Bellmore v. United Methodist Children's Home and Department of Human Resources of Georgia
Background
Published 05/28/03
Why did Aimee Bellmore and Alan Yorker sue United Methodist Children’s Home and the state of Georgia?
Aimee Bellmore and Alan Yorker are both top-notch counselors who were denied employment at the taxpayer- funded United Methodist Children’s Home because they didn’t adhere to its religious beliefs. Aimee is a lesbian and Alan is Jewish — which for the state-funded Home makes them unfit for employment.
In April 2001, Aimee, who holds a master’s degree in counseling psychology, began working at the Home, a Georgia institution which receives 40 percent of its budget from the state to provide residential foster care to 70 children in state custody. In addition to counseling youth residents, Aimee also supervised some staff at the Home. By July 2001, Aimee’s work had made such an outstanding impression on her employers that her written review rated her good to excellent in every job category, and Aimee’s supervisor told her that the Home wanted to promote her to oversee all of its residential cottages. Yet by November 2001, the high quality of Aimee’s work no longer mattered because administrators learned that Aimee did not ascribe to the Home’s religious beliefs, including its condemnation of homosexuality. Aimee was fired.
Like Aimee, Alan Yorker quickly learned that his exceptional skills as a psychotherapist were not what mattered most to the Home. Despite being a top candidate for a new position, Alan’s interview at the Home was terminated abruptly as soon as the interviewer realized that he is Jewish.
When Alan applied for this position in October 2001, he brought with him over 20 years’ experience as an adolescent and family therapist, over a decade of experience teaching and a number of appointments to state professional committees. After Alan was rushed in for an interview, he was required to disclose his religious affiliation, church and minister on an application form. Alan filled in the names of his synagogue and rabbi. As the interview began, the Home administrator checked Alan’s response to this section of the form and announced that the Home does not hire Jewish people. Alan was shown the door. In fact, he was never supposed to have gotten that far in the hiring process. While Aimee was still employed at the Home, a supervisor told her that the Home’s practice was to “throw in the trash” resumes from candidates with Jewish-sounding names.
Ironically, what got Alan’s foot in the door at the Home was his family’s response to the religious discrimination faced by his grandfather, Harry Monjesky, nearly a century earlier. Alan’s grandfather had worked for many years as a conductor on the New York Central Railroad when a national recession forced layoffs. The railroad singled out Jewish and African-American workers for layoffs first, regardless of seniority. Alan’s grandfather was soon out of a job. To ensure that he and his children be judged solely on merit, Alan’s father took the step of changing the family name to “Yorker.” Little did he know that years later the name change would only delay discrimination against his son — and that discrimination would be funded by the taxpayers of Georgia.
The focus of Aimee and Alan’s case was not limited to the Home’s employment practices. It also turned a spotlight on youth who were being denied access to the most qualified therapists while also being forced to accept the Home’s Christian teachings. Our lawsuit asserted that youth were required to attend Methodist services and Sunday school each week, regardless of the faith or wishes of the children and their families. It also claimed that staff was trained to withhold appropriate supportive services to gay and lesbian youth, and to send them to psychological therapy in line with the Home’s anti-gay religious beliefs.
Why was the Home using government funds to discriminate against highly qualified professionals?
The United Methodist Children’s Home proclaimed itself to be a “Christian Church,” exempt from employment non-discrimination laws. As such, the Home believed that it has the right to demand that all paid staff be professing Christians who adhere to its version of Methodist beliefs, including the condemnation of gays and lesbians. But as a “child-caring institution” licensed by Georgia, the Home’s largest source of income is from the state’s taxpayers. Under the United States and Georgia Constitutions, the Home cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs while receiving such substantial government financial support. What’s more, the Home was using tax dollars to further the religious indoctrination of young people under state custody. That’s why Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit in state court on behalf of Aimee and Alan in July 2002.
Settlement agreement will be used to educate policy makers
The brazen religious discrimination practiced by the United Methodist Children’s Home in Georgia may become all too familiar at government-funded faithbased organizations nationwide if President Bush has his way. President Bush continues to push his plan to give tax dollars to religious organizations to provide social services, despite opposition from the civil rights, religious, social service and labor communities.
Certainly, many faith-based organizations have long used government funds effectively to provide necessary social services while respecting civil rights and the separation of church and state. But as Aimee, Alan and the foster children at the Home have learned, this is not always the case.
Fortunately, the terms of the settlement Lambda Legal reached in Aimee and Alan’s case dictate that religious organizations providing publicly funded child welfare social services in Georgia must do so without infringing on the rights of employees, taxpayers, recipients of services or religious groups. Lambda Legal will keep in contact to ensure compliance with the settlement nationwide and provide any assistance they may need. Lambda Legal is also using this settlement to educate policy makers, service providers and advocates about how to protect employees, taxpayers, recipients of services and faith-based groups.
