Fornoff Competition Details
During the final round of the 2025 competition, students will argue the hypothetical case, Katrina Zuniga v. God’s Grace Church, arising under the ministerial exception and Title VII hostile work environment claims regarding employment at a religious organization. Students evaluated case law to determine 1) if the ministerial exception creates a categorical bar to Title VII claims brought against a religious organization by a ministerial employee; and 2) if the ministerial exception does not categorically bar such Title VII clams, if there is a genuine issue of material fact relating to whether the intangible employment actions alleged by the Plaintiff amount to severe or pervasive work environment under Title VII?
Competition Case
Summary of the Facts
Katrina Zuniga was employed by God’s Grace Church as a Daycare Operator from August 2022 until her resignation in April 2024. Ms. Zuniga’s duties involved caring for young children, including secular tasks like changing diapers and feeding, as well as leading religious activities like Christian sing-alongs and reading circles. The job description did not require religious education, and it specified that the Daycare operator would not be part of the Church Leadership.
Ms. Zuniga alleges that shortly after her employment began, high-ranking members of the Church, including the Head Reverend Eddie Lewis, second-in-command Timothy Thomas, and Church President Mark Adams, subjected her to sex-based harassment. The alleged harassment included unwelcome comments about her body being “fruitful” and “made to carry a child,” comparisons to other women, and sporadic, non-consensual touching.
Ms. Zuniga reported the behavior to her superiors and to Talia Jones, the Head of Human Resources. Ms. Jones then interviewed the church leaders and concluded that the behavior was not inappropriate and took no disciplinary action. President Adams also dismissed Ms. Zuniga’s concerns, suggesting she was “overreacting” and should take the comments as a “compliment.”
Following Ms. Zuniga’s complaint, the Church reduced her hours and hired a male employee to co-run the daycare. In a subsequent performance review, Ms. Adams warned Ms. Zuniga that her behavior was considered “disruptive,” accused her of “spreading rumors,” and threatened termination if she did not stop discussing the matter. Ms. Zuniga resigned in April 2024, citing the ongoing harassment and alleged retaliation.
Ms. Zuniga filed a complaint alleging a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Church moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the First Amendment’s ministerial exception.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Church. The court held that the ministerial exception creates a categorical bar to hostile work environment claims brought by ministerial employees. Further, the court determined that Ms. Zuniga’s claim would fail even if there was no categorical bar because the Church’s tangible employment actions are protected decisions, and the remaining allegations of harassment were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to sustain the claim. Ms. Zuniga is now appealing the district court’s grant of the Church’s motion for summary judgment.
Issues on Appeal
This case involves the tension between an employee’s right to be free from workplace harassment under Title VII and a religious institution’s First Amendment right to be free from government entanglement in its relationship with ministers. There are two main issues raised on appeal: 1) whether the ministerial exception creates a categorical bar to a minister’s hostile work environment claim under Title VII; and 2) if the ministerial exception does not create a categorical bar, whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that the alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment, even after excluding any tangible employment decisions protected by the First Amendment?
Legal Background
The First Amendment guarantees that the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. amend. I. Stemming from these Religion Clauses, the Supreme Court has recognized a “ministerial exception,” which ensures that “the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful . . . is the church’s alone.” Hoanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 194-95 (2012); U.S. Const. amend. I. This doctrine generally bars government interference with a religious organization's employment decisions concerning its "ministers.”
The Supreme Court formally established the exception in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 188 (2012), holding that giving the state power to decide whom a church appoints as its ministers violates both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The Court later expanded the doctrine in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049, 2064 (2020). There, the Court clarified that the exception is not limited to formally ordained ministers but extends to any employee who performs vital religious duties, such as "educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith.” Id. at 2068.
The central issue in this appeal is whether the ministerial exception applies to a minister’s hostile work environment claim under Title VII. Federal circuit courts are split on this question. The Seventh and Tenth Circuits have adopted a categorical bar, holding that any judicial inquiry into such claims would create an unconstitutional "excessive government entanglement with religion.” These courts fear that evaluating a hostile work environment claim would force them to intrusively analyze a church’s internal decisions and determine whether alleged conduct was based on religious doctrine or secular animus.
The Ninth Circuit, in contrast, has rejected a categorical bar. In Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 953 (9th Cir. 2004), the court established a fact-based inquiry. Under this framework, a minister’s claim is barred only if it relies on tangible, protected employment actions like hiring, firing, or promotion. However, a plaintiff can proceed with a hostile work environment claim if they can prove their case based solely on evidence of harassment unrelated to these protected decisions. This approach seeks to hold religious employers accountable for clear harassment without infringing on their First Amendment right to choose their ministers.
God’s Grace Church argues that this Court should adopt the categorical bar applied by the Seventh and Tenth Circuits, asserting that any inquiry into its leaders’ conduct would impermissibly entangle the court in religious governance. Alternatively, the Church argues that even under the Ninth Circuit’s fact-based approach, Ms. Zuniga’s claim must fail14. Once the protected employment actions—the reduction in hours, the hiring of a new employee, and the negative performance review—are excluded from consideration, the remaining allegations of comments and touching are not “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment,” as required to state a claim.
Ms. Zuniga urges the Court to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s fact-based inquiry, arguing that it strikes a proper balance between First Amendment protections and the statutory rights of employees under Title VII. She contends that a court can conduct a purely secular inquiry into the harassing comments and touching without scrutinizing the Church’s protected ministerial decisions. Ms. Zuniga further argues that the ongoing harassment was sufficiently severe to survive summary judgment and that a jury should be permitted to decide whether it created a hostile work environment.
