While religious freedoms are typically viewed as a subset of civil liberties, there are certain allowances made for the former that occasionally foster a divisive relationship between the two.
It often falls upon the Supreme Court to resolve these legal disagreements, and a case they are facing this judicial session once again positions the sacred against the secular.
The issue in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the extent religious organizations must adhere to laws that prohibit discrimination in employment.
Ultimately, the Court’s decision has the potential to refine the definitions of the terms “minister” and “church function.”
On its surface, the case of Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a simple employee discrimination lawsuit.
Cheryl Perich was an elementary teacher at a Michigan school run by the Lutheran affiliated Hosanna-Tabor Church. In 2004, she was diagnosed with the debilitating sleep disorder narcolepsy and required several months of treatment before she was able to attempt to work again.
In that time, the school understandably filled her position with a substitute, and due to questions surrounding her ability to meet the demands of the classroom setting, strongly suggested to Perich that she not return.
Predictably, Perich threatened to sue the school for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The school unequivocally retaliated against Perich’s threat by firing her. The school argued that because Perich was employed by a private school affiliated with a religious organization, her job was in fact ministerial, and inherently religious in nature. As such, the mere suggestion that Perich violated some aspect of the Lutheran Church’s bylaws was sufficient grounds to dismiss her, and the action was not subject to the anti-discriminatory laws that govern secular employees.
At this point the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stepped in and filed a formal suit against the school. The proceedings eventually found their way to the Supreme Court. The primary question the court faces in this case is, does merely working for a religious affiliated organization automatically qualify the employee as a ministerial worker even if the job itself is not overtly religious?
Arguably, aspects of a religion’s belief system carry over to any of its affiliates, and all employees work in agreement with and advocate for these ideas. Given the source, religious principles can be both arbitrary and intolerant of others, so employees can be fired at the will of the organization.
The school’s actions against Perich were morally objectionable, but they were entitled to do so under existing federal law. The Constitution’s guarantee to protect religious practices from government intrusion tacitly grants religious organizations the right to freely discriminate against others who share differing beliefs. Such provisions are necessary because all religions are inherently exclusionary.
For each particular faith the world is divided into believers and non-believers, and were the government to forcibly prohibit such segregation, it would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly omits religious organizations from having to abide by Equal Employment Opportunity mandates.
Obviously, religious organizations are not immune to all forms of governmental oversight. Past legal cases have established that the government can rightfully intervene in religious affairs when it has a compelling interest, specifically when an organization violates a criminal law. No religious group has sanction to threaten the use of physical force or engage in organized criminal activity such as drug trafficking.
On the other hand, civil matters should be handled internally by religious groups, and if they feel the need to exclude some groups for whatever reason, or for no reason at all, it is within their rights to do so. This calls to mind an adage: What is right is not always legal, and what is legal is not always right.
The Supreme Court should rule in favor of the Lutheran school out of respect to federal laws. However, it should also emphasize that the importance of its decision lies not with what it allows but with what it reveals.
That is, some religious organizations have no reservations in testing the boundaries of the First Amendment and would rather dally around with legal definitions and loopholes than conduct themselves in accordance with a higher moral code.
Marc Anderson is a 3rd-year cell biology Ph.D. student and may be reached at [email protected].
She was not working in a ministerial role… courts have already ruled that non ministerial positions are not protected a by church-state separation (janitors, grounds keepers and the like) teachers will be added to this list with the courts. The church doesn't have a right to sidestep and trample on the law simply because they are a church. Such an ungodly act of vendictive retribution by a church? Makes me ashamed to be a Lutheran
I love it, when churches, confronted with their own stupidity, try to hide behind canonical law. So, the teacher was a minister (in effect). Really? So, I'm guessing, since the church KNEW this, they made sure she had a state-issued ministerial licence. No? Oops. The problem is not one of a nettlesome legal issue, it's why do these morons keep doing the wrong thing, thereby exposing themselves to litigation? Will they ever learn that church policy and law is not sacrosanct?
This, 100%.
State Ministerial license does not have anything to do with who is or is not a minister of faith. It is merely a requirement that is needed if the minister wishes to be able to solemnify a marriage under civil law. So anyone can be a minister. They only need a license if they wish to be able to preside over a marriage. This is so that their signature on the marriage license/certificate will be legal. Teachers are not the same as gardeners or janitors. A gardener or janitor can do their job without affecting church doctrine. A teacher cannot. They must be able to answer questions and provide guidance based on the faith of the school for which they work. Were the Supreme Court to decide in favor of the teacher in this instance, it would open the door for other teachers to demand they not be discriminated against on the basis of faith. In other words an Atheist could demand that they be hired to work at a Christian school. Or a Baptist Minister demand they be able to work for a Muslim school. It's not as simple as you try to make it out to be.
What are you TALKING about? This woman was fired due to her narcolepsy; it had nothing whatsoever to do with faith. I repeat: NOTHING whatsoever. But you certainly make a brilliant and compelling argument, what with your false analogies and slippery slope fallacies. With all due respect, sir (which is incidentally not a whole lot), you are a dolt and a half.
I love it, when churches, confronted with their own stupidity, try to hide behind canonical law. So, the teacher was a minister (in effect). Really? So, I'm guessing, since the church KNEW this, they made sure she had a state-issued ministerial licence. No? Oops. The problem is not one of a nettlesome legal issue, it's why do these morons keep doing the wrong thing, thereby exposing themselves to litigation? Will they ever learn that church policy and law is not sacrosanct?
The woman in this case was not fired due to her narcolepsy. She was fired because she threatened to sue the school instead of going through the Lutheran Church's conflict resolution process. She had said that she was coming back several times, and did not follow through on those dates. The school had combined 3 grades together to make up for her being gone from teaching, and after a while, had to contract with a substitute for long term. After doing this, Ms Perich set her date for a month later. The school still had reservations about the safety of the students, because she had still told her doctor she was experiencing sleeping problems. When the school said that with contracting the substitute for the rest of the school year (this was in january) and her medical issues, they thought it best if she came back at the start of the next school year. She said that if they didnt give her the position back at the end of february, she would sue. Because the LCMS (lutheran church missouri synod) has a conflict resolution system, she was free to go through that process (which she never tried), when she decided to sue, the school fired her.
by the way. the school is now defunct.
http://reporter.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=19…