Some Employees of Religious Employers Are Not Protected by Discrimination Laws
On January 11, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, definitively ruled that the First Amendment bars employment discrimination suits that challenge a religious organization’s decision to fire a “minister.” Although the “ministerial exception” has been recognized by the various Courts of Appeal for many years, this is the first time that the Supreme Court has weighed in on the matter. The case involved the firing of a “Called” teacher with a diagnosis of narcolepsy who alleged that she was fired after threatening to sue for disability discrimination. The case turned on the interpretation of the “Religion Clauses” of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Who Is a “Minister”?
While the Supreme Court found that there is a ministerial exception grounded in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the real crux of the decision centered on who qualifies as a minister for purposes of the exemption. The Court declined to adopt a rigid formula, instead indicating that such a determination would need to be made on a case-by-case basis. However, in its analysis, the Court provided useful insight on which factors should be considered in making that determination:
-
Title. For example, the Court noted that the individual in question was held out by the Church as a minister and held the title of “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.”
-
Significant Religious Training. Although the Court noted that title alone is not determinative, the facts of this particular case indicated that the title of minister “reflected a significant degree of religious training,” which included the completion of eight college-level courses in subjects such as biblical interpretation and church doctrine.
-
Conveying Religious Message and Mission. Additionally, the individual’s duties “reflected a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.” Notably, the Court rejected the position that an individual cannot be a minister when other lay individuals performed the same functions as the church-recognized minister. Specifically, the Court held that “though relevant, it cannot be dispositive that others not formally recognized as ministers by the church perform the same functions.”
-
Amount of Time Devoted to Religious Purposes Is Relevant but Not Determinative. Additionally, the Court found that the ministerial exception applied despite the fact that the plaintiff’s religious duties consumed only 45 minutes of each workday. The Court explained that, while the “amount of time an employee spends on particular activities is relevant in assessing that employee’s status,” that factor cannot be considered in isolation without regard to the nature of the religious functions performed.
-
Status of Religious “Minister” Prevents Any Further Inquiry into the Reason for Employer Action. Finally, and importantly, the Court held that once an individual’s status as a minister is determined, a court cannot look to the reason for the decision to fire the individual. In other words, if an employee is a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception, it makes no difference whether the decision to terminate was made for a religious reason.
Legal experts are hotly debating the future impact of this decision. While it is significant that the Supreme Court upheld the ministerial exception and a religious organization’s ability to choose who will preach their beliefs and teach their faith, the decision is narrowly tailored and does not significantly expand the ministerial exception previously recognized by the lower courts.
Religiously affiliated employers should take this opportunity to evaluate the status of those employees who may meet the tests for the “ministerial exception” because that employee’s status outlines the freedom the religiously affiliated employer has to make employment decisions free of judicial scrutiny.
The Court’s unanimous opinion can be accessed at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
If you need additional information on this topic, please contact
Craig Williams at cwilliams@wp.hallrender.com
Steve Lyman at slyman@wp.hallrender.com
or your regular Hall Render attorney.