Finalists' Biographies
Chris Albert
Chris is from Cincinnati, Ohio and graduated with his B.A. in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law from Bowling Green State University and his Master of Business Administration from Bowling Green State University. He currently serves as the Vice President of the University of Toledo College of Law Student BAR Association and is an Associate Member of the University of Toledo Law Review. Chris is interested in the areas of labor and employment law and corporate law and hopes to litigate upon graduation. Chris would like to thank his family, friends, his wife Lauren, and his son Elijah for their support and encouragement through law school.
Haley Bennett
Haley is from Livonia, Michigan. She graduated from Hope College in 2023 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Psychology. This past summer, Haley had the opportunity to intern with the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office in the Preliminary Examination unit, where she was given the opportunity to appear on the record under Michigan Court Rule 8.120. Upon graduation, Haley hopes to continue to pursue criminal justice as a prosecutor. She would like to thank her parents for supporting her to and through this point, as well as her friends that she has made along the way to stay sane in Law School.
Devin Glaza
Devin is originally from Rochester, New York, and earned his Bachelor of Science in Legal Studies and Sport Management from St. John Fisher University. He is an Associate Member of The University of Toledo Law Review and a Teaching Assistant for Civil Procedure and Property. Devin’s legal interests include estate planning and federal prosecution. He is grateful for his family, friends, and everyone at Toledo Law for their unwavering support throughout law school.
Amanda Wendt
Amanda is from Wauseon, Ohio. She graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. in Criminal Justice in 2024. While pursuing her law degree, Amanda is simultaneously pursuing her Master's in Criminal Justice. She has a passion for Criminal Law and hopes to work in public defense upon graduation. Amanda would like to thank her family and friends for their continued support throughout law school. Amanda also thanks Caelan, Matt, and Andrew for their role in organizing this competition and for their willingness to help all the participants improve their oral advocacy skills.
Judges
United States District Judge Hon. James R. Knepp II '92
Hon. James R. Knepp II was confirmed by the United States Senate as a District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio in 2020. Previously, he served as Magistrate Judge in the same court for over ten years.
He grew up on a farm near Akron and is a graduate of Mount Union College (BA) and BGSU (MA). After a brief career in broadcasting, he attended the University of Toledo College of Law, where he graduated as class valedictorian in 1992. Judge Knepp began his legal career as a law clerk to District Judge John W. Potter (ND Ohio). He was then in private practice as a civil litigation attorney in Toledo for 16 years with the law firm Robison, Curphey & O’Connell.
Judge Knepp has been active in the Toledo legal community, serving as a past long-time board member of Legal Aid of Western Ohio/ABLE and is a past president of the Toledo Legal Aid Society. He is a past president of the Toledo Junior Bar Association and a former member of the board of directors of the Toledo Bar Association. He is also past president of the Morrison R. Waite Inn of Court. In 2019, Judge Knepp was awarded the Order of the Heel by the Toledo Junior Bar Association, presented annually since 1935 to the member of the Bar who has given most unselfishly of time, talent, and energy to assist young lawyers.
Justice Noah P. Hood
Justice Noah P. Hood was appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court on May 27, 2025, for a partial term ending December 31, 2026. In his current role, he serves as the justice-liaison to several key judicial bodies, including the Judicial Tenure Commission, Attorney Grievance Commission, Attorney Discipline Board, and the Michigan Judicial Institute. Prior to this, he served on the Michigan Court of Appeals starting in March 2022, where he authored around 70 opinions and contributed to numerous per curiam decisions. His appellate work also included service on the Rules and Education Committees.
Before his appellate tenure, Justice Hood presided over felony cases in Wayne County as a judge on the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan from 2019 to 2022. He also led two specialty court dockets: the Veterans Treatment Court, which addressed issues affecting justice-involved veterans, and the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program, which focused on supervising high-risk probationers. His earlier career includes work as an Assistant United States Attorney in both the Eastern District of Michigan and the Northern District of Ohio, where he prosecuted complex cases involving fraud, public corruption, and opioid-related offenses. His federal service earned him multiple commendations from agencies such as the U.S. Treasury, Secret Service, and Health and Human Services.
Justice Hood began his legal career as a litigation associate at Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, where he was recognized for his pro bono work. He is a graduate of Yale College and Harvard Law School. His professional affiliations include the Wolverine Bar Association, Association of Black Judges of Michigan, and the Detroit Bar Association, where he became a fellow in 2023. He is also a fellow of the Michigan State Bar Foundation and serves on the Board of Deacons at Plymouth United Church of Christ.
United States District Judge Hon. Christine E. Mayle
Judge Christine E. Mayle has served on the Sixth District Court of Appeals since 2016 and was re-elected in 2022. She has held the position of Presiding Judge for two terms and has been appointed as a visiting judge on the Supreme Court of Ohio for three notable cases, including matters involving tax exemptions, attorney discipline, and libel law. Her judicial service reflects a strong commitment to appellate jurisprudence and legal interpretation.
Before joining the bench, Judge Mayle practiced law in New York City and later in Toledo, where she handled complex litigation, appeals, and arbitrations both nationally and internationally. Her legal career included significant pro bono work and service on charitable and legal-aid boards. She has also contributed to legal scholarship and professional development through editorial work and committee leadership, including serving as Editor-in-Chief of the ABA’s The Woman Advocate newsletter.
Judge Mayle remains actively involved in the legal community. She serves on the Executive Committee of the Ohio Court of Appeals Judges Association and has held leadership roles within the Toledo Bar Association. She is also a member of several professional organizations, including the Toledo Women’s Bar Association and the Wood County Bar Association, and continues to support initiatives that promote legal excellence and community engagement.
Back to Fornoff Competition Finals