Bookmark and Share
 

Legal Updates

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Discrimination By Religious Institutions

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed that a “ministerial exception,” grounded in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, bars religious ministers from bringing discrimination claims against their employers.  The Court’s decision, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, confirms that religious institutions have broad discretion in making employment decisions that affect their ministers.

Facts

Hosanna-Tabor, a Lutheran school in Michigan, categorizes its teachers as either “called” or “lay.”  Called teachers are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God through a congregation, and are required to complete significant theological studies.  Once “called,” a teacher receives the formal title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.”  Lay teachers, in contrast, are not required to be “called,” or even be Lutheran, and are hired by Hosanna-Tabor, for one-year terms, only when called teachers are unavailable.

As a called teacher, the plaintiff in the case, Cheryl Perich, taught math, language arts, science and music at Hosanna-Tabor from 2000 to 2004.  She also taught a religion class four days a week, and led her students in daily prayer and occasional devotions.

In June 2004, Perich fell ill with narcolepsy, which resulted in her taking a disability leave of absence at the start of the 2004-2005 school year.  In January 2005, Perich informed Hosanna-Tabor that she would be able to report to work the following month.  Hosanna-Tabor told Perich that it had hired a lay teacher to fill her position, and that, as a result, there was no position to which Perich could return.

As an alternative to reinstating Perich, Hosanna-Tabor offered to pay a portion of her COBRA premiums in exchange for her voluntary resignation.  Perich refused this offer and showed up for work on the day her doctor had cleared her to return.  After being asked to leave and informed that she would likely be fired, Perich threatened to sue for disability discrimination.  Hosanna-Tabor viewed Perich’s actions as inconsistent with the teachings of the Lutheran Church, and subsequently terminated her employment for “insubordination and disruptive behavior.”  In response, Perich filed a claim of disability discrimination with the EEOC.

Procedural Background

The EEOC brought suit against Hosanna-Tabor on behalf of Perich, seeking, in part, Perich’s reinstatement to her called-teacher position.  Hosanna-Tabor moved for summary judgment on the basis that Perich was barred by the First Amendment’s ministerial exception from challenging her termination.  The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Hosanna-Tabor.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the ministerial exception did not apply, because, in the court’s view, Perich did not qualify as a “minister.”  The Court of Appeals noted that Perich’s job duties were largely the same as those of Hosanna-Tabor’s lay teachers, and emphasized that Perich spent only 45 minutes each day performing purely religious duties.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court intervened in the case to clarify the legal standards governing the ministerial exception, which the lower federal courts had uniformly adopted but the Supreme Court itself had not previously recognized.

Supreme Court’s Decision

Reversing the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court unanimously held that Perich qualified as a “minister,” and that the First Amendment therefore required dismissal of her discrimination suit against Hosanna-Tabor.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court declined to adopt any specific formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a “minister.”  Rather, the Court indicated that this issue must be decided on a fact-specific basis.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court emphasized that both Hosanna-Tabor and Perich herself considered Perich to be a minister, and that Perich’s job duties involved conveying the Lutheran Church’s message and carrying out its mission.  The Court also found it significant that Perich claimed a special housing allowance on her taxes reserved for employees earning compensation “in the exercise of the ministry.”  Moreover, the Court deemed it irrelevant that Perich spent the majority of her work time in secular duties, stating that whether an employee qualifies as a minister is not an issue “that can be resolved by a stopwatch.”

In affirming the lower courts’ adoption of the ministerial exception, the Court noted that “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,” and that such restrictions would “interfere with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.”  In this regard, the Court emphasized that the ministerial exception is not limited to heads of congregations but applies to all ministers employed by religious organizations.

While Perich was fired for failing to comply with church doctrine, the Supreme Court held that the ministerial exception is not limited to instances in which an employment decision is motivated by religious tenets.  Rather, the Court emphasized that “[t]he purpose of the [ministerial] exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason.  The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful…is the church’s alone.”

Finally, the Court expressly limited its holding to employment discrimination claims, stating that it was expressing no view as to whether the ministerial exception might bar ministers from asserting other types of claims (such as contract or tort actions) against their employers.

Recommendations For Religious Employers

Because the Hosanna-Tabor decision makes clear that the determination of whether an employee qualifies as a “minister” must be made on a case-by-case basis, we recommend that religious organizations:

  • Ensure that all offer letters, job descriptions, employee handbooks and other employment-related documents are consistent with their understanding as to which of their employees are “ministers”;
  • Before taking an adverse employment action that might result in an allegation of discrimination, consider (in consultation with counsel) whether the employee is likely to fall within the ministerial exception; and
  • Keep in mind that non-ministerial employees remain free to assert claims of employment discrimination.

***

Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions you may have about the Hosanna-Tabor decision or how it may affect your organization.