The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that religious organizations enjoy a “ministerial exception” that shields them from antidiscrimination lawsuits by ordained employees who are terminated, even if on the basis of race, gender or disability. Hosanna- Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 578, confirms that the government may not establish selection criteria for clergy whom religious organizations can fire at will without fear of violating federal anti-discrimination laws.
Cheryl Perich was employed by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School (“HT”), a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Perich was a “called” teacher. As such she had, at the invitation of the congregation, undergone a course of theological study not required of her “lay” peers. Given the title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned,” Perich, in addition to teaching secular subjects, also taught a religion class, led her students in daily prayer and devotional exercises, and took students to a weekly school-wide chapel service, which she herself led twice annually. Perich developed narcolepsy and began the 2004-2005 school year on disability leave. When Perich notified HT’s principal that she would be able to return to work in February, she was advised that her position had been filled by a lay teacher. Perich refused the congregation’s offer of continued health benefits in exchange for her resignation. Rather, she threatened legal action and presented at HT for work in February. Citing her “insubordination and disruptive behavior,” the congregation rescinded Perich’s call and terminated her employment.
Perich filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which, in turn, filed suit against HT claiming that its termination of Perich violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. HT argued that the suit was barred by the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception” because the claims concerned the employment relationship between a religious institution and one of its ministers. The trial court agreed and granted HT summary judgment. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that although there is a ministerial exception grounded in the First Amendment, Perich did not qualify as a “minister” under the exception given that many of her duties were identical to those of lay teachers.
The Supreme Court, in reversing the Sixth Circuit, formally recognized a ministerial exception rooted in the First Amendment that prohibits application of discrimination laws to the employment relationship between a religious institution and its “ministers.” The First Amendment precludes government interference with the “free exercise” of religion, making it impermissible for government to contradict a church’s determination of who are its ministers. Accordingly, the Court ruled that notwithstanding the secular aspects of Perich’s employment, she was a minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, which “ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful ... is the church’s alone.” However, the Court refused to adopt a formula for when an employee qualifies as a minister; but hinted that a church’s determination of who its ministers are should be given deference.
Hosanna-Tabor confirms that religious institutions have a First Amendment right to terminate their clergy without fear of violating anti-discrimination laws. Accordingly, the ordained can be subjected to discrimination by their religious employers without legal recourse. However, despite its significance, the ruling in Hosanna-Tabor is quite narrow. In this regard, the Court acknowledged that the ministerial exception bars only employment discrimination lawsuits by ministers who challenge their church’s decision to fire them. The Court expressed no view whether the exception bars other types of suits, such as actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct, finding that “there will be time enough to address the applicability of the [ministerial] exception to other circumstances if and when they arise.”
Should you desire a full text of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC., or have any questions regarding its impact, please contact one of our Employment Practices or Clergy and Religious Institutions Practice Group members.
