Supreme Court Upholds Religious Exemption To Employment Discrimination Laws

[cybrsage]

That is not the same thing as applying Sharia law. "Laws were struck down which would prevent it" because those laws were pointless and unconstitutional. The only law we need to prevent Sharia law being applied by courts is the 1st amendment.

Felix already said it:

in contract cases that would be perfectly fine, and that's probably what he remembers seeing. the parties to contracts may choose which laws apply. that's well established.

The courts fully accept Sharia Law as binding when all parties involved agreed to it ahead of time. The first amendment has nothing to do with it...that is the government trying to force religion onto you.

 

[Fern]

Total misunderstanding of the opinion. Has anyone actually read it? It was a narrow decision and that's why it was unanimous. The government did not contend that ministers are subject to the anti-discrimination laws, but contended the teacher wasn't a minister. The court disagreed considering all the facts around her roles in the school, and determined that she had a "ministerial" duty, thus should be considered a minister, thus the church was free to discipline her.

It is true that this ruling indeed will effectively chill any whistle-blowing among those in the churches, since churches can retaliate for whatever reason (or no reason). And you wonder why sexual abuses of minors are so prevalent in some sects of various faiths.

My reading of the article is completely opposite:

The EEOC, meanwhile, aided by the Obama Justice Department, took the position that there should be no exemption to the application laws for ministerial employees at all:

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.

While the civil rights laws are not to be ignored, they are a matter of statute while the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses are part of the Constitution. Government involvement in the decisions that religious institutions make in hiring, firing, and compensation employees involved in their religious endeavors would clearly implicate, and violate, both of these provisions. This is why the Administration’s position before the Court was so puzzling. Given the opportunity by the Justices to endorse at least a limited ministerial exemption, the Solicitor General’s office instead chose to take the extreme position that no exemption at all should exist

Indeed, it may well have been the Government’s insistence on a hardline no-exemptions position that pushed the Court to not only decide this case unanimously but to come to the position that it did

Unless the article is completely incorrect, the Obama Admin absolutely took the position that there is no exemption whatsoever for religious/ministerial employees.

Fern

 

[Fern]

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.

Congress cannot pass a law that supersedes the Constitution. In this case the religious institution is exempt because of the Constitution (1st Amendment).

Fern

 

[Fern]

The justices appear not to have been. The EEOC on the other hand...

Exactly.

Fern

 

[Fern]

This seems a little strange.

-snip-

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?

Read some more. There's a lot more to it than just her disability. She wasn't fired for that. She was on disability leave and insisted upon returning when they felt she wasn't ready. And when she didn't get her way, she raised h3ll and went to the EEOC and that's contrary (apparently) to the church's/religion's tenets

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.

The church's policy is to only hire people non-religious IF no 'called' person is available. None was available so that's why they gave the job (temporarily) to them.

Fern

 

[Fern]

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?

Have a look at the info in post #10.

She wasn't fired for her disability. She had the disability, and the church knew it, long before she was fired.

The religious body felt her actions indicated she had lost her "calling" and it was rescinded. No calling, no job (and no temp position was available).

Fern

 

[Fern]

Just out of curiositiy, what would prevent a religious institution from claiming 'all its employees are ministers' and exempt from EEOC laws?

Lower case rulings.

If a church wanted to fight those they'd have to take it the SCOTUS which, apparently, has not yet ruled on the definition of ministerial employees.

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

My reading of the article is completely opposite:



Unless the article is completely incorrect, the Obama Admin absolutely took the position that there is no exemption whatsoever for religious/ministerial employees.

Fern

Given the amount of editorializing in the quoted text, I'm not sure how accurate the portrayal is. I would agree that NO exemption for religious employment is probably going too far. But neither should religious employment totally prevent the application of labor laws. The exemption should be for religious factors only, IMO. A church can fire someone for not practicing the right faith in a way a normal business cannot. On the other hand, firing them for being disabled (for example) has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

 

[Rainsford]

Congress cannot pass a law that supersedes the Constitution. In this case the religious institution is exempt because of the Constitution (1st Amendment).

Fern

I'm not sure the 1st amendment grants religious organizations exemption from taxation any more than it grants the New York Times a similar exemption. And for that matter, I'm not entirely convinced a church gets exemption from employment laws when a news organization does not except in very specific circumstances related to exercising religion or engaged in freedom of the press activities.

 

[Fern]

Given the amount of editorializing in the quoted text, I'm not sure how accurate the portrayal is. I would agree that NO exemption for religious employment is probably going too far. But neither should religious employment totally prevent the application of labor laws. The exemption should be for religious factors only, IMO. A church can fire someone for not practicing the right faith in a way a normal business cannot. On the other hand, firing them for being disabled (for example) has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.

Read the info in post #10.

She wasn't fired for her disability.

She was fired for not practicing the church's definition of faith. Her "calling" was rescinded etc.

Note: I have not read the case but it looks rather narrow and specific to this one individual to me. About the only precedent I see is that the govt is wrong in asserting that religions get no exemption whatsoever.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I'm not sure the 1st amendment grants religious organizations exemption from taxation any more than it grants the New York Times a similar exemption. And for that matter, I'm not entirely convinced a church gets exemption from employment laws when a news organization does not except in very specific circumstances related to exercising religion or engaged in freedom of the press activities.

