Whether the ministerial exception applies to an avowedly secular hospital that employs an ecumenical chaplain

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The courts below applied the First Amendment “ministerial exception” to bar Petitioner Marlon Penn’s (“Penn”) Title VII suit against his employer New York Methodist Hospital (“NYMH7”) and Peter Poulos (“Poulos”). Under HosannaTabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. E.E.0.C., 565 U.S. 171 (2012), and Circuit Court precedent, the “ministerial exception” can apply only if: (1) Penn is a “minister” and (2) NYMHis a “religious” institution. This Court has not defined the proper analysis to determine if an employer is a “religious” institution, so the Second Circuit wrongly used a “sliding scale” approach, giving too much weight to Penn’s job duties as an ecumenical chaplain, where in 1975, NYMH renounced its affiliation with the United Methodist Church, removed from its Purpose, the provisions which required it to maintain “its Christian genesis and its Church related character” and is now an avowedly secular institution. Therefore, the questions presented are: 1. Since Hosanna-Tabor did not address how to decide if an employer is “religious,” should the Court review this case and define the proper analysis in determining the necessary extent or scope of an institution’s “religious” activities or character in order for it to invoke the “ministerial exception?” 2. Is the Second Circuit’s opinion contrary to Hosanna-Tabor and Circuit Court precedent by holding that NYMH’s operation of an ecumenical chaplain u department makes it a “religious” hospital, despite its renunciation of its affiliation with the United Methodist Church, its removal of the requirement to maintain “its Christian genesis and its Church related character” from its Purpose and its being avowedly secular overall? 3. Can an avowedly secular hospital, such as NYMH, avoid anti-discrimination laws simply by employing ecumenical chaplains, especially where allowing Penn to sue NYMH in this case does not excessively entangle the courts in any religious issues? PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING Petitioner Marlon Penn was the Plaintiff-Appellant below. Respondent New York Methodist Hospital was a Defendant-Appellee below. Respondent Peter Poulos was a Defendant-Appellee below.