Discrimination Laws Don’t Apply to Religious “Ministers”
In the realm of employment law, the “ministerial exception” prohibits the application of federal anti-discrimination laws to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. Exactly who qualifies as a minister under the ministerial exception is being determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis. Recently, the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, concluded that a music director at a catholic church was a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception. Because the ministerial exception applied, the music director’s lawsuit was dismissed.
Music Director’s Job Responsibilities
The facts before the Fifth Circuit were relatively straightforward. The music director was employed by the church from 1998 until he was fired by the parish pastor in 2007. As a part of the music director’s job responsibilities, he oversaw the budget and expenses of the church’s music department. He also managed the sound system, sound equipment, music room and music areas at the church. The music director rehearsed with the choir and played the piano during church services. He only worked during the evening and on weekends; other members of the church performed the day-to-day operations of the church’s music program. The music director did not perform any liturgical duties, as he lacked the necessary education and experience to do so.
The Music Director Is a Minister
The music director filed suit against the church alleging that his termination violated the ADEA and the ADA. The church, in response, argued that the music director’s claim was barred by the ministerial exception and that the lawsuit should be dismissed. In support of its arguments, the church presented evidence that, among other things, underscored the important role that music plays in the celebration of Mass. More specifically, the person who leads the music during Mass – Mass being a focal point of the Catholic faith – is an integral part of Mass and is considered by the church as a “lay liturgical minister” actively carrying out the church’s mission.
The court agreed with the church and concluded that the music director was a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception. The court’s conclusion was based in large part on the United States Supreme Court’s analysis in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, which explained that the ministerial exception is not reserved solely for the heads of religious institutions but that it also applies to those employees who conduct religious ceremonies and rituals, as well as those who serve as messengers or teachers of faith.
In determining that the music director was a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception, the court was persuaded by the church’s argument that the music director helped convey the church’s message to its congregants and furthered the mission of the church. The court, taking its cue from Hosanna-Tabor, also recognized that courts must defer to a religious organization’s good-faith understanding of who qualifies as its minister. And because the music director was a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception, the court was precluded from scrutinizing the church’s motives for termination. The lawsuit was accordingly dismissed.
Main Takeaways for Employers
For churches and religious institutions, the lessons from this decision are clear:
- Religious institutions have broad discretion in determining which of their employees they consider to be ministers.
- An employee’s lack of formal religious training is not fatal to a “ministerial exception” argument.
- Focus on whether the employee furthered the mission of the church, conveyed the church’s message or taught religious tenets to the next generation.
- If the “ministerial exception” applies, courts are precluded from analyzing the basis for termination.
For secular employers (employers that don’t consider themselves religious institutions), this case presents an important reminder that coverage/application of federal anti-discrimination laws is neither automatic nor absolute. Many federal employment laws aren’t triggered until the employer hits a particular employee “numerosity” threshold. Here are a few examples:
- ADA – 15 employees
- ADEA – 20 employees
- FMLA – 50 employees
- Title VII – 15 employees
- WARN – 100 employees
