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

[crimresearch]

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.

"The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [text] contains a "ministerial exception" that allows religious organizations to give "preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion" and to "require that all applicants and employees conform to the religious tenets of such organization."..."

http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/01/supreme-court-upholds-ada-ministerial-exception.php

 

[crimresearch]

"The case before us is an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her.

Today we hold only that the ministerial exception bars such a suit. We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers. There will be time enough to address the applicability of the exception to other circumstances if and when they arise."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-553

 

[Sam.I.Am]

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

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Bri]

Isn't that what I said?

I may have misunderstood your post. This is what I was responding to:

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.​

Weren't you suggesting that she got fired because she lost control of herself rather than because she threatened to sue?

-Bri

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I may have misunderstood your post. This is what I was responding to:

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.​

Weren't you suggesting that she got fired because she lost control of herself rather than because she threatened to sue?

-Bri

Actually I think that the act of threatening to sue was the act that showed that she was losing control of herself. Usually when someone threatens to sue in that type of situation they are a bit hysterical and she also had to know what the churches stance was on going outside the church for arbitration although she may not have known about the ADA exception for churches in this situation when she said it and thought that she had a leg to stand on. The church apparently knew where they stood when they fired her.

 

[WildCat]

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.

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Great catch 22 trying to apply a secular law to them instantly makes it a religious matter.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I may have misunderstood your post. This is what I was responding to:

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.​

Weren't you suggesting that she got fired because she lost control of herself rather than because she threatened to sue?

-Bri

Her mistake was the crazy idea that church have to obey the law.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Until they claim that churches paying taxes is against their religion.

 

[Neally]

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

BO thought so. Fortunately the SCOUS unanimously disagreed.

 

[Bri]

Her mistake was the crazy idea that church have to obey the law.

The church was obeying the law. The law states that people cannot be fired due to things like religion. But it makes an exception for religious ministers, who can be fired for religious reasons. Say a minister of a Christian church decides to convert to Judaism -- it makes sense that the church could then fire him/her for no other reason. So the law says that ministers can be fired for not following the tenets of the religion.

The church's argument in this case (and the Supreme Court agreed unanimously) was that a minister broke a tenet of their religion by threatening a lawsuit (the tenet of the religion says that these sorts of disputes have to be worked out within the church).

Had she not threatened the lawsuit, but had just sued them, they wouldn't have been able to claim that she was fired for threatening the lawsuit and therefore that she had been fired for violating a tenet of the religion.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Actually I think that the act of threatening to sue was the act that showed that she was losing control of herself. Usually when someone threatens to sue in that type of situation they are a bit hysterical and she also had to know what the churches stance was on going outside the church for arbitration although she may not have known about the ADA exception for churches in this situation when she said it and thought that she had a leg to stand on. The church apparently knew where they stood when they fired her.

Even if she lost control of herself, she wasn't fired for that. She was fired for breaking a tenet of the church. My point was that had she not threatened to sue, but had just gone ahead and done it without threatening first, they couldn't have claimed to have fired her for threatening to sue (i.e. breaking the tenet).

-Bri

 

[ponderingturtle]

The church was obeying the law. The law states that people cannot be fired due to things like religion. But it makes an exception for religious ministers, who can be fired for religious reasons. Say a minister of a Christian church decides to convert to Judaism -- it makes sense that the church could then fire him/her for no other reason. So the law says that ministers can be fired for not following the tenets of the religion.

The church's argument in this case (and the Supreme Court agreed unanimously) was that a minister broke a tenet of their religion by threatening a lawsuit (the tenet of the religion says that these sorts of disputes have to be worked out within the church).

Had she not threatened the lawsuit, but had just sued them, they wouldn't have been able to claim that she was fired for threatening the lawsuit and therefore that she had been fired for violating a tenet of the religion.

-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.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Even if she lost control of herself, she wasn't fired for that. She was fired for breaking a tenet of the church. My point was that had she not threatened to sue, but had just gone ahead and done it without threatening first, they couldn't have claimed to have fired her for threatening to sue (i.e. breaking the tenet).

-Bri

Why isn't actually suing breaking the tenet?

 

[cwalner]

Even if she lost control of herself, she wasn't fired for that. She was fired for breaking a tenet of the church. My point was that had she not threatened to sue, but had just gone ahead and done it without threatening first, they couldn't have claimed to have fired her for threatening to sue (i.e. breaking the tenet).

-Bri

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. I guess the question then becomes whether the suit is allowed to continue and whether the termination can be considered as part of the case (since it happened after she file suit).

 

[Ziggurat]

Her mistake was the crazy idea that church have to obey the law.

But they did obey the law, as the 9-0 ruling shows pretty clearly. Unanimous decisions are a pretty good indicator that the losing side really had no case.

 

[theprestige]

Her mistake was the crazy idea that church have to obey the law.

But they did obey the law, as the 9-0 ruling shows pretty clearly. Unanimous decisions are a pretty good indicator that the losing side really had no case.

Especially since the ruling came from the Supreme Court, which means she was appealing the decisions of two or more lower courts, which also found that the church obeyed the law. She went to pretty much every official legal expert she could, and they all agreed that the church was obeying the law.

Clearly, her mistake was some other crazy idea, quite different from the one ponderingturtle proposes.

 

[A'isha]

Especially since the ruling came from the Supreme Court, which means she was appealing the decisions of two or more lower courts, which also found that the church obeyed the law. She went to pretty much every official legal expert she could, and they all agreed that the church was obeying the law.

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.

 

[Ziggurat]

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).

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

 

[crimresearch]

"Unanimous decisions are a pretty good indicator that the losing side really had no case. "


Or that the Court wanted to make a very clear point on a specific issue which was in dispute, which seems to be what they did here.