activities of a Religious Entity

The scope of the MFEPA is limited—the “subtitle does not apply to . . . a religious

corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment

of individuals of a particular religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity to perform work

connected with the activities of the religious entity.” SG § 20-604(2). When originally

exceptions to a broad rule, courts apply the broad rule” and that despite the conceptual
distinction between sex and sexual harassment, Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination
because of sex prohibits sexual harassment).

- 16 -
enacted in 1965, the statute exempted only religious entities’ “employment of individuals

of a particular religion” for “religious activities” of the entity. 1965 Md. Laws 1046 (Ch.

717, H.B. 333). In 1973, the General Assembly amended the MFEPA to broaden the

exemption for religious entities by removing “religious” before the word “activities.” See

1973 Md. Laws 1104 (Ch. 493, S.B. 1180). The General Assembly indicated that the

change was to keep the MFEPA in conformity with Title VII, which Congress amended in

1972 in the same way.

In 2001, the General Assembly amended the MFEPA to prohibit employment

discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation. See 2001 Md. Laws 2115-2118

(Ch. 340, S.B. 205). This amendment also added “sexual orientation” to the exemption for

religious entities, so that such entities were exempt from the MFEPA regarding

“employment of individuals of a particular religion or sexual orientation to perform work

connected with the activities of the religious entity.” Id. at 2118.

We have held that a prior version of this section did not authorize discrimination by

religious entities based on an employee’s religion, but rather left them outside the scope of

the MFEPA. See Montrose Christian School Corp. v. Walsh, 363 Md. 565, 581, 770 A.2d

111, 120 (2001). In ascertaining whether Montgomery County’s local non-discrimination

ordinance, and its exemption for religious employers, conflicted with the MFEPA, we

described the religious entities’ exception in MFEPA as “broad” in comparison to the

Montgomery County law, which only excluded religious entities’ religious discrimination

in employment related to “purely religious functions.” See Montrose, 363 Md. at 580, 770

A.2d at 120. In determining that the county ordinance’s focus on “purely religious

- 17 -
functions” was constitutionally impermissible, this Court wrote:

it is obvious that the provision effectively contains no exemption allowing
religious organizations to employ only persons of a particular religion.
Although the first sixteen words of [the ordinance] ostensibly allow religious
organizations “to hire and employ employees of a particular religion,” the
next five words limit the authorization to the hiring of employees “to perform
purely religious functions.” The limitation effectively nullifies the
exemption. . . . the constitutional free exercise guarantee restricts
governmental interference with a religious organization’s hiring and firing of
employees who are involved in the religious activities of the organization.

Id. at 594, 770 A.2d at 128.

The Supreme Court of the United States has crafted the “ministerial exception” to

ensure the First Amendment’s protection of religious entities’ right “to decide for

themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of

faith and doctrine.” Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049, 2055

(2020) (quoting Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N.

America, 344 U.S. 94, 116, (1952)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court

described the ministerial exception as a rule to ensure that courts “stay out of employment

disputes involving those holding certain important positions with churches and other

religious institutions.” Id. at 2060. In assessing which employment positions are entitled

to this exception, the Supreme Court concluded, a flexible approach is necessary,

considering a variety of factors but focused on “what an employee does,” and that teachers

at religious schools qualify for the exception. See id. at 2066-68.

This Court has narrowly applied both the religious discrimination exception in Title

VII and the ministerial exception, in recognition of the fact that to “categorically insulate

religious relationships from judicial scrutiny” would lead to impermissible preferential

- 18 -
treatment for religious entity employers. Prince of Peace Lutheran Church v. Linklater,

421 Md. 664, 686-87, 28 A.3d 1171, 1183-84 (2011) (cleaned up). In Prince of Peace, in

the course of determining that the ministerial exception did not prohibit some of the

plaintiff’s sex-based discrimination claims against a religious school, this Court

approvingly quoted the Ninth Circuit’s analysis that the exemption in Title VII “permits a

religious entity to restrict employment ‘connected with the carrying on . . . of its activities’

to members of its own faith,” without “remov[ing] race, sex, or national origin as an

impermissible basis of discrimination against employees of religious institutions.” Id. at

687, 28 A.3d at 1183 (quoting Bollard v. Cal. Province of the Soc’y of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940,

945 (9th Cir.1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court explained that an over-

broad application of such exemptions “not only neglects but actually may intrude upon”

the purposes of the U.S. Constitution’s religion clauses, because “[d]eclining to impose

neutral and otherwise applicable tort or contract obligations on religious institutions and

ministers may actually support the establishment of religion, because to do so effectively

creates an exception for, and may thereby help promote, religion.” Id. at 687-88, 28 A.3d

at 1184 (cleaned up).

In another case applying the ministerial exception to Title VII, this Court described

it as applying “to any employee whose ‘primary duties consist of teaching, spreading the

faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or participation

in religious ritual and worship.’” Archdiocese of Washington v. Moersen, 399 Md. 637,

644, 925 A.2d 659, 663 (2007) (quoting Rayburn v. General Conf. of Seventh–Day

Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164, 1169 (4th Cir. 1985)). This is the “primary duties” test, with

- 19 -
the exception’s application dependent not on ordination or title but the function of the

position. Id. at 644, 925 A.2d at 663. We described Montrose as recognizing the exception.

See id. at 644, 925 A.2d at 663. We concluded that the exception did not apply, permitting

a church organist’s discrimination claim, because the role only required the ability to play

the organ and no religious training or qualification, nor did the organist engage in any

religious instruction, supervision, or leadership. See id. at 655, 925 A.2d at 669.

Addressing a challenge to the Title VII exemption for religious entities facing

religious discrimination claims, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the

exemption is constitutional. See Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 330 (1987). A non-profit gym, run by entities

affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, fired a long-time building

engineer “because he failed to qualify” as a member of the church. Id. The fired employee

sued the gym, asserting religious discrimination, and claiming that the exemption in Title

VII for religious entities and religious discrimination could not apply to nonreligious jobs

without violating the Establishment Clause. See id. at 331. The Supreme Court concluded

that the government can “accommodate religious practices . . . without violating the

Establishment Clause” in some circumstances, and that the exemption was geared to that

legitimate goal without crossing the line, in that case, to “an unlawful fostering of

religion[.]” Id. at 334-38 (cleaned up). The Court also held that the exemption did not run

afoul of equal protection requirements. See id. at 338-39.

Interpreting a state law similar to the MFEPA, the Supreme Court of Washington

determined that an exemption for religious non-profit organizations from that law, when

- 20 -
applied to a gay male applicant, has to be limited by the ministerial exception. See Woods,

481 P.3d at 1067, 1069-70. A lawyer seeking a job with a Christian non-profit that served

the homeless “disclosed that he was in a same-sex relationship[,]” which the organization

told him “was contrary to biblical teaching” and led to the rejection his application. See

id. at 1063. The lawyer brought a claim under the Washington state non-discrimination

law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but the trial court

granted summary judgment to the non-profit because of the exemption from the law for

religious non-profits. See id. The Supreme Court of Washington concluded that the non-

discrimination law was constitutional as applied to the lawyer only when interpreted

through the lens of the ministerial exception articulated by the Supreme Court of the United

States in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171

(2012), and Our Lady of Guadalupe School. See Woods, 481 P.3d at 1070. Applying the

ministerial exception analysis was necessary, the Court held, because of the need to

“balance[] the competing rights advanced by” the lawyer and the religious non-profit: the

former’s fundamental rights to his sexual orientation and to marry on the one hand, and the

latter’s right to exercise its religious beliefs on the other. Id. at 1069. The Supreme Court

of Washington remanded the case for the trial court to assess whether the position for which

the lawyer had applied qualified as ministerial. See id. at 1070.

In keeping with our precedent of narrowly interpreting the Title VII/MFEPA

religious discrimination and ministerial exceptions and the legislative history of the statute,

I would hold that SG § 20-604(2) does not permit a religious non-profit entity to deny

spousal benefits to Mr. Doe, who is married to a person of the same sex and works in data

- 21 -
analysis and business platform support, because Mr. Doe’s claim does not pertain to his

“employment” as a person of any particular gender identity or sexual orientation to perform

work connected with the activities of the religious entity. I would conclude that SG § 20-

604(2) bars claims with respect to the extending or offering (or terminating) of the

employment of a person of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity to perform

work connected with the activities of a religious entity. Because Mr. Doe’s claim does not

involve an issue with respect to him being offered or denied employment, i.e., an issue of

his employment to perform work, I would conclude that his claim is not barred.9

This interpretation gives effect to the ordinary meaning of the language of the

exemption. As in any plain language analysis, I would turn to the dictionary definition of

the words at issue. Although the word employment is a noun, it derives from the verb

“employ.” The word employment refers to “the act of employing” or “the state of being

employed.” Employment, American Heritage Dictionary (2022), https://www.

ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=employment [https://perma.cc/R8ZB-BPCQ];

Employment, Merriam-Webster (2023), https://www.merriam-webster.com/

dictionary/employment [https://perma.cc/3NN4-BPC5]; Employment, Oxford English

Dictionary (2023), https://www.oed.com/dictionary/employment_n?tab=meaning

_and_use#5536491 [https://perma.cc/ZLX3-D5FY]; Employment, Dictionary.com

9
This holding does not expressly answer the certified question as phrased, i.e.,
whether the exemption of SG § 20-604(2) applies to all of CRS’s hiring and employment
decisions, or only those that are religious in nature. But, this Court “may reformulate a
question of law certified to it.” Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (2006, Repl. Vol. 2020)
(“CJ”) § 12-604.

- 22 -
(2023), https://www.dictionary.com/browse/employment [https://perma.cc/D78R-7LSM];

see also Employment, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). As a verb, employ is

defined as “to use or engage the services of” or “provide with a job that pays wages or a

salary” —i.e., hiring or engaging an individual to perform work. Employ, Merriam-

Webster (2023), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/employ [https://perma.cc/

P6B2-C7T6].

It is plain from the wording of the exemption that the word “employment” applies

to the religious entity’s hiring or engaging an employee, meaning that the exemption bars

claims with respect to the hiring of an individual of a particular religion, sexual orientation,

or gender identity to perform work connected with the activities of the religious entity. See

id.; § 20-604(2). In other words, MFEPA does not apply to the hiring or engaging of

individuals of a particular religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity to perform work

connected with the activities of the religious entity. That the word employment is used to

apply to the act of hiring (or firing) is readily apparent from the plain language of the

exemption. See Prince of Peace, 421 Md. at 703, 28 A.3d at 1193 (Adkins, J., concurring)

(assessing fired religious school teacher’s claims); Moersen, 399 Md. at 647, 925 A.2d at

664-65 (fired church organist); Montrose, 363 Md. at 571-73, 770 A.2d at 115 (fired

religious school teachers). Read without the words “particular religion, sexual orientation,

or gender identity,” the exemption states that the MFEPA “does not apply to . . . a religious

corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment

of individuals . . . to perform work connected with the activities of the religious entity.”

Under the plain language of the exemption, Mr. Doe’s claim is not barred because he is not

- 23 -
an applicant for employment, nor has he been fired; his claim does not involve his

employment as the term “employment” is used in the exemption.

As delved into at oral argument, the language of SG § 20-604(2) pertaining to the

“activities of the religious entity” is ambiguous.10 The parties focused on the definition of

the word “activities” and the significance of the General Assembly’s amendment of the

statue deleting the word religious as a modifier. According to CRS, the exemption could

be interpreted to mean that a religious entity like CRS has broad ability to discriminate

when it comes to employment and sexual orientation because all jobs involve “activities of

the religious entity[,]” such as the hypothetical discussed at oral argument involving the

position of janitor at a faith-based soup kitchen. Or, according to Mr. Doe, the language

could be interpreted to mean something narrower, applying only to a subset of employees,

because the language of “to perform work connected with the activities of the religious

entity” ought to have some real meaning.

In my view, the language of SG § 20-604(2) demonstrates that the exemption is

designed to protect religious organizations like CRS from being forced to employ people

for positions where there would be a conflict or tension, due to the person’s sexual

orientation or gender identity, between the religious entity’s ability to carry out its

activities, and having the person perform work in the context of a particular position.11 The

10
On this point, I agree with the Majority’s analysis. See Maj. Slip Op. at 27-31.
However, I respectfully disagree as to the extent of the exemption.
11
With that in mind and in light of present confusion as to the interpretation of the
statute, I would respectfully recommend that the General Assembly revisit the language of
SG § 20-604(2).

- 24 -
language of the statute could not have been intended to allow a religious entity to employ

and pay employees less or treat employees differently simply because they are of a

particular sexual orientation or gender identity regardless of the definition of the term

“activities of the religious entity.” To accept CRS’s broad interpretation of SG § 20-604(2)

would be to allow religious organizations to hire people who are gay and then treat them

as second-class employees by paying them less and giving them fewer benefits than their

heterosexual counterparts. To accept Mr. Doe’s interpretation would mean that this would

be permissible only where the activities are religious in nature. In my view, either outcome

would be at odds with the MFEPA’s intent to eradicate all forms of discrimination, and

rather, would in effect result in discrimination in the workplace if the exemption were

interpreted to apply to benefits, pay, and working conditions of employment rather than to

the employment of individuals, i.e., hiring or not hiring or firing, as indicated by its plain

language. If a person of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity can perform

work, like any other employee, without affecting a religious entity’s activities, the person

should not be discriminated against.

From my perspective, the plain language of the exemption interpreted in its

narrowest form bars claims against religious entities with respect to the hiring (or not

hiring) of individuals of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity, and does not

permit a religious entity to discriminate in its treatment of employees to whom the religious

entity has already offered employment and established an employer-employee relationship,

unless the removal or termination of employment is at issue. It is at the threshold activity

of the employment of an individual where a religious entity is permitted to decide whether

- 25 -
hiring or offering work to an individual of a particular sexual orientation or gender would

impact or affect the activities of the entity and be protected from a discrimination claim for

an employment decision. Because Mr. Doe’s claim does not involve a claim with respect

to his employment to perform work, his claim is not barred.

It may well be that a future claim could involve the offering or denial of employment

to an individual of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity to perform work

connected with the activities of a religious entity and the Court would be faced with the

necessity to define the phrase “work connected with the activities of the religious entity.”

Given that the parties as well as the Majority have addressed this language of the

exemption, I would offer the following. I would conclude that SG § 20-604(2) bars claims

for sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination with respect to the employment of

an individual, of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity, to perform work that

would affect the religious entity’s ability to carry out its essential activities. In other words,

I would hold that SG § 20-604(2) does not permit a religious non-profit entity to

discriminate in the employment (the hiring or firing) of an individual of a particular sexual

orientation or gender identity where the individual’s work would not affect the religious

entity’s essential activities. In my view, SG § 20-604(2) does not allow a religious non-

profit to discriminate against an employee based on sexual orientation where the

employee’s performance of work would not affect the religious entity’s essential activities.

As such, the exemption would not permit CRS to deny spousal benefits to Mr. Doe, who

is married to a person of the same sex and works in data analysis and business platform

support, because (based on what I can discern from the certified facts) Mr. Doe’s

- 26 -
performance of data analysis work does not affect CRS in carrying out any of its essential

activities.12

From my perspective, the focus must be on the requirements of the position (the

work performed in the position)—not the job’s general nature as religious or not, as phrased

in the certified question—and looking at whether its performance by an employee of a

particular sexual orientation would affect the essential activities of the religious entity.

Obviously, a job that involved proselytizing could fall into that category, but so could non-

ministerial roles such as director of communications or spokesperson, depending on the

religious entity’s activities and the position’s requirements. My focus on the essential

activities of the religious entity stems from the text of SG § 20-604(2) and the ministerial

exception’s concern with the “significant latitude” a religious entity has “in its employment

decisions when the employee in question has duties that are integral to the religious

mission.” Moersen, 399 Md. at 644, 925 A.2d at 663.

What is clear in this case, though, (based on the certified facts) is that Mr. Doe’s

performance of duties as a data analyst does not conflict with, hinder, or affect any of

CRS’s essential activities, i.e., Mr. Doe’s sexual orientation is irrelevant to his work as a

data analyst and has no impact on CRS’s activities. As with the ministerial exception, the

focus must be on the primary duties of the job, not its title, which could render CRS exempt

from the MFEPA in the context of roles that broadly involve primary duties “of teaching,

12
Of course, if there were factual questions still to be resolved or relevant facts that
were not included in the facts certified to this Court, I would follow the Majority’s approach
of not applying an interpretation of the exception to the facts of the case.

- 27 -
spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or

participation in religious ritual and worship.” See Moersen, 399 Md. at 644, 925 A.2d at

663 (cleaned up). Even the broadest understanding of those duties would not include Mr.

Doe’s role as a data analyst, and he has no role in the governance of CRS. Plainly, Mr.