I wasn't aware that religious institutions were granted exemptions from taxation via the 1st Amendment. In fact I would guess they are not. Tax law is written extremely efficiently. There are no redundancies. Churches are granted non-tax status in section 501(c). If they were constitutionally exempted I doubt they would have bothered to codify it in federal statutes.

This is second time you made reference to the NYT and I am puzzled by it as I see no similarities (other than both freedom of speech and religion being covered under the 1st). Care to explain?

Fern

 

[actuarial]

Read some more. There's a lot more to it than just her disability. She wasn't fired for that. She was on disability leave and insisted upon returning when they felt she wasn't ready. And when she didn't get her way, she raised h3ll and went to the EEOC and that's contrary (apparently) to the church's/religion's tenets

Okay, so let's base it on that. Should not reporting crimes be allowed as a legitimate religious belief? It's already established that all religious beliefs are not allowed (human sacrifice, for example), and I think this should certainly fall under that as well.

The church's policy is to only hire people non-religious IF no 'called' person is available. None was available so that's why they gave the job (temporarily) to them.

Fern

If this was legitimately about religious beliefs, they should have been more than able to give her the job back until a called person could be found. Knock her down from called to lay and look to replace her.

Was she as capable as the person she was replaced with (even temporarily) to do the job? If not, why?

 

[1prophet]

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.

Then you open the flood gates to them politicking, the very thing religious organizations give up in lieu of taxation.

 

[1prophet]

I'm not sure the 1st amendment grants religious organizations exemption from taxation any more than it grants the New York Times a similar exemption. And for that matter, I'm not entirely convinced a church gets exemption from employment laws when a news organization does not except in very specific circumstances related to exercising religion or engaged in freedom of the press activities.

The right to openly engage in politics (a first amendment right) is what they give up for their tax exemption.

 

[Fern]

Okay, so let's base it on that. Should not reporting crimes be allowed as a legitimate religious belief? It's already established that all religious beliefs are not allowed (human sacrifice, for example), and I think this should certainly fall under that as well.

"Crime"?

No crime here. There are two kinds of 'laws' to violate; criminal and civil. She filed a civil complaint. As with pretty much any disagreement between parties nothing says you can't discuss it with the other party before filing a complaint/action/suit. Nothing says you have to either (AFAIK).

If this was legitimately about religious beliefs, they should have been more than able to give her the job back until a called person could be found. Knock her down from called to lay and look to replace her.

Was she as capable as the person she was replaced with (even temporarily) to do the job? If not, why?

She wasn't working when she was fired. You seem to think she was.

She was on disability leave well before being fired. IIRC, the person who 'replaced' her had been hired while she was on leave. Why would they fire that replacement to give her a temp job?

Fern

 

[Fern]

The right to openly engage in politics (a first amendment right) is what they give up for their tax exemption.

Yes. That's the rule under Internal Revenue Code section 501. Tax law forbids (certain) no-profits from (direct) politics. (However, non-profits can engage in politics, it's just that they would qualify as a different type of non-profit where contributions are not tax deductible by the donor. E.g., political campaigns are non-profit, but under a different classification than churches etc.)

Fern

 

[lopri]

My reading of the article is completely opposite:

Unless the article is completely incorrect, the Obama Admin absolutely took the position that there is no exemption whatsoever for religious/ministerial employees.

Fern

The article is incorrect. Not completely, but enough to leave false impression. As a matter of fact, the court itself did not say the exemption goes beyond the "ministers."

The SCOTUS opinion: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (PDF)

Held:

1. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws.

2. Because Perich was a minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of this employment discrimination suit against her religious employer. (emphasis mine)

The only contention between the court and the government was the following part, and the court did not make any determination other than the one person in question. (Thus a unanimous decision. If the conservatives attempted to spell out a ridiculously wide definition for ministerial exception, the decision would have been quite different)

(a) The ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation. The Court, however, does not adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister. Here, it is enough to conclude that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment. Hosanna-Tabor held her out as a minister, with a role distinct from that of most of its members. That title represented a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning. Perich also held herself out as a minister by, for example, accepting the formal call to religious service. And her job duties reflected a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission: As a source of religious instruction, Perich played an important part in transmitting the Lutheran faith. (emphasis mine)

 

[lopri]

Now, it is true that the Justice Department wanted to draw a bright-line rule: No exemption except for "designated" ministers. (i.e. those with official title within a church) But that is absolutely understandable position if you were to apply laws in a predictable manner (who is covered and who is not), and the court did not say that every employee of a religious organization is exempt from the anti-discrimination law. (They obviously can't. No one in the right mind will claim the 1st amendment protects churches, let alone their affiliates, as a law-free zone - though unfortunate reality is they sometimes are.. especially when it comes to matters pertaining to sex and/or discrimination)

This decision leaves the determination of "ministers" in the hands of individual judges, case-by-case. A terrible decision which provides very little guidance for the lower courts, and definitely chills whistle-blowing of churches' wrongdoings.

 

[cybrsage]

A church can fire someone for not practicing the right faith in a way a normal business cannot.

Depending on your job, a business can fire you for not supporting the company properly. For example, an advertising executive for Pepsi blogging about how much he loves Coca-Cola and how much he really hates Pepsi.