[2] The school claimed that she was discharged because she married a man who had been divorced in the past, a violation of church doctrine on the subject.

The District Court held that: (1) The ADEA does not apply to religious schools and, (2) The appellee's state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful discharge were without merit.

[6] The court found that there was no direct conflict in the case at hand between the secular prohibitions contained in the ADEA and the religious doctrine that was claimed to be the motivating factor behind the discharge.

[8] No issue of material fact was raised to suggest any motivation other than the claimed doctrinal reason for the discharge.

[9] The court did, however, find that an issue of material fact existed as to whether or not the cancellation of insurance was retaliatory in nature.

The summary judgment of the district court was vacated and the case remanded for further fact-finding on this specific issue.