Doe’s is not a job in which his sexual orientation would affect any of CRS’s essential

activities. As described by the District Court, Mr. Doe’s role “does not involve CRS’s

spiritual or ministerial functions” and Mr. Doe’s sexual orientation does not appear to have

any discernable impact on any of CRS’s essential activities. Doe, 2022 WL 3083439, at

*6.

Although Mr. Doe has not explicitly contended that application of the exemption in

SG § 20-604(2) is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds as applied to him, he has

encouraged us to avoid addressing the issue of constitutionality under our doctrine that,

where “a statute is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which would

involve a decision as to its constitutionality, the preferred construction is that which avoids

the determination of constitutionality.” Curran v. Price, 334 Md. 149, 172, 638 A.2d 93,

104-05 (1994) (citation omitted). Essentially, Mr. Doe argues that SG § 20-604(2) should

be interpreted narrowly so as to avoid the constitutional question of whether the exception

burdens his fundamental rights through differential treatment of similarly situated persons.

See Ehrlich v. Perez, 394 Md. 691, 715-18, 908 A.2d 1220, 1234-36 (2006). In light of

the competing interest of religious liberty, a constitutional question cannot be avoided in

its entirely. But, in my view, the language of the statute can be interpreted consistent with

the framework that both the Supreme Court of the United States and this Court have

- 28 -
established to sufficiently balancing these competing interests using a slightly different

version of the ministerial exception.

Although the denial of benefits by CRS is not government action that would

implicate an equal protection issue, the government action at issue here is the General

Assembly’s enactment of a sexual orientation non-discrimination law for employment,

while excluding some employees from accessing its relief solely based on the employer’s

religious nature. That the government, through a broad interpretation of the exemption,

may completely remove an employee like Mr. Doe from the protection of the law is one

side of the issue, and, as argued by the Attorney General in his amicus brief, could conflict

with the requirement that our laws “must comply with the . . . Fourteenth Amendment and

. . . the Maryland Declaration of Rights.”13 Harrison-Solomon v. State, 442 Md. 254, 287,

112 A.3d 408, 428 (2015) (citations omitted).

I would agree with the Supreme Court of Washington’s reasoning in Woods, 481

P.3d at 1067, that there must be some limiting factor on an employment non-discrimination

law’s exemption of religious entities for sexual orientation discrimination. Otherwise, as

that Court held, the exemption in the law would burden the job applicant’s fundamental

13
The Fourteenth Amendment states, in pertinent part: “No State shall . . . deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Article 24 of the
Maryland Declaration of Rights provides: “That no man ought to be taken or imprisoned
or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner,
destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or
by the Law of the land.” Although “Article 24 and the Fourteenth Amendment are
independent and capable of divergent effect,” we generally “interpret Article 24 in pari
materia with the Fourteenth Amendment[.]” Tyler v. City of Coll. Park, 415 Md. 475,
499-500, 3 A.3d 421, 434-35 (2010) (citations omitted).

- 29 -
rights to his sexual orientation and to marriage. See Woods, 481 P.3d at 1066. The same

can be said here regarding Mr. Doe. In Woods, 481 P.3d at 1064, the state employment

non-discrimination statute excluded all religious organizations from its definition of

covered employer. According to CRS, this difference, along with differences between the

respective state constitutions, ours and Washington’s, make Woods, unpersuasive. I

disagree. Like the Supreme Court of Washington, I would conclude that reasonable

grounds exist for the MFEPA exemptions, but this does not mean the exemption can be as

unlimited as CRS contends.

The need for some limitation flows from at least three sources.14 First, as an

exception to a remedial statute, SG § 20-604(2) must be read narrowly. See Haas, 396 Md.

at 494-95, 914 A.2d at 750-51. The language in question is ambiguous, as discussed, and

the exclusion contradicts the overall goal of the MFEPA to eradicate discrimination. See

Equitable Life, 290 Md. at 344, 430 A.2d at 66. The constitutional issues also prevent the

strict plain text approach urged by CRS. Further, our precedent instructs that this Court

read exemptions in the employment discrimination context more narrowly than some other

14
The secondary sources cited by Mr. Doe—the article written by the Maryland
Civil Rights Commission’s counsel and the employment treatises—do not add much
insight, even as they support this conclusion. Similarly, the materials associated with the
procurement law amendment, H.B. 425, provide minimal support. The correspondence
and testimony regarded only that bill, and not the language in the MFEPA. However,
opinion letters from the Attorney General’s office regarding H.B. 425 did reference Title
VII and the ministerial exception, which provides additional support for the idea that the
General Assembly (through its legal advisors) has looked to the ministerial exception in
these kinds of circumstances. This is reflected in the proposed language of that bill which
included an exception that approximated the ministerial exception. See H.B. 425, 2003
Leg., 417th Sess. (Md. 2003).

- 30 -
jurisdictions. See Prince of Peace, 421 Md. at 687-90, 28 A.3d at 1183-86.

Second, by adding sexual orientation to the MFEPA along with the exemption in

SG § 20-604(2), the General Assembly attempted to simultaneously tackle discrimination

against employees based on sexual orientation while ensuring such legislation survived

constitutional attack on freedom of religion grounds.15 See Special Comm. to Study Sexual

Orientation Discrimination in Maryland, Interim Report 19 (Dec. 15, 2000) (stating that

sexual orientation would be added to the MFEPA exemption for religious entities and that

“[n]o similar civil rights statute that provides protection from discrimination on the basis

15
Otherwise, the report of the governor’s special commission on sexual orientation
discrimination does not provide insight into the statutory meaning at issue here. The report
recommended that “legislation be introduced to amend Article 49B[] to prohibit
discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations based on sexual
orientation” and that such legislation “add sexual orientation to the exemptions that
currently exist in” the article including “the religious exemption” now found at SG § 20-
604(2). Special Comm. to Study Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Maryland, Interim
Report 22 (Dec. 15, 2000). Describing the exemptions in the MFEPA at the time, the report
stated that “religious organizations are also exempt from the law.” Id. at 7. Mr. Doe is
correct that the report references Government Accountability Office reports on state-level
non-discrimination laws that included sexual orientation and the proposed federal
Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have added sexual orientation to Title
VII. However, the exemption in that bill is described in the report as “generally
exempt[ing] religious organizations” and “exempting religious organizations to the extent
they are engaged in religious activities” with the caveat that such exemption “would not be
available where an employee’s duties for a religious organization pertain solely to an
activity that generates ‘business taxable income’ unrelated to the organization’s religious
activities.” U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO/OGC-98-7, Sexual-Orientation-Based
Employment Discrimination: States’ Experience With Statutory Prohibitions 5 (Oct. 23,
1997); U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO/OGC-00-27R, Sexual-Orientation-Based
Employment Discrimination: States’ Experience With Statutory Prohibitions Since 1997 3
(Apr. 28, 2000). That the federal legislation exempted discrimination in employment by
religious entities on the basis of sexual orientation except in circumstances where the
employee’s activity generates “business taxable income” does not support Mr. Doe’s
interpretation.

- 31 -
of sexual orientation has ever been struck down by a court as violating the constitutional

guarantee of freedom of religion”). This shows that the General Assembly was seeking to

ensure that the legislation comported with constitutional protections for religious entities’

employment practices, not to give them a free pass to discriminate.

