Minnesota Supreme Court hears case on whether religious institutions can discriminate against secular employees

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 1, 2026

CONTACT
Lauren Himiak, Interim Communications Director
[email protected]
651.705.0307 ext. 441

Saint Paul, Minn.—

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Reyzl Grace MoChridhe v. Academy of Holy Angels and the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, a case that could determine whether religious employers can bypass the state’s civil rights protections for employees working in secular roles.

The case was filed by Reyzl Grace MoChridhe (Reyzl), a beloved librarian at the Academy of Holy Angels in Richfield, Minnesota, who lost her job after coming out as transgender. Gender Justice and co-counsels Wanta Thome PLC and MacDonald Hoague and Bayless argue that Reyzl’s firing violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), which prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics such as sex, gender identity, race, and religion. A ruling in favor of the Archdiocese in this case would open the door for religious organizations to discriminate based on any protected characteristic.

The stakes of the case could extend far beyond one school or one employee. At its core, the case asks whether civil rights protections still apply to everyday Minnesotans working in secular roles at religiously affiliated institutions — including schools, hospitals, universities, and social service organizations.

“No one should lose their livelihood because of who they are,” said Jess Braverman, legal director at Gender Justice. “Secular employees with religious employers should not be left vulnerable to discrimination simply because their identity, family, or personal decisions conflict with their employer’s religious beliefs.”

Minnesota already strongly protects religious freedom under both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, and the MHRA. Gender Justice argues this case is not about whether religious freedom exists — it does. The issue is whether religious institutions can use religion to justify discrimination against employees serving in purely secular positions.

Reyzl worked as a librarian. The AHA library provides access to countless databases and multi-media resources to students that are not tied to religious doctrine. “Reyzl’s job had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with her students and her academic community,” said Joni Thome, Attorney, Wanta Thome PLC. “The MHRA says that no employer should be able to use religion as a basis to discriminate against employees when the role of the employee is not based on religion. The statute has been clear on this for years. Now Minnesota’s highest court has the opportunity to affirm what the law already says; when an employee’s job is to engage in secular business activities within a religious organization, the religious association exemption does not apply.”

If the lower court’s ruling is allowed to stand, the consequences could extend far beyond this case. Thousands of Minnesotans employed by religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, universities, and social service organizations could be left vulnerable to discrimination because of who they are, who they love, their faith, or deeply personal decisions about their lives and families.

“When I lost my job, I lost more than a paycheck,” said Reyzl Grace. “I lost a community I cared about and work that was intensely meaningful. My students wanted me there, and my colleagues wanted me there, but I was still terminated just for being honest and seeking the care that I needed. No one should have to choose between making a living and living a lie.”

Across the country, expansive religious exemption claims are increasingly limiting abortion care, school curricula, LGBTQ+ services, and weakening civil rights protections. In 2025, the Supreme Court’s Mahmoud v. Taylor ruling allowed religious parents to opt children out of LGBTQ+-inclusive lessons, raising fears of nationwide curriculum censorship. That same year, religious organizations successfully challenged a federal rule under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that would have required employers to accommodate workers seeking abortion care — a ruling that stripped protections from employees in workplaces across the country.

“We are seeing coordinated efforts across the country to use religion as a tool to reshape public life — from attacks on reproductive freedom and censorship in schools to increasingly broad claims of religious exemptions used to exclude LGBTQ+ people from public life,” said Megan Peterson, executive director at Gender Justice. “Minnesota can choose a different path — one rooted in dignity, fairness, and the belief that everyone deserves protection under the law.”

To listen to Reyzl’s story, click here.
For more information about the case, click here.

###