Church employees cannot sue for discrimination

[R.O.A]

Link

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a groundbreaking case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held for the first time that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination.

But the court's unanimous decision in a case from Michigan did not specify the distinction between a secular employee, who can take advantage of the government's protection from discrimination and retaliation, and a religious employee, who can't.

It was, nevertheless, the first time the high court has acknowledged the existence of a "ministerial exception" to anti-discrimination laws — a doctrine developed in lower court rulings. This doctrine says the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of such protective laws when the issue involves employees of these institutions.

The case came before the court because the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford, Mich., on behalf of employee Cheryl Perich, over her firing, which happened after she complained of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Writing the court's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said allowing anti-discrimination lawsuits against religious organizations could end up forcing churches to take religious leaders they no longer want.

"Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs," Roberts said. "By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments."

The court's decision will make it virtually impossible for ministers to take on their employers for being fired for complaining about issues like sexual harassment, said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

"Clergy who are fired for reasons unrelated to matters of theology — no matter how capricious or venal those reasons may be — have just had the courthouse door slammed in their faces," Lynn said.

But Douglass Laycock, who argued the case for Hosanna-Tabor, called it a "huge win for religious liberty."

"The court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders," he said.

But since this was the first time the high court has ever considered the "ministerial exception," it would not set hard and fast rules on who can be considered a religious employee of a religious organization, Roberts said.

"We are reluctant ... to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister," he said. "It is enough for us to conclude, in this, our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment."

Perich was promoted from a temporary lay teacher to a "called" teacher in 2000 by a vote of the church's congregation and was hired as a commissioned minister. She taught secular classes as well as a religious class four days a week. She also occasionally led chapel service.

She got sick in 2004 but tried to return to work from disability leave despite being diagnosed with narcolepsy. The school said she couldn't return because they had hired a substitute for that year. They fired her and removed her from the church ministry after she showed up at the school and threatened to sue to get her job back.

Perich complained to the EEOC, which sued the church for violations of the disabilities act.

A federal judge threw out the lawsuit on grounds that Perich fell under the ADA's ministerial exception, which keeps the government from interfering with church affairs. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated her lawsuit, saying Perich's "primary function was teaching secular subjects" so the ministerial exception didn't apply.

The federal appeals court's reasoning was wrong, Roberts said. He said that Perich had been ordained as a minister and the lower court put too much weight on the fact that regular teachers also performed the same religious duties as she did.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also placed too much emphasis on the fact that Perich's religious duties only took up 45 minutes of her workday, while secular duties consumed the rest, Roberts said.

"The issue before us ... is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch," he said.

The court's decision was a narrow one, with Roberts refusing to extend the ministerial exception to other types of lawsuits that religious employees might bring against their employers. "We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers," Roberts said.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote a separate opinion, argued that the exception should be tailored for only an employee "who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith."

But "while a purely secular teacher would not qualify for the 'ministerial exception,' the constitutional protection of religious teachers is not somehow diminished when they take on secular functions in addition to their religious ones," Alito said.

What effect is this likely to have?

[Darth Fanboy]

The immediate effect I see once the word of this ruling gets out is that well qualified teachers looking for employment stability will not want to mix the teaching and ministering portions of the job, and would focus on teaching exclusively so that their employer wouldn't have a loophole with regards to termination. The excerpts from Alito's opinion sum up my take on the matter rather well.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem that the teacher's firing was for the religious reasons that a ministerial exception exists for, unless somehow it is a part of that demoninations faith to not challenge wrongful termination in court.

[The Yosemite Bear]

so our mega-church can spend more money on a degree mill for homeschooled who never have to leave the protectiion of our propaganda egenda, heaven forbid we should be required to print anything in braile, or let the dog in....

[Edi]

That ruling is stupidly flawed in many regards.

If it's a theological issue, a church may require certain kinds of things (such as not being a homosexual, not allowing women to hold ministerial positions or similar), because as an association they are allowed to set rules.

However, if they start firing people because of a disability and there are specific laws against such on the books, it is not an issue of theology but something else entirely.

But the Roberts court taking the coward's way out and protecting churches and/or corporations yet again while shafting the small person is not surprising. If anything, it should have been expected.

[Flagg]

It was a 9-0 decision. So even the liberals on the court agreed with this.

[Themightytom]

Didn't they fire her after she showed up and started making a scene? I would expect the government to avoid this on grounds of not wanting to mess with theocratic hierarchy. Can you imagine a priest suing a bishop for transferring him because a parishioner alleged an act of pedophilia?

[S.L.Acker]

As if the various Churches needed more handouts and loopholes to work with... I'd love to see the day when churches start paying full taxes like any other business. Perhaps even bust them all for being pyramid schemes.

[Simon_Jester]

They're not pyramid schemes because there's no multi-level marketing going on. The "foot soldier" level of the organization (low level clergy) are salaried employees, not actively trying to recruit more people into the scheme on commission to become new foot soldiers.

Avon cosmetics are a pyramid scheme. The Catholic Church is not.

[S.L.Acker]

They're not pyramid schemes because there's no multi-level marketing going on. The "foot soldier" level of the organization (low level clergy) are salaried employees, not actively trying to recruit more people into the scheme on commission to become new foot soldiers.

Avon cosmetics are a pyramid scheme. The Catholic Church is not.

That's true, though the pressure to give a tithe to the church and to bring more people into the church is still there. So they still have low level people paying into the church and bringing new blood who will also pay in.

[Serafina]

By that logic, (secular) charities are pyramid schemes too.

[S.L.Acker]

By that logic, (secular) charities are pyramid schemes too.

I guess that line of logic wasn't as well thought out as I had hoped. Oh well, just taxing churches would almost be enough for me to be okay with this most recent ruling.