Finally, the Maryland and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and

religious liberty suggest a narrower interpretation of the exemption than that advocated by

CRS. Under Maryland Declaration of Rights Article 19, every person is entitled to a

remedy in the law for injury, and Article 24 requires equal protection of the law. Read in

tandem with Article 36’s16 instruction that the government may infringe a person’s or

entity’s religious liberty when that liberty is used to “injure others in their natural, civil or

religious rights[,]” the government, having decided that sexual orientation-based

discrimination is serious enough to prohibit for all other employers, cannot decide to

wholly exempt religious entities from that same requirement beyond what is reasonable to

avoid conflict with religious liberty.17

16
In relevant part, Article 36 reads:

[N]o person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on
account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious
practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order,
peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure
others in their natural, civil or religious rights[.]
17
Of course, CRS is correct that the Maryland Declaration of Rights, through Article
36, acts to permit government action on the basis of religion when a person “under the
color of religion . . . injure[s] others in their natural, civil or religious rights” because the
Article otherwise prohibits the State from “molest[ing]” “by any law” a “person or estate,
on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice[.]” Put
simply, the State cannot use laws to target a person’s religious practices unless those

- 32 -
 I would conclude that the appropriate limiting principle emanates from the

ministerial exception, not from the distinction between religious and non-religious

activities. This means that the nature of the work matters, as SG § 20-604(2) constitutes a

version of the court-created ministerial exception in relation to sexual orientation and the

employment of individuals to perform work connected with the activities of the entity at

issue.18 In my view, essentially, the General Assembly sought to protect religious entities’

right to govern themselves as extensions of the church, while advancing the compelling

government interest of stopping discrimination. This is exactly the task the ministerial

exception was crafted to address. However, in light of our precedent strictly limiting those

claims that are excluded by the ministerial exception for other categories of discrimination,

as in Moersen, and the General Assembly’s sensitivity as to how sexual orientation claims

could implicate freedom of religion rights, SG § 20-604(2) appears to offer a different

exception to religious entities facing claims of sexual orientation discrimination than the

ministerial exception does in other contexts.19 But this does not support the expansive

reading espoused by CRS.

practices are infringing on the rights of others—such as by discriminating in employment.
Even so, CRS fails to appreciate the interplay between the MFEPA, Article 36, and other
provisions of the Maryland and United States Constitutions. Most significant is the fact
that Article 36 itself shows the limits of religious freedom when such exercise would
“injure” the rights of others.
18
As discussed below, the different considerations regarding religious
discrimination in this context leads to distinct treatment of the different types of
discrimination addressed by SG § 20-604(2).
19
So, for example, if hypothetically Mr. Doe were a church organist like in Moersen,
and brought an MFEPA claim for sexual orientation discrimination after being terminated,
SG § 20-604(2) might lead to a different result than in Moersen, where we concluded the
position was not ministerial.

- 33 -
 The interpretation of SG § 20-604(2) as described above would avoid a potentially

nonsensical outcome that would follow from CRS’s reading: that Title VII provides greater

protection for the sexual orientation of employees of religious entities than the MFEPA,

when the General Assembly has specifically amended the MFEPA to address sexual

orientation-based discrimination in Maryland and Congress took no such step regarding

Title VII. Instead, I would adopt the above-described approach in interpreting the language

“with respect to the employment of individuals” and “work connected to the activities of

the religious entity” to address “the need for a careful balance between the religious

freedoms of the sectarian organization and the rights of individuals to be free from

discrimination in employment.” Woods, 481 P.3d at 1069 (citing Our Lady of Guadalupe,

140 S. Ct. at 2060-66, and Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 188-96). The General Assembly’s

actions on the MFEPA over the years have shown an intent to conform it to Title VII and

occasionally increase the MFEPA’s protections beyond those of Title VII. See, e.g., Haas,

396 Md. at 491-500, 914 A.2d 748-54 (declining to adopt the Supreme Court’s

interpretation of statutory language in Title VII in interpreting an analogous Maryland

statute on employment discrimination so as to broaden protections and promote

conciliation). My conclusion is consistent with that dynamic, as the MFEPA would

continue to be construed largely consistent with Title VII.

To be sure, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the statutory

exemption in Title VII, for claims of religious discrimination against religious entity

employers, allows a religious entity to hire only co-religionists without offending the

establishment clause. See Amos, 483 U.S. at 330-31; see also Prince of Peace, 421 Md. at

- 34 -
687, 28 A.3d at 1183 (holding that the exemption “permits a religious entity to restrict

employment ‘connected with the carrying on . . . of its activities’ to members of its own

faith” (cleaned up)). Although SG § 20-604(2) excludes a religious employer like CRS

from application of the MFEPA “with respect to the employment of individuals of” both

“a particular religion” and “sexual orientation,” the exclusions implicate different interests.

Above and beyond ministerial positions, a religious employer may have a strong interest

in hiring co-religionists generally for all positions, as in Amos, or specifically for certain

roles within the organization that do not involve ministerial duties, i.e., “teaching,

spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or

participation in religious ritual and worship.” Moersen, 399 Md. at 644, 925 A.2d at 663

(cleaned up). This same interest is not implicated by discrimination claims that do not

involve the religion of the employee (or applicant).

The MFEPA’s exemption for religious entities regarding sexual orientation

discrimination does not implicate the same concerns. By including sexual orientation

within SG § 20-604(2), the General Assembly showed an intent to leave outside of the

scope of MFEPA, employment actions regarding hiring and firing where sexual orientation

is concerned which would elsewise be permitted if based on other protected categories not

included in the exemption. This does not indicate, though, an intent on the General

Assembly’s part to allow carte blanche discrimination in the area of sexual orientation by

religious employers.

III. MEPEWA and Sexual Orientation

The MEPEWA prohibits (among other things) an employer from “discriminat[ing]

- 35 -
between employees in any occupation by: [] paying a wage to employees of one sex or

gender identity at a rate less than the rate paid to employees of another sex or gender

identity if both employees work in the same establishment and perform work of comparable

character[.]” LE § 3-304(b)(1)(i). Under MEPEWA, “‘[w]age’ means all compensation

for employment.” LE § 3-301(d)(1). The MEPEWA describes a number of circumstances

in which differentiation in wages paid to individual employees of different sexes or gender

identities does not constitute discrimination, such as merit or seniority systems or jobs

requiring different skills, so long as such circumstances themselves are not premised on

discrimination by sex or gender identity. See LE § 3-304(c). None of these exceptions

concern religious entities. See id.

The MEPEWA “was patterned after the Federal Equal Pay Act[.]” Gaskins v.

Marshall Craft Assocs., Inc., 110 Md. App. 705, 709 n.1, 678 A.2d 615, 617 n.1 (1996).

As with the MFEPA, courts interpret the MEPEWA consistent with its federal corollary,

absent “legislative intent to the contrary[.]” See Chappell, 320 Md. at 494, 578 A.2d at

772 (1990); see also Cohens v. Md. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 933 F.Supp.2d 735, 745 (D. Md.

2013) (observing that “courts have applied the same analysis” to claims under the

MEPEWA and the federal Equal Pay Act, because the Maryland law “essentially mirrors”

the federal one) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the original iteration of the

MEPEWA only covered employers not covered by the federal law. See Taskforce on the

Interrel. of Md./Fed. Empl. Stands., Div. of Lab. & Indus., An Evaluation of the

Interrelationship of Maryland/Federal Employment Standards 124 (1978). In 1979, the

General Assembly amended the MEPEWA to include employers covered by the federal

- 36 -
law. See 1979 Md. Laws 859 (Ch. 237, S.B. 246). By using the same language and

framework for the MEPEWA as the federal law, the General Assembly revealed an intent

that “[t]he state and federal equal pay laws have the same intent and apply the same

employment standards.” Taskforce, supra, at 124; see also 1991 Md. Laws 303-04 (Ch. 8,

H.B. 1) (recommending that the General Assembly continue to “amend [MEPEWA] to

parallel the federal statute so that . . . Maryland statute could draw on the body of federal

case law that has developed[.]”). In 2016, the General Assembly expanded the MEPEWA

“to prohibit wage discrimination based on gender identity[.]” Fiscal and Policy Note for

SB 481, 1 (2016); 2016 Maryland Laws 6626-27 (Ch. 556 , SB 481).

As with the MFEPA, I would find the analysis of the Supreme Court of the United

States in Bostock persuasive for interpreting the MEPEWA. A woman in Mr. Doe’s shoes,

employed by CRS and seeking spousal benefits for her male spouse, would receive the

benefits. In contrast, as a man, Mr. Doe does not. Therefore, CRS discriminated under the

MEPEWA by denying Mr. Doe spousal benefits on the basis of sex, because CRS

compensated him at a rate less than the rate paid to employees of another sex, i.e., women,

in the same situation, i.e., married to men. Sex is inseparable from CRS’s decision to deny

Mr. Doe his spousal benefits.

There is no dispute that the spousal benefits at issue are within the definition of “a

wage” in the MEPEWA, see LE § 3-301(d)(1), because they are part of the compensation

provided by CRS to employees. Nor is there any dispute that Mr. Doe and his female

colleagues who are similarly married to men are “both employees [who] work in the same

establishment and perform work of comparable character or work on the same operation,

- 37 -
in the same business[.]” See LE § 3-304(b)(1)(i). Nor do any of the exceptions in LE § 3-

304(c) apply.

