• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Supreme Court Upholds Religious Exemption To Employment Discrimination Laws

Atreus21

Lifer
I don't know if this was already posted. I wasn't even aware this decision occurred. This happened in mid-January, and I hadn't heard a word about it in all the debate about Sebelius' decree, even though this isn't directly related to the contraceptive issue. It's more about the "ministerial exemption."

A unanimous decision, too, with Kagan backing up Scalia. WOW.

Mods, lock this if this is indeed a repost.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/su...n-to-employment-discrimination-laws/#comments
Yesterday a unanimous Supreme Court handed a strong rebuke to the Obama Administration by rejecting an effort by the EEOC to enforce a provision of the Americans With Disabilities Act against a religious organization:

WASHINGTON — In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a decision that was surprising in both its sweep and its unanimity. “But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”

The decision gave only limited guidance about how courts should decide who counts as a minister, saying the court was “reluctant to adopt a rigid formula.” Two concurring opinions offered contrasting proposals.

......

During the oral argument, Leondra Kruger, the U.S. solicitor general’s assistant who represented the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, was asked whether the high court should accommodate even a limited ministerial exception. Kruger responded that the justices should make no distinction between secular or religious employers.

“That is extraordinary,” Justice Antonin Scalia responded. “We are talking here about the free exercise clause and about the establishment clause, and you say they have no special application?”

More significantly, the liberal Justice Elena Kagan was also startled by the government’s stance. “I, too, find that amazing,” Justice Kagan remarked.

The comments by the justices increased the likelihood that the ministerial exception would survive this unprecedented challenge.

Fun fact: My dad was once an administrative justice for the EEOC. He hated it. 🙂
 
Last edited:
So the justices picked by Obama weren't picked to wage war on religion? Or is this another case of not waging war in order to wage war?
 
That case was discussed before. As I recall the plaintiff was claimed she was employed as a teacher, the employer claimed they were employed as a minister because part of her duties (about 45 minutes per day) involved teaching religion and/or attending chapel with the students. Initially the plaintiff was fired for filing suit on her disability discrimination claim rather than trying to settle it internally as the defendant claimed their religious doctrine required (note-absent the religious issues this would clearly be an illegal act of retaliation).

Hopefully the Supreme Court has not opened up a loophole that religious institutions will exploit to avoid secular laws. Just remember for the future that if you are employed by a religious institution you are quite likely a second class employee not entitled to the rights the rest of us have.
 
Good. The fact this case even had to make it to the SCOTUS amazes me. Might as well create a rule saying there is now an official US religion and everyone has to join it...this case is as clear cut as that one.
 
Hopefully the Supreme Court has not opened up a loophole that religious institutions will exploit to avoid secular laws.

The constitution already guarantees this to an extent and that is what the SCOTUS stated in their decision. Since there is not really a nonsecular law I am confused by your statement to begin with.
 
Just remember for the future that if you are employed by a religious institution you are quite likely a second class employee not entitled to the rights the rest of us have.

Actually, you have it completely wrong.

Just remember for the future that if you are employed by a religious institution you should be of the same faith as that institution or at least understand that you need to follow the rules of that instution which were in place prior to you obtaining the job.
 
Hopefully the Supreme Court has not opened up a loophole that religious institutions will exploit to avoid secular laws. Just remember for the future that if you are employed by a religious institution you are quite likely a second class employee not entitled to the rights the rest of us have.
Pretty soon the courts will be using the religious laws of the religion in quest to settle social disputes.
 
That case was discussed before. As I recall the plaintiff was claimed she was employed as a teacher, the employer claimed they were employed as a minister because part of her duties (about 45 minutes per day) involved teaching religion and/or attending chapel with the students. Initially the plaintiff was fired for filing suit on her disability discrimination claim rather than trying to settle it internally as the defendant claimed their religious doctrine required (note-absent the religious issues this would clearly be an illegal act of retaliation).

Hopefully the Supreme Court has not opened up a loophole that religious institutions will exploit to avoid secular laws. Just remember for the future that if you are employed by a religious institution you are quite likely a second class employee not entitled to the rights the rest of us have.

