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

[A'isha]

Then this is a pretty big slap at the 6th Circuit as well. Can't feel good to have your verdict unanimously overturned.

Oh, no argument here.

I just wanted to correct the impression that this was a case where "every official legal expert" thought this woman was wrong and had every court up the chain rule that she had no legal leg to stand on.

 

[crimresearch]

The Supreme Court did the same thing in Sacramento v. Lewis, not because they wanted to 'slap' anyone, but because public opinion was starting to affect policy and precedent.

After the ruling, there was no question that could seriously be argued in future cases.

I'm *guessing* this is a similar matter, not a rebuke of lower courts.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, no argument here.

I just wanted to correct the impression that this was a case where "every official legal expert" thought this woman was wrong and had every court up the chain rule that she had no legal leg to stand on.

Yup. Reminds me a bit of Rumsfeld v. FAIR. You'd think that law schools might have a decent idea about which sort of cases are worth pursuing, but not so much in that case. In fact, that case also involved a federal trial court ruling against FAIR, the 3rd Circuit ruling for FAIR on appeal, and unanimous reversal against the plaintiff at the Supreme Court.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with her that the church was not obeying the law and ruled in her favor (overturning the initial district court decision).

It was the church that then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Ah, thanks for the correction!

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[Bri]

Now that is some good double talk. Why would actually suing be just as much grounds for religion being the reason someone was fired.

Clearly teachers can always be fired if they sue for this reason.

No idea what you're saying here. The law says that ministers can be fired for not following the tenets of the religion. The religion has a tenet that disputes have to be worked out within the church. She stated that she was going to violate said tenet by suing them. They were within their rights to fire her, by law.

Why isn't actually suing breaking the tenet?

Churches may be hypocritical, but I am pretty sure that if threatening to sue is a violation of church tenets then actually suing is as well. Since the tenet seems to be about resolving the dispute internally, I think that makes it very clear that they could fire her for suing.

Presumably actually suing would also violate the tenet, but the church couldn't have fired her for actually bringing a suit since presumably she would have to be fired before she could file a suit claiming to have been fired illegally.

ETA: Maybe you can sue for someone threatening to fire you, but that's not what the church did. The church asked her to resign, then she told them she was going to sue, then they fired her. Had she not told them she was going to sue but instead, for example, refused to resign, and then got fired, she may have had a case (unless refusing to resign violates some tenet of the church).

-Bri

 

[BenBurch]

You could tax them just fine without amending the Constitution, nothing in it prevents that.

I was under the impression that it was some fear of unconstitutionality?

If not, let's tax them!

When I was a Libertarian, you would not believe how many Libertarians had scam churches so that they could claim their home as a parsonage and get a lot of tax benefits. And they were able to withstand audits, too. One of the reasons I am no longer a Libertarian.

I can see no reason why churches should not pay income and property and capital gains taxes. Period.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I was under the impression that it was some fear of unconstitutionality?

If not, let's tax them!

When I was a Libertarian, you would not believe how many Libertarians had scam churches so that they could claim their home as a parsonage and get a lot of tax benefits. And they were able to withstand audits, too. One of the reasons I am no longer a Libertarian.

I can see no reason why churches should not pay income and property and capital gains taxes. Period.

Two words: Church Tax.

The right to vote and the right to worship as you choose are two cornerstones of the constitution. If poll taxes are illegal then you can bet that taxing a church is too. You are by definition taxing the people who go to the church and, for lack of better wording (although I know they have their own way of phrasing it), pay to worship there. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Two words: Church Tax.

The right to vote and the right to worship as you choose are two cornerstones of the constitution. If poll taxes are illegal then you can bet that taxing a church is too. You are by definition taxing the people who go to the church and, for lack of better wording (although I know they have their own way of phrasing it), pay to worship there. Ain't gonna happen.

No, you are just not exempting the organization from things like property taxes. They can worship in someones home for free. It is just an ending of subsidizing religion.

A tax to be a member of the church would be up to the church, just like it is now. Some churches audit their members to be sure they are tithing correctly. But there would be no governmental fee for worship, just normal taxes on profits and property owned by the church.

 

[crimresearch]

Two words: Church Tax.

The right to vote and the right to worship as you choose are two cornerstones of the constitution. If poll taxes are illegal then you can bet that taxing a church is too. You are by definition taxing the people who go to the church and, for lack of better wording (although I know they have their own way of phrasing it), pay to worship there. Ain't gonna happen.

You are by definition taxing the for profit corporation in the competitive business of getting people to come spend money at *their* church, removing the current exemption isn't a 'Church Tax'.

 

[Alt+F4]

The law says that ministers can be fired for not following the tenets of the religion. The religion has a tenet that disputes have to be worked out within the church. She stated that she was going to violate said tenet by suing them. They were within their rights to fire her, by law.

I think there is more to this case than we know.

On January 30, Hosanna-Tabor held a meeting of its congregation at which school administrators stated that Perich was unlikely to be physically capable of returning to work that school year or the next.

Why would the school assume this if she was medically cleared to return to work? How is this an example of working out disputes within the church?

