Carol Los Mansmann

“ Here, we face the second type of argument, typical in a "pretext" case, in which an employer argues that its action flowed from a permissible motive (here, religion) rather than from the alleged, unlawful motive (age) . [4] So long as Geary does not challenge the validity of the religious doctrine (and she does not) , this second argument does not raise entanglement concerns sufficient to invoke the interpretive rule of Catholic Bishop. At most, Geary asks the court to determine whether the religious reason stated by Visitation School actually motivated the dismissal. ”

“ Apart from the distinction between ongoing supervision and limited inquiry, another consideration prompts our conclusion that application of the ADEA will not create a significant risk of entanglement. There is an absence here of any direct conflict between the ADEA's secular prohibition and the proffered religious doctrine. Visitation School does not suggest that the Catholic religion mandates age discrimination, nor does Geary suggest that the ADEA prohibits Visitation School's right to implement Catholic teachings on marriage. ”

“ It is difficult to imagine an area of the employment relationship less fit for scrutiny by secular courts. Even if the employer ultimately prevails, the process of review itself might be excessive entanglement. ”