From the case itself:

Petitioner Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School is a member congregation of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. The Synod classifies its school teachers into two categories: “called” and “lay.” “Called” teachers are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God. To be eligible to be considered “called,” a
teacher must complete certain academic requirements, including a course of theological study. Once called, a teacher receives the formal title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.” “Lay” teachers, by contrast, are not required to be trained by the Synod or even to be Lu-
theran. Although lay and called teachers at Hosanna-Tabor generally performed the same duties, lay teachers were hired only when called teachers were unavailable. After respondent Cheryl Perich completed the required training, Hosanna-Tabor asked her to become a called teacher. Perich accepted the call and was designated a commissioned minister. In addition to teaching secular subjects, Perich taught a religion class, led her students in daily prayer and devotional exercises, and took her students to a weekly school-wide chapel service. Perich led the chapel service herself about twice a year.

Perich developed narcolepsy and began the 2004–2005 school year on disability leave. In January 2005, she notified the school principal that she would be able to report to work in February. The principal responded that the school had already contracted with a lay teacher to fill Perich’s position for the remainder of the school year. The principal also expressed concern that Perich was not yet ready to return to the classroom. The congregation subsequently offered to pay a portion of Perich’s health insurance premiums in exchange for her resignation as a called teacher. Perich refused to resign. In February, Perich presented herself at the school and refused to leave until she received written documentation that she had reported to work. The principal later called Perich and told her that she would likely be fired. Perich responded that she had spoken with an attorney and intended to assert her legal rights. In a subsequent letter, the chairman of the school board advised Perich that the congregation would consider whether to rescind her call at its next meeting. As grounds for termination, the letter cited Perich’s “insubordination and disruptive behavior,” as well as the damage she had done to her “working relationship” with the school by “threatening to take legal action.” The congregation voted to rescind Perich’s call, and Hosanna-Tabor sent her a letter of termination. Perich filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that her employment had been terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC brought suit against Hosanna-Tabor, alleging that Perich had been fired in retaliation for threatening to file an ADA lawsuit. Perich intervened in the litigation. Invoking what is known as the "ministerial exception,” Hosanna-Tabor argued that the suit was barred by the First Amendment because the claims concerned the employment relationship between a religious institution and one of its ministers. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment in Hosanna-Tabor’s favor. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded. It recognized the existence of a ministerial exception rooted in the First Amendment, but concluded that Perich did not qualify as a “minister” under the exception.
 
That case was discussed before. As I recall the plaintiff was claimed she was employed as a teacher, the employer claimed they were employed as a minister because part of her duties (about 45 minutes per day) involved teaching religion and/or attending chapel with the students. Initially the plaintiff was fired for filing suit on her disability discrimination claim rather than trying to settle it internally as the defendant claimed their religious doctrine required (note-absent the religious issues this would clearly be an illegal act of retaliation).

Hopefully the Supreme Court has not opened up a loophole that religious institutions will exploit to avoid secular laws. Just remember for the future that if you are employed by a religious institution you are quite likely a second class employee not entitled to the rights the rest of us have.

The Court's decision is expressly limited to those employed as clergy. If a church hires a janitor, for example, the same rules apply as to them as to a secular employer.
 
Pretty soon the courts will be using the religious laws of the religion in quest to settle social disputes.

If all parties involved already agreed to use religious laws to settle their disputes, then they are bound to it. This has already been shown in court when Sharia Law was used to settle disputes between Muslims who had already agreed to use it.
 
The Court's decision is expressly limited to those employed as clergy. If a church hires a janitor, for example, the same rules apply as to them as to a secular employer.

If the janitor is prosletyzing for an alternate religion, he can be fired, but that is due to being a disruptive force and not due to his religion. Same thing if you try to convert people at any other workplace.
 
This seems a little strange.

While I agree a church should be free to hire/fire clergy based on religion, I don't see why they should be free to hire/fire clergy based on other forms of discrimination.

In this case, it seems the person was fired illegally due to disability. I don't see what first amendment rights need to be protected here. Unless this religion takes a specific stand against disabilities?

In addition, the church itself hired a non religious person to fill the role, and didn't designate the person as clergy. That should immediately deny them from the use of any religious exemption when dealing with hiring practices related to that role.
 
