Religious Institutions Afforded Ministerial Exception to Employment Discrimination Laws by a Unanimous Supreme Court

In what  religious leaders are touting as the most significant religious liberty decision in over 20 years, a unanimous Supreme Court on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 formally recognized a "ministerial exception" to employment discrimination laws, citing the First Amendment as a clear bar to government interference with religious groups' rights to determine who can act as its leaders.  The ruling clearly provides that it is impermissible for government to become involved in the hiring and firing of clergy.  Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 10-553 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2012).

The case itself revolved around the termination of Cheryl Perich, a teacher "called" by the church and designated as a commissioned minister, who was summarily terminated by the Church's school when she attempted to return to work after a 3-4 month approved disability leave.  Perich filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, claiming that her termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The EEOC brought suit against the Church and Perich intervened.  The District Court granted summary judgment in the Church's favor, resting its decision upon the "ministerial exception" and concluding that the suit was barred by the First Amendment because the claims concerned the employment relationship between a religious institution and one of its ministers.  The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded.  The Supreme Court granted cert, briefs were submitted and the case was argued before the Supreme Court on October 5, 2011.

In reaching its determination, the Court looked back to the creation of our constitution, examined the purpose of the First Amendment and also cited historical church property cases which supported the ministerial exception.  The court noted that, in the First Amendment there "radiates…a spirit of freedom for religious organizations, an independence from secular control or manipulation – in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine."  Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952).  Confronting the issue under the Constitution for the first time in Kedroff, the court recognized that the freedom to select clergy is part of the free exercise of religion against government interference.  Id.  In 1976, these First Amendment principles were reaffirmed in Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976).

The Court noted that these principles logically extend to the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers, thereby precluding application of employment discrimination laws against religious groups.  In so holding, the Court noted that the members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers and/or clergy.  Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or to punish the church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision.  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. 

Chief Justice Roberts, Jr. wrote; "The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important.  But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission."

The decision gave only limited guidance about how courts should determine who qualifies as a minister.  The court appeared reluctant to adopt a rigid formula in this regard.  However, the ruling will surely apply to ministers, priests, rabbis and other religious leaders as well as teachers in religious schools with formal religious training who are charged with instructing students about religious matters.  Religious Groups Given "Exception" to Work Bias Law, The New York Times, January 11, 2012.  Whether it will extend to teachers in religious schools without formal religious training who nonetheless teach religious matters as part of the school's curriculum or to a religious organization's administrators  is a matter of interpretation for the trial courts. 

Civil rights groups and groups advocating for the victims of sexual abuse by priests have already voiced their concerns that a broad ministerial exception might serve to insulate priests or other religious leaders from accountability for abuse and harassment.  This decision, however, does not close the door to such claims.  This is a narrow decision that leaves open all legal disputes involving ministers.  The only claim that is now precluded is a discrimination claim brought by the minister herself.  See, Unanimous High Court Finds for Church in EEOC Fight, The National Law Journal, January 11, 2012.

Special Case Law Alert - January 13, 2012