Supreme Court recognizes ministerial exception in discrimination laws

In what the New York Times hailed as its "most significant religious liberty decision in two decades," the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that religious institutions have the freedom to handle the employment of their leaders without involvement of the government, negating the federal employment discrimination laws.

The case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was decided on Jan. 11 and centered on Cheryl Perich, a teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School.

Perich, until her diagnosis of narcolepsy, taught both secular and religious subjects at Hosanna-Tabor.  In 2004, Perich took a leave of absence for disability, but, when cleared by her doctors to resume her duties in 2005, she found the school had already replaced her, even though she had refused a severance package.  

According to a New York Times article, when Perich informed the school she was being represented by counsel, she was terminated because she violated religious doctrine by pursuing litigation, instead of resolving the problem within the church.  

Christopher ‘Scott' Peters, associate professor of political science at the University of Northern Iowa, explained the ruling showed the court's view "that in order to control their religious doctrines and teaching, churches have to have control over who they recognize and employ as ministers."

"The court said that it is crucial to the exercise of religion and that it trumps the state's interest in non-discrimination," Peters said.

Peters said it is hard to determine what effect the case will really have.

"There have been other cases over the years that have said similar things," Peters said.  "The overall effect of the decisions will hinge subsequent cases defining who is a minister and who is not."

He said the effect depends on "how much leeway the churches are given."

Referencing historical documents such as the Magna Carta, where King John agreed that the church "shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired," John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote that the court recognizes ministerial exception, according the original case document.  

"The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers," Roberts wrote in the document. "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."

Roberts said "such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs."

He said, though the court agrees ministerial exception should not only apply to the heads of religious congregations, they are "reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister."

"It is enough for us to conclude, in this our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment," Roberts wrote. Peters said Clarence Thomas, an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote a concurring opinion that goes even further than the opinion of Roberts.  

Thomas said courts should "defer to religious organizations' good-faith understanding of who qualifies as a minister."

"The question whether an employee is a minister is itself religious in nature, and the answer will vary widely," Thomas wrote. "Judicial attempts to fashion a civil definition of ‘minister' through a bright-line test or multifactor analysis risk disadvantaging those religious groups whose beliefs, practices and membership are outside of the ‘mainstream' or unpalatable to some."

Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan, associate justices of the Supreme Court, wrote another concurring opinion that grappled with the issue of who exactly is a minister and how it would apply more broadly.

In his opinion, Alito wrote, "virtually every religion in the world is represented in the population of the United States."

"It would be a mistake if the term ‘minister' or the concept of ordination were viewed as central to the important issue of religious autonomy that is presented in cases like this one," Alito wrote.  "Instead, courts should focus on the function performed by persons who work for religious bodies."

Peters said their view is "only recognizing someone as a minister if those duties are integral to the mission of the church."