I think the problem here is really with the idea that an entity must persist in paying an employee to do a job that said employee can no longer perform. That is inherently unethical. Obviously, a teacher cannot teach if she is asleep at his or her desk, just as a narcoleptic surely cannot be a surgeon. Any job has responsibilities, and any employee unable to perform the related tasks is not fit for the job. The only ethically feasible interpretation of the ADA is that if a disabled person able to fulfill the responsibilities of a given position applies, I should not not hire them because they are disabled; similarly, I should not fire a qualified employee who becomes disabled while under my employ unless that disability renders he or she unable to perform the tasks required. Religion should have had no role in this case as it is simply a diversion created by the defendant in an effort to protect itself against a ridiculous (if legally sound) claim. Fix the ridiculous law that makes the ridiculous claim legally valid and we remove consideration of religion from this case - as it should be.
 
Just out of curiositiy, what would prevent a religious institution from claiming 'all its employees are ministers' and exempt from EEOC laws?

Certainly there are religious orders who have nuns or monks who do the various functions at the institution.
 
Just out of curiositiy, what would prevent a religious institution from claiming 'all its employees are ministers' and exempt from EEOC laws?

Certainly there are religious orders who have nuns or monks who do the various functions at the institution.

They would have to show the people perform duties of a minister for it to stick in court.
 
It does sound like LCMS is playing a little fast & loose with the job requirements; considering they hired a lay teacher to finish out the year. I'd be curious to know if the current teacher is lay or called.

As far as the narcolepsy is concerned, they may be on shaky ground as well, imo. I also have narcolepsy, and while I would disqualify myself from some occupations, teaching is not one of them. There are various degrees of narcolepsy and most can be dealt with through medication. My own symptoms are not those of classic narcolepy; falling asleep mid-activity or conversation; I suffer mainly from cataplexy, a temporary paralysis brought on by strong emotion (laughter, anger, etc.) It is under control through a stimulant & anti-depressant combination.

I don't believe the SCOTUS decided correctly and that this will ultimately cause more harm than good; having given the green light for religious institutions to side-step employment laws.

alzan
 
I think the problem here is really with the idea that an entity must persist in paying an employee to do a job that said employee can no longer perform. That is inherently unethical. Obviously, a teacher cannot teach if she is asleep at his or her desk, just as a narcoleptic surely cannot be a surgeon. Any job has responsibilities, and any employee unable to perform the related tasks is not fit for the job. The only ethically feasible interpretation of the ADA is that if a disabled person able to fulfill the responsibilities of a given position applies, I should not not hire them because they are disabled; similarly, I should not fire a qualified employee who becomes disabled while under my employ unless that disability renders he or she unable to perform the tasks required. Religion should have had no role in this case as it is simply a diversion created by the defendant in an effort to protect itself against a ridiculous (if legally sound) claim. Fix the ridiculous law that makes the ridiculous claim legally valid and we remove consideration of religion from this case - as it should be.
Re. the ADA, that is how it is written as I understand the law. Employers must make reasonable accommodations for a disabled employee, but they are not forced to continue employing someone who simply cannot perform the job's responsibilities. The employer must make a good-faith effort in this. They cannot invent an arbitrary job requirement just to eliminate a disabled employee.

Re, this ruling, I don't get it at all. Based on the information provided, it seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with religion other than the employer being a church. I agree it's reasonable to exempt churches from religious discrimination for clerics, but that doesn't seem to apply at all in this case. It was about her disability, not her faith. I don't see any justification for exempting churches from other labor laws.

The fact it was a unanimous decision suggests I'm missing something. Anyone here have the right background to explain what it is?
 
The justices appear not to have been. The EEOC on the other hand...

The EEOC's job is to try to ensure equal employment opportunities, thus the name. Clearly the system worked as intended, with the courts taking care of first amendment issues quite handily.
 
...

Re, this ruling, I don't get it at all. Based on the information provided, it seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with religion other than the employer being a church. I agree it's reasonable to exempt churches from religious discrimination for clerics, but that doesn't seem to apply at all in this case. It was about her disability, not her faith. I don't see any justification for exempting churches from other labor laws.

The fact it was a unanimous decision suggests I'm missing something. Anyone here have the right background to explain what it is?

I think the decision was saying that the right of religious organizations to hire who they wish for religious positions supersedes ALL possible laws that would otherwise govern employment. In other words, that the government can't interfere in those job choices in any way, for religious or non-religious reasons.

Although if that's the case, the New York Times should be exempt from employment laws for journalists for basically the same reason...
 
I still think the Govt. should pass a law that more or less says non-profits have to abide by ALL federal law or they can not be exempt from taxation.
 
Back
Top