This is really fascinating turn of events from the Diocese of Fargo. The link requires registration, but I’ll summarize and quote. In 1999, a laywoman, a secretary in the diocesan office, became pregnant outside of marriage. She was fired. (The diocesan lawyer says she was fired for cohabitating, and was given the chance to change her situation, but didn’t). She’s suing for gender discrimination, and her lawyer wants to bring in evidence of how the diocese ahem, didn’t fire priests for various types of sexual misconduct as part of the suit. The diocese is responding by saying, "Hey! Priests aren’t employees!" (We’ve heard that before…)

(Of course, there really is no argument that the diocesan lawyer is correct on the point that lay employees and priests are in different categories as far as their relationship to the diocese goes. It is just interesting to me that it took so long for a dismissed lay employee to come up with this angle, the secret fantasy tactic of dismissed lay employees everywhere…)

Benjamin Thomas, the diocese attorney, argued at pretrial motions Monday in Cass County District Court that priests aren’t considered employees of the diocese.

Only the Vatican can appoint and remove priests, Thomas said. Also, it is the Code of Canon Law, not state labor laws, that dictate how priests are disciplined, he said. Therefore, priests don’t provide a fair comparison in Enebo’s case, Thomas said.

Enebo’s attorney, Robert Schultz, pointed out later that some priests are considered employees of the diocese and are under the bishop’s oversight.

Thomas said allowing allegations of priest misconduct as evidence would require an expert for the diocese to explain Canon Law, complicating an already complex trial.

“That would be hopelessly confusing to a jury,” Thomas said.

He also expressed the diocese’s concerns about unwanted public exposure, saying the allegations would be “devastating to all involved and would invite a media circus.”

“The diocese is very adamant that that information should not and could not be disclosed,” he said.

East Central District Judge John Irby ruled after the motion hearing that he would review any evidence of priest misconduct in private. He would then decide whether to allow the evidence in the trial.