 

[Bri]

Why would the school assume this if she was medically cleared to return to work?

I'm not sure of the context of your quote or where it came from. But it might have been the church's explanation of why they hired someone to take over her position (because they thought that Perich would be unlikely to be physically capable of returning to work that school year or the next).

But if the quote is accurate and the church assumed she couldn't work even though she was medically cleared to do so, if her reaction had been something other than threatening to sue and they still fired her, she may very well have had a discrimination case.

How is this an example of working out disputes within the church?

What do you mean? Does the quote indicate that the church brought in outside lawyers or threatened to sue her or anything else that might be considered to violate the tenet of working out disputes within the church?

-Bri

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm not sure of the context of your quote or where it came from. But it might have been the church's explanation of why they hired someone to take over her position (because they thought that Perich would be unlikely to be physically capable of returning to work that school year or the next).

But if the quote is accurate and the church assumed she couldn't work even though she was medically cleared to do so, if her reaction had been something other than threatening to sue and they still fired her, she may very well have had a discrimination case.

I got the quote from here and here:
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2011/3mer/2mer/2010-0553.mer.aa.pdf
http://www.lexisnexis.com/community...cher-covered-under-ministerial-exception.aspx

[/quote]What do you mean? Does the quote indicate that the church brought in outside lawyers or threatened to sue her or anything else that might be considered to violate the tenet of working out disputes within the church?
[/QUOTE]

I mean that the school's actions don't demonstrate "working it out" within the church. They didn't want her anymore, they hired someone else. It seems to me that they had already made up their mind to let her go way before she threatened legal action.

 

[Bri]

I got the quote from here and here:
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2011/3mer/2mer/2010-0553.mer.aa.pdf
http://www.lexisnexis.com/community...cher-covered-under-ministerial-exception.aspx

So like I said, if the church assumed she couldn't work even though she was medically cleared to do so, if her reaction had been something other than threatening to sue and they still fired her, she may very well have had a discrimination case.

I mean that the school's actions don't demonstrate "working it out" within the church. They didn't want her anymore, they hired someone else. It seems to me that they had already made up their mind to let her go way before she threatened legal action.

My understanding is that they hired someone else while she was unable to work. When she returned, they asked her to resign. She then threatened to sue in violation of the tenets of the church. It's unclear to me whether the church would have been more willing to "work it out" in some other way had she not threatened to sue them.

-Bri

 

[crimresearch]

She held a dual role... as a teacher in a small private school, she was very likely on a term to term condition of employment, and they didn't bring her back after getting a replacement.

Had she not been a minister as well, she might indeed have had an ADA claim, but in her particular case, she couldn't exercise it for the reasons the Court gave.

A Catch 22 by all appearances.

 

[Brown]

A few points (and I apologize that I do not have the time to do a more extensive analysis):

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod does not generally ordain women as clergy. But in this particular case, women could be a sort of clergy. They could be "called" (a term used to describe employment of clergy) and may be commissioned as "ministers," and are distinguished from "lay" teachers:

The Synod classifies teachers into two categories: "called" and "lay." "Called" teachers are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God through a congregation.... Once called, a teacher receives the formal title "Minister of Religion, Commissioned." ... "Lay" or "contract" teachers, by contrast, are not required to be trained by the Synod or even to be Lutheran. ... Respondent Cheryl Perich was first employed by Hosanna-Tabor as a lay teacher in 1999. After Perich completed her colloquy later that school year, Hosanna-Tabor asked her to become a called teacher. Perich accepted the call and received a "diploma of vocation" designating her a commissioned minister.

Perich's decision to be a "called" teacher was her undoing. Very likely she saw the invitation to be "called" as a sign of increased status, and perhaps as a nifty way to save on her taxes, and perhaps an indication of greater job security, since (as noted by the Court), "lay teachers were hired only when called teachers were unavailable." But being a "minister"—in title, in training, in tax status and in duties (though most of her duties were of the "lay" kind)—made her subject to dismissal for any religious reason, even if the reason would have been illegal if applied to any other citizen.

The Court is on fairly solid ground in saying that the US government cannot tell a church who shall be or who shall not be its ministers. As I mentioned earlier,

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.

The Court noted that the congregation was to settle disputes between Perich and the school:

The congregation voted to rescind Perich's call on April 10, and Hosanna-Tabor sent her a letter of termination the next day. ... [T]his Court explained that the First Amendment "permit hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters." [Authority.] When ecclesiastical tribunals decide such disputes, we further explained, "the Constitution requires that civil courts accept their decisions as binding upon them."

As for whether the reasons given were legitimate reasons or phony reasons garbed in religious rhetoric, the Court said:

The EEOC and Perich suggest that Hosanna-Tabor's asserted religious reason for firing Perich—that she violated the Synod's commitment to internal dispute resolution—was pretextual. That suggestion misses the point of the ministerial exception. The purpose of the 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—a matter "strictly ecclesiastical," [Authority]—is the church's alone.

