U.S. Supreme Court's First Significant Employment Decision of 2012
.jpg)
In a unanimous decision this week, the United States Supreme Court recognized a “ministerial exception” to federal discrimination laws. Hosana-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC The employment issue decided by the Court concerned the termination of Cheryl Perich, an elementary school teacher employed at a religious school.
Perich suffered from narcolepsy and was on disability leave from her teaching position. She demanded to return to her position, but she was denied the opportunity by church administrators, and she threatened to file suit for discrimination under the ADA. Her actions were determined to be insubordinate and disruptive and her conduct was viewed as damaging to working relationships, as noted in her termination letter. “According to the Church, Perich was a minister, and she had been fired for a religious reason-namely that her threat to sue the Church violated the Synod’s belief that Christians should resolve their disputes internally.”
EEOC filed a claim asserting Perich had been fired in retaliation for threatening to file an ADA lawsuit. The case turned on whether Perich’s teaching position fell under the “ministerial exception,” which prohibits most employment-related lawsuits against religious organizations by employees performing religious functions. The Court reviewed her job duties which included teaching a full secular curriculum, teaching daily religion classes, commissioning as a minister, and regularly leading students in prayer and worship.
The Court stated:
We agree that there is such a ministerial exception. The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. 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. 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 declined to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister, but offered an analysis which reviews multiple factors and considers all of the circumstances. Key factors include whether the employee: (1) is “held out as a minister;” (2) underwent significant training; (3) was formally commissioned; and (4) performs “important religious functions.” The Court went on to explain the exception may apply even if the clear majority of an employee’s duties are non-religious, and that non-religious functions took up a vast majority of the employee’s work.
Religious employers can breathe a sigh of relief, and even shout out praise for a prayer answered. Under this ruling, more church employees will qualify under the “ministerial exception,” thus protecting churches, synagogues, and temples from federal and state discrimination suits.
