So I was Googling and I came across this.

http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/30068525/
"Mormon Discrimination Charged SALT LAKE CITY (AP)-A $400,000. lawsuit alleging sex and religious discrimination by the Mormon Church and its LDS Business College has been filed by a former woman employee. Mary J. Larsen of Salt Lake City charges that she was "dropped from e m p l o y m e n t due to reports that contained information that her faith and church activity were inadequate." LDS Business College is operated by the Corporation of the First Presidency, the corporate umbrella for all business enterprises of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). The lawsuit also alleges that women employes are subjected to scrutiny and investigation of their personal lives and that women employes are paid less then male employes. The plaintiff, who said she has a master's degree from the University of Utah and was employed at LDS Business College from Sept. 1970, to Sept. 1973, asks for damages for invasion of privacy, slander and damage to reputation and infliction of emotional distress. Named as defendants are the college, its president, Ferris R. K i r k h a m ; Neal Maxwell, church commissoner of education; Utah Gov. Calvin L. Hampton; Atty. Gen. Vernon Romney; the Corporation of the First Presidency and Stati Industrial Commissioner John R. Schone. The suit asks that federal •funds be withheld from the college and the Corporation of the First Presidency until the alleged discrimination ceases. The suit is the second discrimination action in recent weeks against organizations related to the Mormon Church. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has filed suit alleging racial discrimination in Boy Scout troops sponsored by the church"

So, I wanted to find out more and found this.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19801459499FSupp960_11344

And I can't make heads or tails of it, but in searching the Judge who died, I found a book about him that looks interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/Thunder-Over-Zion-Willis-Ritter/dp/0874808766

So if anyone knows anything about this case or what happened or what this is actually saying, please get out your bar-passing Urim and Thummim and please let me know it.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19801459499FSupp960_11344

But it seems to say that (1) the plaintiff failed to state a Section 1983 claim because she was not an employee of the State and therefore there was no state action upon which to base such a claim; (2) plaintiff's claim that certain portions of Title VII and the Utah Anti-Discrimination Act were unconstitutional could be reviewed by a single district court judge rather than a three-judge panel because she sought only declaratory, and not injunctive relief; (3) plaintiff's failed state a claim that certain portions of Title VII and the Utah ADA were unconstitutional because there was no legal support for her position that the First Amendment checked the ability of a state legislature to permit religious schools to consider religious practice and belief in hiring and firing teachers; and (4) the plaintiff failed to state a claim under Section 1985 because she did not allege any state action.

Basically, the plaintiff sued on the theory that she lost her job at LDS Business College because of her lack of belief in Mormonism. The court ruled as a matter of law that even if what she alleged was true the law under which she had brought her claims did not provide any relief for religious discrimination by a private religious educational institution.

I just didn't want there to be any confusion. I hope what I wrote was helpful.

It was. I figured she had failed but I didn't know why, thanks!

Keyser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The court
> ruled as a matter of law that even if what she
> alleged was true the law under which she had
> brought her claims did not provide any relief for
> religious discrimination by a private religious
> educational institution.

Thanks. But wow. REALLY? Why was this not more cut and dry? 1983? Like a decade????

"As a matter of law" is about as cut and dried as you can get. I have no idea as to whether the court was correct or not, or what the current state of the law on this really is. The decision says what it says.

I found this interesting.

"Plaintiff concedes that the limited financial assistance which L.D.S. Business College receives from the State of Utah is insufficient to establish a nexus between the state and the defendants' alleged acts of discrimination so as to constitute "state action." However, she asserts state action is present in the form of Utah's Anti-Discrimination Act, which, in her view, encouraged the defendants to discriminate against her."

I don't understand this argument. I also don't know why she conceded. And what is a "nexus"? What I think it is, is a connection between church and state in Utah, which is so obvious.

All you have is the court's summary of it. The argument seems to be that there was state action in the form of the UADA. It's impossible to tell from the decision whether the plaintiff expressly conceded the lack of a nexus or tacitly conceded one by failing to rebut, or sufficiently rebut, some argument of the defendant. I think your dictionary definition of "nexus" as a connection is basically correct, although the word may have a more precise definition in this context. However, the issue doesn't really seem to have been a connection between church and state so much as whether the "limited" amount of money LDSBC admittedly received from Utah was sufficient to create state action, that is, discrimination by the STATE (actionable under the relevant laws) rather than by a private religious institution (not actionable under the relevant laws according to this court).

I think I get it.

State passes anti-discrimination law, State gives money to religious college, religious college gets personal with employee, therefore state is sponsoring discrimination?

The argument appears to have been that the Utah legislature's passage of the UADA, which apparently had exceptions permitting religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion, constituted state action resulting in religious discrimination. Remember that the plaintiff conceded, at least according to the court, that the money that passed from Utah to LDSBC did not constitute a sufficient nexus to demonstrate state action.

This case was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=483&invol=327



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2014 05:37PM by steve benson.

Thank you Steve. That one is even more interesting.

"As JUSTICE BRENNAN observes in his concurrence: "The fact that an operation is not organized as a profit-making commercial enterprise makes colorable a claim that it is not purely secular in orientation." "

Nope LDS Inc. isn't purely secular, but they make other religions as non-profit incorporation look like lambs to their wolfish ways. That is except Scientology and Islam. They are a part of that pack.