There is still some question as to the extent of the ministerial exception, as the Court left open the question of whether lawsuits other than employment discrimination lawsuits can be blocked. Justice Thomas, in a concurring opinion, also seemed to say that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod was plainly entitled to win in this set of facts, but he implied that not all religious organizations might win on other facts. Justice Thomas used "weasel words" in describing his view, suggesting that bad faith or insincerity on the part of the religious organization might lead to a different ruling:

I write separately to note that, in my view, the Religion Clauses require civil courts to apply the ministerial exception and to defer to a religious organization's good-faith understanding of who qualifies as its minister.... A religious organization's right to choose its ministers would be hollow, however, if secular courts could second-guess the organization's sincere determination that a given employee is a "minister" under the organization's theological tenets.... But the evidence demonstrates that Hosanna-Tabor sincerely considered Perich a minister.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito stressed the obvious point that though the term "ministerial exception" is used, it is not limited to "ministers." After all, most other religions don't have "ministers." Justice Alito said, "courts should focus on the function performed by persons who work for religious bodies." Justice Alito also felt moved to cite the passages attributed to Paul that Christians ought not sue one another, and to explain that it didn't really matter whether the church's reasons were legitimate or pretexual.

I said earlier that it was 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. Well, she pretty clearly was a minister under these facts, and the reason given for her termination was pretty well grounded in religious doctrine. But this raises at least two very intriguing questions.

First, what is to be done about the gamesmanship that takes place with employment disputes? Everyone who deals with this question KNOWS that gamesmanship occurs. The reasons given for firings are often not related to what really happened. Some "for cause" firings are trumped up, and some employees are deliberately entrapped (e.g., a favorite technique is that the employee is given an unreasonable assignment and is then fired for failure to do it, or for poor performance, or for insubordination when he protests). Does not this case give free rein to any religious organization to engage in gamesmanship to its heart's content? What incentive do religious organizations have to act in good faith or with sincerity?

Second, who in their right mind is going to want to be a minister? I can say with certainty that churches in general, and the Missouri Synod in particular, has its own set of "turf wars," ego battles, power struggles and the like, just as any large organization does, and I'll bet dollars to donuts every big religious association has them as well. Does this case not tip the scales in favor of the organization, and against the individual (who may be just as religious as the organization may be)? If you're an individual clergyman, this case pretty much gives your church (or some jerkwad who is above you and/or who has more "pull" with the higher-ups than you do) the right to screw you over, in spite of your rights as a US citizen, doesn't it?

 

[Triterope]

Second, who in their right mind is going to want to be a minister? If you're an individual clergyman, this case pretty much gives your church (or some jerkwad who is above you and/or who has more "pull" with the higher-ups than you do) the right to screw you over, in spite of your rights as a US citizen, doesn't it?

That was exactly my reaction.

The lesson here is that if you want to work for a religious organization in America, you have to adhere to their principles. Principles that void your right to use the court system. Principles that force you into internal mediation where they get to be judge and jury. Principles that give them the right to fire you over vague and arbitrarily applied violations of said principles. How conveeeeeeeeeeenient.

Which would be more appalling to me if it wasn't so consistent with my personal experiences in religion. They're all full of love and brotherhood and forgiveness as long as you're going along with their program. The minute you're not, it's a very different story.

The church won the case, but they revealed their true ugliness in the process. Churches have the right to select and control who will minister to the faithful. And they probably should have that right. But if this is how they're going to use it, they're going to have a tough time getting people to join them.

 

[Kopji]

I find the narrative almost like a dark parable...

One upon a time there was a teacher who loved children and God, and taught at God's school. She was very happy. Life was good.
She loved God and did well, and the congregation recognized that she had a calling from God to teach children, and that she should become a minister to children. And lo, it was made so.

Ha! saith God, gotcha. I shall make your life on earth a living hell. And lo, God smite her with an illness that let them fire her because she was a minister instead of a teacher.

And the moral of the story is, well, ah...
All's well that ends hell.

 

[pgwenthold]

So like I said, if the church assumed she couldn't work even though she was medically cleared to do so, if her reaction had been something other than threatening to sue and they still fired her, she may very well have had a discrimination case.

This was going to be my question. They "asked her to resign." What if she refused? They couldn't fire her, right? ADA and all that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This was going to be my question. They "asked her to resign." What if she refused? They couldn't fire her, right? ADA and all that.

No refusal to resign would be insubordination and appealing to the ADA would violate the tenets of her religion.

 

[Bri]

This was going to be my question. They "asked her to resign." What if she refused? They couldn't fire her, right? ADA and all that.

I believe that ADA makes it more difficult (but not impossible) to fire someone with a disability. I'm guessing that if she had refused to resign, the church would have had to prove that they fired her for a valid reason other than her disability or that her disability prevented her from being able to do her job. Or they would have had to have fired her for violating some other tenet of the church.

No refusal to resign would be insubordination and appealing to the ADA would violate the tenets of her religion.

But you're putting the cart ahead of the horse again. If she hadn't mentioned suing them, but had refused to resign, and they had fired her for some other reason (other than violating a tenet of the church), she could then have sued them and possibly won damages.

-Bri