Although LE § 3-304(b)(1)(i) references “employees” in the plural as part of its bar

on discrimination in wages, this does not make the Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1740-41,

reasoning inapplicable due to its interpretation of “discrimination” as focused on the

“individual” rather than a group. This is because the language in LE § 3-304(b)(1)(i) also

contemplates differences in wages between just two individual employees (rather than

treating employees as groups based on sex) when it states that an employer cannot differ

employees’ wages based on sex “if both employees work in the same establishment and

perform work of comparable character or work in the same operation[.]” (Emphasis

added). The plain meaning of “both” refers to two individuals and would not refer to two

classes of employees in this context. See Both, Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/both [https://perma.cc/7477-C2LN]. Additionally, other

paragraphs in the same section refer to employee in the individual sense. See LE § 3-

304(b)(2) (“an employee shall be deemed to work at the same establishment as another

employee”); LE § 3-304(a)(1) (“assigning or directing the employee into a less favorable

career track . . . or position”); LE § 3-304(a)(3) (“limiting or depriving an employee of

employment opportunities”). As with Title VII, the language of MEPEWA reflects “key

drafting choices—to focus on discrimination against individuals and not merely between

groups and to hold employers liable whenever sex is a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s

injuries—virtually guarantee[ing] that unexpected applications would emerge over time.”

See Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1753.

- 38 -
 The General Assembly’s inclusion of gender identity as an impermissible ground

for discrimination in the context of the MEPEWA does not mean that discrimination on

that basis is different than discrimination based on sex.20 Rather, the 2016 amendment

served to clarify that disparities in employee compensation based on gender identity are to

be treated the same as those based on sex. Although the General Assembly’s decision to

add sexual orientation to the MFEPA but not MEPEWA could support an interpretation

consistent with CRS’s, that is not enough to overcome the plain text of the statute and what

flows from it: discrimination based on sexual orientation necessarily is discrimination

based on sex. The Supreme Court declined to adopt a similar line of reasoning in Bostock,

140 S. Ct. at 1747, where the employers contended that Congress had considered, but not

approved, “several proposals to add sexual orientation to Title VII’s list of protected

characteristics,” while enacting “other statutes addressing other topics that do discuss

sexual orientation.” Such “postenactment legislative history” did not sway the Supreme

Court, because “speculation about why a later Congress declined to adopt new legislation

offers a ‘particularly dangerous’ basis on which to rest an interpretation of an existing law

a different and earlier Congress did adopt.” Id. (citations omitted). Instead of venturing

into such dangerous territory, I would agree with CRS that sex has the same meaning in

both the MFEPA and the MEPEWA, although not the meaning that CRS gives it.

Mr. Doe’s references to the “Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedure” created

20
The General Assembly amended the MEPEWA to include gender identity in 2016,
two years after amending the MFEPA to include gender identity, in 2014. See 2014 Md.
Laws 3123 (Ch. 474, SB 212).

- 39 -
and distributed by the State to aid in interpreting the statutes support my interpretation.

The guidelines explain that employer policies regarding marital status could constitute

discrimination based on sex. CRS’s policy of distinguishing between women married to

men and men married to men in the provision of spousal benefits is not so far removed

from the guidelines’ admonition against policies discriminating between married and

unmarried women and men regarding benefits.

In sum, I would answer the certified questions from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland as follows.

1. The prohibition against sex discrimination in the MFEPA, SG § 20-606,
prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

2. Under SG § 20-604(2), the application of the exemption from MFEPA for
a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with
respect to employment of an individual of a particular sexual orientation to
perform work connected to the religious entity’s activities does not bar all
claims of sexual orientation discrimination. Rather, the exemption bars
claims of sexual orientation discrimination with respect to the hiring,
engaging, or terminating of employment of an individual of a particular
sexual orientation to perform work where having an employee of a certain
sexual orientation perform the employee’s job duties would affect the
religious entity’s ability to carry out its essential activities. In this case, the
denial of spousal benefits on the basis of sexual orientation to an employee
responsible for data analysis and business platform support falls outside of
the ambit of the exemption and therefore the MFEPA applies.

3. The prohibition against sex discrimination in the MEPEWA, LE § 3-304,
prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

For the above reasons, respectfully, I dissent.

Justice Eaves has authorized me to state that she joins in this opinion.

- 40 -
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Case No. CCB-20-1815
Argued: June 2, 2023 IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND*

Misc. No. 28

September Term, 2022
__________________________________

JOHN DOE

v.

CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES
__________________________________

Fader, C.J.,
Watts,
Hotten,
Booth,
Biran,
Gould,
Eaves,

JJ.
__________________________________

Dissenting Opinion by Hotten, J. which,
Eaves, J., joins.
__________________________________

Filed: August 14, 2023

*During the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a
constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court
of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
 No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals
of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union,
two people become something greater than once they were. . . . [M]arriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand
these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea
is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in
loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask
for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that
right.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 681, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2608 (2015).

I respectfully dissent. With just over three years since the United States Supreme

Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), this

case presents Maryland with the unique opportunity to be one of the first states to consider

the extent to which Bostock plays a role in the interpretation and interplay of two state anti-

discrimination statutes, the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“MFEPA”), Md.

Code Ann., State Government (“State Gov’t”) § 20-601–611, and the Maryland Equal Pay

for Equal Work Act (“MEPEWA”), Md. Code Ann., Labor and Employment (“Lab. &

Empl.”) § 3-301–309. The majority’s decision is inconsistent with federal law, contrary to

how Maryland interprets such statutes, and undermines public policy.

I would answer the certified questions as follows: (1) MFEPA’s prohibition against

sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; (2) MFEPA’s

religious exemption does not extend to employment activities that are not religious in

nature; and (3) MEPEWA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex or gender identity,

including sexual orientation.
 DISCUSSION

As the majority explained, the certified questions require the interpretation of two

Maryland anti-discrimination statutes, MFEPA and MEPEWA. We conduct a statutory

analysis of MEPEWA and MFEPA abiding by our “[w]ell-settled principles of statutory

construction[.]” Elsberry v. Stanley Martin Cos., LLC, 482 Md. 159, 178, 286 A.3d 1, 12

(2022).

A. The Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act

Under MFEPA, an employer1 may not “fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise

discriminate against any individual with respect to the individual’s compensation, terms,

conditions, or privileges of employment because of [] the individual’s race, color, religion,

sex, age, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic

information, or disability[.]” State Gov’t § 20-606(a)(1) (emphasis added). The General

Assembly provided clear public policies for MFEPA, including “the protection of [] public

1
MFEPA defines an “[e]mployer” as:

(i) a person that:

1. is engaged in an industry or business; and

2. A. has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more
calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year; or

B. if an employee has filed a complaint alleging harassment, has one or
more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar
weeks in the current or preceding calendar year[.]

State Gov’t § 20-601(d)(1)(i). An “[e]mployee” means “an individual employed by an
employer[.]” Id. § 20-601(c)(1)(i). Catholic Relief Services (“CRS”) meets the statutory
definition of an employer.

2
safety, public health, and general welfare, [] the maintenance of business and good

government, and [] the promotion of the State’s trade, commerce, and manufacturers[.]”

Id. § 20-602. MFEPA “does not apply to . . . a religious corporation, association,

educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a

particular religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity to perform work connected with

the activities of the religious entity.” Id. § 20-604(2).

As a preliminary matter, the plain language of MFEPA clearly prohibits sexual

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Neither party nor the majority contends

otherwise. Maj. Op. 9. Sexual orientation is included in the statutory language and

statutorily defined. See State Gov’t §§ 20-606(a)(1), 20-101(i) (defining “[s]exual

orientation” as “the identification of an individual as to male or female homosexuality,

heterosexuality, or bisexuality.”).

The majority correctly observes that “sex” is not statutorily defined in MFEPA.

Maj. Op. 9. Relying upon various dictionary definitions, including a 1966 definition, the

majority concludes that “[t]he [ ] definition of ‘sex’—both at the time MFEPA was enacted

. . . and currently—” does not “signal that ‘sex’ also includes ‘sexual orientation.’” Id. at

9–10. According to the majority, such a “reading” would render MFEPA’s religious entity

exemption “a nullity[]” because “[e]very plaintiff who sued a religious entity employer for

alleged sexual orientation discrimination would simply plead their claim as a sex

discrimination claim to avoid the potential application of the religious entity exemption.”

Id. at 10–11. Both CRS and the majority argue that “if the General Assembly had believed

that sexual orientation discrimination was also covered under sex discrimination, it

3
presumably would have made that clear in some fashion when adding sexual orientation to

the religious entity exemption.” Id. at 14. I disagree.

In 2020, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether Title VII

prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status.

Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). Bostock dealt with three

employees who were fired shortly after the employees revealed to their employers that they

are gay “or transgender—and allegedly for no reason other than the employee’s

homosexuality or transgender status.” Id. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1737. Gerald Bostock, a

gay man, was employed by Clayton County, Georgia, as a child welfare advocate. Id., 140

S. Ct. at 1737. “After a decade with the county, Mr. Bostock began participating in a gay

recreational softball league.” Id., 140 S. Ct. at 1737. He was thereafter fired by the county

“for conduct ‘unbecoming’ a county employee.” Id. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1738. Donald

Zarda, a gay employee, was employed as a skydiving instructor in New York. Mr. Zarda

was subsequently fired days later after revealing that he was gay. Id., 140 S. Ct. at 1738.

Finally, Aimee Stephens was employed at a funeral home in Michigan. Ms. Stephens

originally presented as a male, but later, after a clinical diagnosis, began “living as a

woman.” Id., 140 S. Ct. at 1738. After six years with the company, Ms. Stephens was

thereafter fired by the funeral home, telling her that “‘this is not going to work out.’” Id.,

140 S. Ct. at 1738. All three employees filed suit against their employers under Title VII

for unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. Id., 140 S. Ct. at 1738.

4
 Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is unlawful for an employer 2 to

“discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,

or privileges of employment,[3] because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or

national origin[.]” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The central question in Bostock was

whether Title VII’s prohibition of employment discrimination “‘because of . . . sex,’”

encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity. Bostock, ___ U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct.

at 1738 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)). The United States Supreme Court examined

the text, history, and purpose of Title VII and ultimately concluded that discrimination

based on sexual orientation and transgender status is a form of sex discrimination. Id. at

___, 140 S. Ct. at 1741. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, clarified that, “it is

impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without

discriminating against that individual based on sex. . . . [T]he individual employee’s sex

plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision.” Id. at ___, 140

S. Ct. at 1741–42. For an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or

transgender status, “the employer must, along the way, intentionally treat an employee

worse based in part on that individual’s sex.” Id. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1742. This is “exactly

2
Title VII defines “employer” as “a person engaged in an industry affecting
commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or
more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a
person[.]” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e(b). This language is nearly identical to the definition of
employer under MFEPA.
3
Health insurance qualifies as “‘compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment[]’” under Title VII. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. E.E.O.C.,
462 U.S. 669, 682, 103 S. Ct. 2622, 2630 (1983) (quoting 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1)).

5
what Title VII forbids.” Id. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1737. Thus, the United States Supreme

Court expanded Title VII’s ban on “sex” discrimination to encompass sexual orientation

and gender identity.4 Id. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1744.

In light of Bostock, I disagree with the majority that MFEPA’s prohibition against

sex discrimination does not extend to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 5

Notwithstanding Bostock’s expansion of “sex” discrimination, the addition of the phrase

“sexual orientation” in MFEPA’s religious exemption—but not “sex”—expressly affirmed

the protections that were already available under the prohibition against sex discrimination.

The addition of “sexual orientation” did not divest “sex” discrimination of its meaning.

The dictionary definition of “sex” is “just a starting point.” Id. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1739.

The meaning of “sex,” as recognized in Bostock, necessarily means that there will be some

overlap between the “sex” discrimination and “sexual orientation” discrimination. Id. at

___, 140 S. Ct. at 1737 (recognizing that “[s]ex plays a necessary and undisguisable role

in the decision[]” to fire someone based on their sexual orientation).

4
Following Bostock, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
updated their enforcement guidance to reflect the Bostock decision and its interpretation of
Title VII’s protections. Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination, EEOC (Jan. 15,
2021), https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-
discrimination#_ftnref65, archived at https://perma.cc/7QYC-9PFR; Protections Against
Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, EEOC (June
15, 2021), https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/protections-against-employment-
discrimination-based-sexual-orientation-or-gender, archived at https://perma.cc/5HRJ-
32Z6.

The majority admits that its decision may cause the General Assembly to “amend
5

MFEPA in some fashion to harmonize it with the holding of Bostock.” Maj. Op. 15.

6
 Contrary to the majority’s contention, such an interpretation does not ignore the

“purpose of the statute’s religious entity exception.” Maj. Op. 10. MFEPA’s religious

exemption, State Gov’t § 20-604(2), exempts discrimination claims against “a religious

corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment

of individuals of a particular religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity to perform work

connected with the activities of the religious entity.” A claim of sexual orientation

discrimination cannot circumvent the clear religious exemption, regardless of whether it

invokes MFEPA’s prohibition against discrimination based on either “sex” or “sexual

orientation[.]” This is because both claims pertain to sexual orientation discrimination.

That overlap is a natural consequence of one enumerated protection being broader than the

other. Therefore, interpreting “sex” discrimination under MFEPA to include sexual

orientation discrimination both comports with Bostock and the plain language of the

religious exemption.

The issue lies not in to whom the statute applies, i.e., “individuals of a particular . .

. sexual orientation,” but to what, i.e., “work connected with the activities of the religious

entity.” State Gov’t § 20-604(2). The statute does not clarify what it means “to perform

work connected with the activities of the religious entity.” Id. As the majority recognizes,

this phrasing could “reasonably be read as limiting the application of the exemption based

on the type of work performed by the employee[,]” or read broadly to include all “work”

or “activities[.]” Maj Op. 24. Accordingly, I agree with both John Doe and the majority

that the exemption is ambiguous.

7
 MFEPA’s legislative history is instructive. MFEPA was introduced to the General

Assembly as Senate Bill 212 (“SB 212”). The Fiscal and Policy Note for SB 212 clearly

explains the evolution of Title VII and how federal courts have interpreted Title VII in

relation to gender identity. Dep’t Legis. Servs., Revised Fiscal and Policy Note, SB 212,

at 2 (2014 Session) (“SB 212 Revised Fiscal and Policy Note”). SB 212 Revised Fiscal

and Policy Note then goes on to explain how other states, including Maryland, “have

passed laws prohibiting discrimination based upon gender identity.” Accordingly, it is

clear that the General Assembly considered Title VII when drafting and enacting MFEPA.

As CRS observes, there is only one published Maryland case, Montrose Christian

Sch. Corp. v. Walsh, 363 Md. 565, 770 A.2d 111 (2001), that has “construed MFEPA’s

religious employer exemption[.]” Contrary to the facts before us, Montrose turned on

whether a local Montgomery County ordinance, which prohibited employment

discrimination on the basis of, among other things, “religious creed,” but provided an

exception for those employees “perform[ing] purely religious functions[,]” conflicted with

Maryland’s then-employment discrimination law, which is now MFEPA. Id. at 570–71,

578, 770 A.2d at 115, 118–19 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We held

that it did not. Id. at 581, 770 A.2d at 120. Nonetheless, we clarified that MFEPA “was

modeled after the federal anti-discrimination law,” Title VII, which “provid[ed] the same

broad exemption for religious organizations.” Id. at 580, 770 A.2d at 120 (citation

omitted).

In Chappell v. Southern Md. Hosp., Inc., we similarly explained that:

8
 In the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, we read [MFEPA] of the
state act in harmony with § 2000e–3(a) of the federal statute, and therefore
construe the two provisions to fulfill the same objectives. In this regard, we
may look to court decisions interpreting § 2000e–3(a).

***

As [MFEPA] tracks the language of [Title VII], we think it likely that these
same criteria would determine whether a prima facie violation of the state
law was established.

320 Md. 483, 494–96, 578 A.2d 766, 772–73 (1990) (emphasis added); Taylor v. Giant of

Md., LLC, 423 Md. 628, 652, 33 A.3d 445, 459 (2011) (“Title VII is the federal analog to

[MFEPA] and our courts traditionally seek guidance from federal cases in interpreting

[MFEPA.]” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Since “[t]here are relatively few appellate decisions interpreting [MFEPA][,]”

Maryland courts look to federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, on the

interpretation and application of Title VII to interpret and apply MFEPA. Peninsula Reg’l

Med. Ctr. v. Adkins, 448 Md. 197, 209, 137 A.3d 211, 217 (2016) (noting that MFEPA is

modeled after Title VII) (citations omitted); Town of Riverdale Park v. Ashkar, 474 Md.

581, 615, 255 A.3d 140, 159 (2021) (“This Court has recognized that Title VII is the federal

analog to [MFEPA] and has expressly been guided by cases from the United States

Supreme Court in resolving discrimination claims arising under Maryland law.” (citation

omitted)); Schwenke v. Ass’n of Writers & Writing Programs, 510 F. Supp. 3d 331, 336

(D. Md. 2021) (“[T]he elements of [MFEPA and Title VII] claim[s] are the same, with the

expansion of Title VII to include, in its definition of sex discrimination, protections already

made in explicit under Maryland Law[.]”); Montrose Christian Sch. Corp., 363 Md. at 580,

9
770 A.2d at 120 (noting that the then-employment discrimination law, which is now

MFEPA, “was modeled after the federal anti-discrimination law,” Title VII).

