Merged Supreme Court's Newest Religion Case / Ministerial exception upheld

[Brown]

Are religious organizations able to exempt themselves from having their actions challenged in court?

A parochial school teacher was fired, she says, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. She threatened to file a government complaint, and got canned. Why? Ostensibly she committed religious insubordination by threatening to sue.

The dispute, you see, was supposed to be resolved within the church, and if you go to court--or even if you threaten to do so--well, that's a religious offense. And since this teacher was technically a minister (the church said), she could be fired for religious reasons and had no right to have even a day in court.

Read the oral argument transcript.

A couple of points: Resolving disputes within the church has at least some biblical foundation, notably in the writings of Paul. Although many believers pay little attention to Paul's distaste for lawsuits when it suits them, his injunctions are raised every time there is a dispute within a Christian church. Troublemakers are accused of being factious and taking matters to court in violation of Scripture. Merely questioning the authority of those who purport to wield it is, according to some interpretations, a grave offense to the Almighty.

Also, courts generally do not get into the business of settling religious disputes. If two parties have an available resolution process within the church (typically having a decision maker who has authority over both parties), then the courts let the church handle its own business.

But if there is no decision maker who is above both sides, that's a problem. Courts don't have to step out of disputes merely because one of the parties is a religious organization or claims to act with religious motivation.

And it's also a problem if the dispute, though shrouded in religious language, is (at least arguably) in violation of the laws that everyone else has to obey.

It is going to be difficult (but not necessarily impossible) for the Supreme Court to say to this plaintiff that not only does she not win, she doesn't even get a day in court; or that she doesn't even get a chance to prove that the religious "justification" for her firing is just a pretext for a reason that no one in the US (including churches) ought to be able to assert.

 

[MattusMaximus]

So if the court rules in favor of the church on this one, what are the implications for the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Ostensibly she committed religious insubordination by threatening to sue.

that's the case in a nutshell.

Frankly, I do not see how a reasonable person could justify a religious injunction of that sort.

 

[Brown]

Some commentators are writing about this case as though it presents difficult issues. But I'm not sure the issues are really all that tough.

You know, some churches are having trouble recruiting new clergy. They might find that it will be tougher still if they honestly tell their recruits, "Unlike every other US citizen, you will have no civil rights protection under law in your employment, provided that we justify our screwing of you with some sort of religious rationale...."

 

[Brown]

I should mention (again) that I had some previous experience with similar issues:

Often the church breaks apart as a result. Lots of feelings get hurt unnecessarily. There are often charges exchanged that the opposing side will go to Hell merely for disagreeing. This dynamic can explain why some rural areas have several churches... people can't get along with one another and go off and form their own church.

It was my fortune to intimately witness a spectacular meltdown of a church, in which most of the elders sought to control the church. They insisted upon retaining a minister who would go along with whatever the elders wanted, but who everyone knew was a "dim bulb." All dissent was crushed. Anyone who did not agree with the elders' party line (including at least one dissident elder) were summarily kicked out of the church for being "factious." About one-third of the members were summarily excluded from a church that they helped build (and for some, was the centerpiece of their lives). And what was the burning question that led to this meltdown? It was this: "Is baptism by sprinkling legitimate?"

Although I did not say so in the earlier thread, the meltdown was fought about in court. Nearly every witness at trial cited religious beliefs and quoted from Scripture. But in the end, the dispute had a secular issue (pertaining in this case to a matter of corporate law), and the secular issue was determinative. The Court decided the secular issue and flatly said it would not decide any religious issues (which, after all, were not determinative).

 

[Brown]

Decision was issued; no time for me to write about it now.

 

[BenBurch]

Damn. The church won. It is about time we change the first Amendment. Take the bit about religion out. Tax them like any other large business.

 

[Alt+F4]

What I don't understand about this case is how this woman thought she was a victim of employment discrimination? She was diagnosed with narcolepsy, which would make her unable to work as a school teacher.

 

[Alt+F4]

The dispute, you see, was supposed to be resolved within the church, and if you go to court--or even if you threaten to do so--well, that's a religious offense. And since this teacher was technically a minister (the church said), she could be fired for religious reasons and had no right to have even a day in court.

Do you know, was not suing a central, important belief of this church? I ask because recently one of my students asked my why Michael Vick couldn't use dog fighting as a religious defense.

As for whether Cheryl Perich was actually a minister I think the evidence clearly shows that she was.

 

[crimresearch]

I think this ruling leaves some people out in the cold, but I fail to see how it helps anything to whip up bogeymen that were never in the ruling.

Nowhere did the USSC say anything about churches being immune from criminal prosecution or lawsuits, this focused on a particular set of circumstances as to whether or not a minister who is an employee can file a discrimination claim under a statute that specifically exempts them.

This isn't the first case where the Court refused to fix bad legislation.

 

[Bri]

What I don't understand about this case is how this woman thought she was a victim of employment discrimination? She was diagnosed with narcolepsy, which would make her unable to work as a school teacher.

But she was fired for threatening to sue (apparently against the religion), not because she couldn't perform her job due to her disability. Oddly, had she just sued rather than threatening to sue, they wouldn't have been able to fire her for threatening to sue.