CRS cites to Haas v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 396 Md. 469, 914 A.2d 735 (2007),

to support the contention that this Court has previously “declined to follow federal case

law” construing Title VII when interpreting Maryland statutory law. In Haas, this Court

noted that the intermediary appellate court “sidestepped” “the familiar command to

effectuate the plain meaning of the [statutory] language” at issue. Id. at 492, 914 A.2d at

749 (citations omitted). We explained that, “[w]hile it certainly is permissible to have

recourse to federal law similar to our own as an aid in construction of Maryland statutory

law, it should not be a substitute for the pre-eminent plain meaning inquiry of the statutory

language under examination.” Id., 914 A.2d at 749 (citations omitted). Unlike Haas, I

have not “sidestepped” our principles of statutory interpretation here. As explained above,

the MFEPA’s religion exemption is ambiguous.

Nonetheless, Haas does not stand for the proposition that Maryland courts should

not consider analogous federal case law. Rather, we explained that parallel federal laws

“are relevant authorities because our courts traditionally seek guidance from federal cases

in interpreting Maryland[] [laws], [but] they do not bind us here.” Id. at 481, 914 A.2d at

742 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Whether we decide to construe state statutes,

rules, or constitutional provisions differently or similarly from their federal analogues

seems to be a factual determination. Id. at 481 n.10, 914 A.2d at 742 n.10. The dissent in

Haas aligns with our view here: “Considering the mimicry of state and local laws to Title

VII, it is appropriate to consider federal precedents when interpreting state and local laws.”

10
Id. at 504, 914 A.2d at 756 (Battaglia & Raker, JJ., dissenting). I, therefore, examine Title

VII to assist in construing MFEPA.6

Like MFEPA, Title VII includes a statutory religious exemption. 42 U.S.C.A. §

2000e-1(a). The language in MFEPA’s religious exemption is similar to that of Title VII’s.

Compare State Gov’t § 20-604(2) (“This subtitle does not apply to: . . . a religious

corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment

of individuals of a particular religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity to perform work

connected with the activities of the religious entity. (emphasis added)), with 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 2000e-1(a) (“This subchapter shall not apply to . . . a religious corporation, association,

educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a

particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation,

association, educational institution, or society of its activities.” (emphasis added)). The

key—yet ambiguous—language is the latter portion of the statutory language: “to perform

work connected with the activities of the religious entity.” State Gov’t § 20-604(2).

It is clear that such an exemption only applies where a nexus exists between the

employer’s religious activities and the work that an employee performs—regardless of the

form of discrimination. The majority offers that, “in order for the exemption to apply, the

employee’s duties must directly further the core mission(s)–religious or secular, or both–

of the religious entity.” Maj. Op. 31. It even provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for

6
The majority itself acknowledges the “‘similarities[]’” between Title VII and
MFEPA, recognizing that MFEPA was, in fact, modeled after Title VII. Maj. Op. 11–12
(quoting Molesworth v. Brandon, 341 Md. 621, 632–33, 672 A.2d 608, 614 (1996)).

11
courts to consider “in determining the core mission(s) of a religious entity for purposes of”

MFEPA. Id. at 31–33. I agree that the latter half of MFEPA’s religious exemption “can

reasonably be read as limiting the application of the exemption based on the type of work

performed by the employee[,]” id. at 24, but I do not believe the majority’s standard

provides the exemption “its narrowest reasonable reading,” id. at 23.

After Bostock, Title VII’s exemption allows employers to consider “individuals of

a particular religion” who perform work “connected with” the activities of the employer,

but not to discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation. The

Bostock Court understood the potential repercussions of its ruling:

[T]he employers fear that complying with Title VII’s requirement . . . may
require some employers to violate their religious convictions. We are also
deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion
enshrined in our Constitution . . . [, b]ut worries about how Title VII may
intersect with religious liberties are nothing new[.] . . . [H]ow these doctrines
protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future
cases[].

Bostock, ___ U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1753–54. Writing for the dissent, Justice Alito

acknowledged that the broadening of Title VII and its religious exception likely offers

religious employers “only narrow protection.” Id. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1781 (Alito, J.,

dissenting) (footnote omitted). In my view, interpreting the scope of the religious

exemption requires recognizing why the religious exemption exists in the first place, i.e.,

to accommodate religious beliefs and activities. It is dubious that religious objections have

any place in the realm of secular activities because anyone can complete those tasks under

any other employer. Instead, there must be something inherent about the employee’s

obligations that warrants distinguishing them from responsibilities they would have

12
elsewhere. Properly construed, the religious exemption provides that this “something” is

a religious element. In light of those limiting principles, it’s improper to interpret the

General Assembly’s insertion of “sexual orientation” to mean that the General Assembly

would provide religious employers, such as CRS, carte blanche to discriminate based on

sexual orientation. Such an interpretation would undermine the purpose of MFEPA, which

is to “assure all persons equal opportunity in receiving employment . . . regardless of . . .

sex, . . . sexual orientation, [or] gender identity, . . . and [] to that end, to prohibit

discrimination in employment by any person.” State Gov’t § 20-602. Considering the

purpose of MFEPA, it is unlikely the General Assembly sought to “confer upon [CRS] a

license” to make hiring decisions on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Rayburn v. Gen. Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164, 1166 (4th Cir. 1985).

Finally, the majority’s interpretation of MFEPA’s religious exemption seemingly

violates Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.7 Through Article 36, Maryland

guarantees the free exercise of religion, providing that “all persons are equally entitled to

protection in their religious liberty[.]”8 Md. Const. Decl. of Rts. art. 36. Article 36 further

7
Whether MFEPA’s religious exemption violates Mr. Doe’s rights under Article 36
of the Maryland Declaration of Rights is a question the majority also declined to address
and left for the federal court to answer. Maj. Op. 33–34.
8
Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights provides in full:

That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he
thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection
in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be
molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or
profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion,
(continued . . .)

13
states, in relevant part, that “no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or

estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice,

unless, under the color of religion, he shall . . . injure others in their natural, civil or

religious rights[.]” Id. (emphasis added). The emphasized language reflects a clear

limitation to Article 36’s guarantee of free exercise.

As we explained in Montrose, “Article 36 . . . ordinarily do[es] not grant to . . . a

religious organization a constitutional right to ignore neutral laws of general applicability

even when such laws have an incidental effect of burdening a particular religious activity.”

363 Md. at 585, 770 A.2d at 123; Archdiocese of Washington v. Moersen, 399 Md. 637,

640–41, 925 A.2d 659, 661 (2007) (citations omitted). While the “[f]reedom to believe is

absolute, [the] freedom to act is not.” Hopkins v. State, 193 Md. 489, 496, 69 A.2d 456,

459 (1949) (emphasis added). One “cannot, under the guise of religious conviction,

(. . . continued)
he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe
the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights;
nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute,
unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor
shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness,
or juror, on account of his religious belief, provided, he believes in the
existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held
morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either
in this world or in the world to come.

Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance
upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental
or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or
place.

Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion.

14
disobey the laws of the land made for the protection of the health and safety of society.”

Craig v. State, 220 Md. 590, 600, 155 A.2d 684, 690 (1959). Thus, free exercise may be

reasonably limited “for the protection of society[]” and to avoid “invading” protected

constitutional liberties. Hopkins, 193 Md. at 496, 69 A.2d at 459.

Article 36 does not permit CRS to avoid MFEPA, a neutral and generally applicable

law. See Montrose, 363 Md. at 585, 770 A.2d at 123; Moersen, 399 Md. at 640–41, 925

A.2d at 661. Post-Bostock, Title VII’s religious exemption does not allow employers to

discriminate based on sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Bostock, ___

U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. 1731 at 1744. I apply the same reasoning to MFEPA’s religious

exception. Accordingly, CRS arguably, “under the color of religion, . . . injure[d] [Mr.

Doe] in [his] [] civil . . . rights[.]” Md. Const. Decl. of Rts. art. 36. At minimum, our

decision today raises concerns surrounding the General Assembly’s power to enact

legislation that, while intended to protect against discrimination, carves out a religious

exemption at the expense of another’s “natural, civil or religious rights[.]” Id.

B. The Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work Act

We now turn to MEPEWA, the focus of certified question 3. MEPEWA generally

prohibits wage discrimination based on sex or gender identity. Lab. & Empl. § 3-304(b)(1).

Specifically, “[a]n employer[9] may not[:]” (1) “pay[] a wage[10] to employees of one sex or

9
MEPEWA defines an “[e]mployer” as “a person engaged in a business, industry,
profession, trade, or other enterprise in the State[.]” Lab. & Empl. § 3-301(b)(1). CRS
meets the definition of employer under MEPEWA.

MEPEWA defines “[w]age” broadly and inclusively as “all compensation for
10

employment[,]” including “board, lodging, or other advantage provided to an employee for

15
gender identity[11] at a rate less than . . . employees of another sex or gender identity if both

employees work in the same establishment and perform work of comparable character or

work” or (2) “provid[e] less favorable employment[12] opportunities based on sex or gender

identity.” Id. MEPEWA contains exceptions relating to seniority, shifts, merit systems,

ability, skills, and performance-based measures. See id. § 3-304(c). Unlike MFEPA, it

does not contain a religious exception. “If an employer knew or reasonably should have

known that the employer’s action violates [MEPEWA], an affected employee may bring

an action against the employer for injunctive relief and to recover actual damages and . . .

liquidated damages.” Id. § 3-307(a)(1), (2).

Unlike MFEPA, MEPEWA mentions “sex [and] gender identity” but does not

expressly mention sexual orientation. Lab. & Empl. § 3-304. MEPEWA explicitly defines

“gender identity” under State Gov’t § 20-101(d), and, as previously discussed, “sexual

orientation” is defined under State Gov’t § 20-101(i). Indeed, it is curious why MEPEWA

the convenience of the employer.” Id. § 3-301(d) (emphasis added). Thus, health benefits
fall under the statutory definition.
11
Under MEPEWA, “[g]ender identity” means:

[T]he gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of a
person, regardless of the person’s assigned sex at birth, which may be
demonstrated by: (1) consistent and uniform assertion of the person’s gender
identity; or (2) any other evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held
as part of the person’s core identity.

State Gov’t § 20-101(e).
12
“[P]roviding less favorable employment opportunities” includes “limiting or
depriving an employee of employment opportunities that would otherwise be available to
the employee but for the employee’s sex or gender identity.” Lab. & Empl. § 3-304(a)(3).

16
does not also reference “sexual orientation” under State Gov’t § 20-101(i). Thus, as CRS

and the majority contends, one can interpret the plain language to mean that sexual

orientation was intentionally omitted as a protected category in MEPEWA. Maj. Op. 18.

Such an intention, the majority asserts, is evidenced by the General Assembly’s failure to

include sexual orientation as a protected category when MEPEWA was amended in 2016.

Id. at 19. The statute’s legislative history and underlying policy, however, indicates

otherwise.

MEPEWA was introduced to the General Assembly as House Bill 1003 (“HB

1003”). The Revised Fiscal and Policy Note for HB 1003 discusses the federal Equal Pay

Act (“EPA”). See Dep’t Legis. Servs., Revised Fiscal and Policy Note, HB 1003, at 4–5

(2016 Session) (“HB 1003 Revised Fiscal and Policy Note”). HB 1003 Revised Fiscal and

Policy Note then goes on to explain the role of the EEOC. Id. Accordingly, it is apparent

that the General Assembly relied upon the EPA when drafting MEPEWA. Likewise, courts

have consistently held that MEPEWA “mirrors” that of its federal counterpart, the EPA.

Raines v. Am. Fed’n of Tchrs. – Md. Pro. Emps. Council, AFL-CIO Loc. 6197, No. CV

ADC-19-1266, 2019 WL 4467132, at *10 (D. Md. Sept. 18, 2019) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted); Cohens v. Md. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 933 F. Supp. 2d 735, 745

(D. Md. 2013) (quoting Glunt v. GES Exposition Servs., Inc., 123 F. Supp. 2d 847, 862 (D.

Md. 2000)); Gaskins v. Marshall Craft Assocs., Inc., 110 Md. App. 705, 709 n.1, 678 A.2d

615, 617 n.1 (1996) (“The [MEPEWA] . . . was patterned after the [EPA][.]”); Nixon v.

State, 96 Md. App. 485, 490 n.3, 625 A.2d 404, 406 n.3 (1993). Again, this Court reads

MEPEWA “in harmony” with the EPA, and “construe[s] the two provisions to fulfill the

17
same objectives.” Chappell, 320 Md. at 494–96, 578 A.2d at 772–73. We, therefore,

examine the EPA to help construe MEPEWA.

The EPA prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex by paying wages to

employees . . . at a rate less than the rate . . . [paid] to employees of the opposite sex . . . for

equal work[.]” 29 U.S.C.A. § 206(d)(1). The EPA is often construed with Title VII

because Title VII provides, in part, that “[i]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice

. . . for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of

the wages or compensation paid . . . to employees . . . if such differentiation is authorized

by [29 U.S.C.A. § 206(d)][,]” the EPA. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(h). As previously

discussed, Bostock expanded “sex” discrimination to encompass sexual orientation and

gender identity. Bostock, ___ U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1742 (“[H]omosexuality and

transgender status are inextricably bound up with sex.”). I agree with Mr. Doe that it is

unlikely the General Assembly intended to allow religious employers to “discriminate in

compensation on the basis of sexual orientation, placing MEPEWA squarely at odds with

MFEPA’s protections.” The thread that weaves through each statute is equality. As the

majority recognizes, MEPEWA and MFEPA are “two common schemed

statutes . . . work[ing] to remedy forms of employment discrimination.” Maj. Op. 20

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Despite this, the majority seemingly finds

its hands tied: “If we were to read the prohibition against sex discrimination under

MEPEWA to include a prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination, then we

would need to interpret the prohibition against sex discrimination the same way under

MFEPA, which we have declined to do[.]” Id. Such an interpretation, the majority

18
contends, would overstep the role of judiciary. Id. at 21. I disagree. Surely, the General

Assembly recognized this when it drafted MEPEWA and sought to harmoniously achieve

the same objectives as MFEPA. This case presented us with the opportunity to harmonize

the two statutes, but the majority’s decision renders them incongruous. Such an

interpretation is also at odds with Bostock.

In Bostock, the United States Supreme Court addressed the employers’ argument

that—a position which CRS and the majority also makes here—because homosexuality

and transgender status can’t be found on Title VII’s list of protected characteristics, “they

are implicitly excluded from Title VII’s reach. . . . [I]f Congress had wanted to address

these matters in Title VII, it would have referenced them specifically.”13 Bostock, ____

U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1746 (citations omitted). The United States Supreme Court

rejected this assertion, recognizing that:

[D]iscrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily
entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the
second. Nor is there any such thing as a “canon of donut holes,” in which
Congress’s failure to speak directly to a specific case that falls within a more
general statutory rule creates a tacit exception. Instead, when Congress
chooses not to include any exceptions to a broad rule, courts apply the broad
rule. And that is exactly how this Court has always approached Title VII. . .
. As enacted, Title VII prohibits all forms of discrimination because of sex,
however they may manifest themselves or whatever other labels might attach
to them.

13
It is worth noting that the dissent agreed with the employers, noting that Title
VII’s list of protected characteristics does not expressly include sexual orientation or
gender identity. Bostock, ___ U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1754–55 (Alito, J., dissenting).
This is the position taken by the majority here. Maj. Op. 19.

19
Id. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1747 (emphasis added). I, therefore, agree with the District Court

for the District of Maryland’s conclusion that Mr. Doe “made a prima facie case of sex-

discrimination under the [] EPA.” Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, 618 F. Supp. 3d 244,

257 (D. Md. 2022). Indeed, CRS discriminated against Mr. Doe when it “intentionally

discriminate[d] against [him] . . . because of sex.” Bostock, ___ U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at

1744. I would hold that MEPEWA also prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual

orientation.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent to the majority’s answers to certified

questions. The prohibition against discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,

ancestry, national origin, sex, age, marital status, gender identity, disability, or sexual

orientation has to mean something relative to the prohibition expressed by MFEPA and

MEPEWA. It should not lead us to open the door for further discrimination and inequality.

The overarching promise of justice and fairness must reflect a sentiment of equality that is

consistent with what is right under the law. Discrimination on the basis of sexual

orientation constitutes a deprivation the same as the categories referenced above. The spirit

of equality and justice must remain paramount. Justice Eaves has authorized me to state

that she joins in this opinion.

20