-Bri

 

[Alt+F4]

But she was fired for threatening to sue (apparently against the religion), not because she couldn't perform her job due to her disability. Oddly, had she just sued rather than threatening to sue, they wouldn't have been able to fire her for threatening to sue.

-Bri

Well it depends. Was the church's religious objection limited to threatening to sue or did it extend to actually suing? I'd be curious to know if learning what action to take in regard to potential employment discrimination was part of her training as a minister.

 

[leftysergeant]

A couple of points: Resolving disputes within the church has at least some biblical foundation, notably in the writings of Paul.

Jesus also opposed lawsuits, as recorded, I think, somewhere in Matthew.

There is no legal defense against the removal of the plaintif as a minister.

There is, of course, a good reason in all of this to refuse to give vouchers to children to attend parochial schools. Narcolepsy is kind of a disabling condition, but the lack of an appeals process that can be scrutinized by mundane authority is grounds to cut the school off from the public trough.

 

[crimresearch]

Jesus also opposed lawsuits, as recorded, I think, somewhere in Matthew.

There is no legal defense against the removal of the plaintif as a minister.

There is, of course, a good reason in all of this to refuse to give vouchers to children to attend parochial schools. Narcolepsy is kind of a disabling condition, but the lack of an appeals process that can be scrutinized by mundane authority is grounds to cut the school off from the public trough.

Or a good reason to fix the ADA.

 

[Alt+F4]

Or a good reason to fix the ADA.

I did some research and couldn't find the details regarding this aspect of the case. If her narcolepsy was being treated and was under control no reason not to take her back (unless they wanted the new teacher more than her), if she still had active narcolepsy she had no case.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

She tried to make it an ADA case when it clearly wasn't. She was offered her job back but she had to wait until the start of the next school year to get it because her replacement already had a contract until then. Her actions following that were what got her fired.

She was fired for not conforming to the religions established rules on how a minister should act. She violated those rules and the law clearly allows her to be fired for doing so. If those laws weren't in effect then it would be a clear violation of "Separation of church and State" by allowing the government force a church to have someone as a minister who doesn't conform to what that church thinks a minister should be.

 

[Alt+F4]

She was fired for not conforming to the religions established rules on how a minister should act. She violated those rules and the law clearly allows her to be fired for doing so. If those laws weren't in effect then it would be a clear violation of "Separation of church and State" by allowing the government force a church to have someone as a minister who doesn't conform to what that church thinks a minister should be.

I agree that a church has a right to fire a minister that violates the rules on how a minister should act. I just don't see how a non-religious dispute falls under those rules. Were there "established" rules in this church regarding law suits? What is to now stop any church from avoiding employment discrimination laws by claiming anything a minister does that they don't like falls under church rules? The bible has prohibitions against just about everything.

 

[Bri]

Well it depends. Was the church's religious objection limited to threatening to sue or did it extend to actually suing? I'd be curious to know if learning what action to take in regard to potential employment discrimination was part of her training as a minister.

I'm sure it would have extended to both, but she couldn't have been fired for threatening to sue unless she threatened to sue. If she had been fired for something else, they wouldn't have been able to say that she was fired for violating a religious tenet.

ETA: This article from NPR sheds a little light on the situation:

The court's ruling came in the case of Cheryl Perich, a teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School in Michigan. In 2004, Perich took leave when she was diagnosed with narcolepsy. But when her doctor certified her to return to work, the school asked her to resign, so she threatened to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"Their response was to fire me," Perich said. "I can't fathom how the Constitution would be interpreted in such a way as to deny me my civil rights as an elementary school teacher."

The school did not dispute that it fired Perich because of her threat to sue, but it maintained that part of its faith requires that such disputes be resolved only internally within the church.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided with the church, saying its actions were protected by the First Amendment's freedom of religion guarantee.​

-Bri

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I agree that a church has a right to fire a minister that violates the rules on how a minister should act. I just don't see how a non-religious dispute falls under those rules. Were there "established" rules in this church regarding law suits? What is to now stop any church from avoiding employment discrimination laws by claiming anything a minister does that they don't like falls under church rules? The bible has prohibitions against just about everything.

That's just it. She tried to make it a non-religious dispute in the courts and the court rejected her claims by agreeing with the defendants that it was over religious matters and not the ADA. The decision was 9-0 with no dissenting opinions so it's not like there was much to debate.

Also who said that her actions that led up to her being fired was actually filing the lawsuit. It sounds to me like it was how she acted when she was told that she would have to wait a set period of time before the job opened back up and that she would get it when it did. She lost control of herself and that's got her fired.

Most churches don't want people as ministers that can't control their own emotions in stressful situations. The position is one of leadership and that definitely isn't a leadership trait. There is no need to go into religious laws in this case if they don't want to other than to say that she didn't fit into what they think a minister should be.

 

[Bri]

Also who said that her actions that led up to her being fired was actually filing the lawsuit. It sounds to me like it was how she acted when she was told that she would have to wait a set period of time before the job opened back up and that she would get it when it did. She lost control of herself and that's got her fired.

According to the article cited in my previous post, she was fired because of her threat to sue and the church maintained that part of its faith requires that such disputes be resolved only internally within the church.

-Bri