Iowa Law Blog : Iowa Lawyer & Attorney : Sullivan & Ward Law Firm : Iowa Law Blog

In the unanimous Hosana-Tabor v. EEOC decision issued January 11, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized for the first time a "ministerial exception" to virtually all forms of employment discrimination. The "ministerial exception" as announced by the Court is not a prohibition against asserting claims against religious organizations, rather an affirmative defense.

The facts of the case are straightforward: Cheryl Perich was employed by Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School as a "lay" teach in 1999. In 2000, she completed requirements to become a "called" teacher. A called teach has the formal title: "Minister of Religion, Commissioned." She taught mainly secular subjects, but did teach a religion class four days a week, led the students in prayer and devotional exercises each day, and attended a weekly school-wide chapel service. In 2004 she was diagnosed with narcolepsy, which required her to begin the 2004-2005 school year on disability leave. On January 27, 2005, she notified the school that she was able to return to school. The school principal responded by saying that her position had been filled and the school was concerned that she was not ready to return. On January 30, 2005 the church congregation voted to release Perich from her call and offering what amounted to a severance payment in return for a resignation. Perich declined and was terminated.

The Court discussed the history and implications of the Religion Clause contained in the First Amendment. The Court then recognized the "ministerial exception" stating:

The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. 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. 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. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According to the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.

The Court then concluded that Perich's position was that of a minister; therefore, the employment laws, specifically the Americans with Disability Act, did not apply. The court considered her calling, title, and circumstances surrounding her commissioning among other facts. The Court did note that title alone will not necessarily mean a church employee is a "minister".   The Court did not find it dispositive that Perich performed similar duties to that of lay teachers. Nor, did the Court find that the individual being considered a minister perform exclusively religious functions.

It is apparent that churches and religious organizations have wide discretion over their employment decisions, but should still be cautious when making those decisions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

About a year ago, I reported on the Westboro Baptist Church and their protest of a Drake University forum on campus.  If you'll recall, Westboro is the outfit that protests at military funerals claiming that military deaths are God's response to the US Government sanctioning homosexuality.  At the time of my first entry, the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear a case where a father of a fallen soldier sued Westboro for invasion of privacy, and Westboro argued for protection under the First Amendment

The Supreme Court issued its 8-1 ruling in favor of Westboro, finding that the protestors’ speech “cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.”  Chief Justice Roberts noted that it is the speech that we hate the most that oftentimes requires the greatest protection. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

On November 2, 2010, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants.  The case tests the constitutionality of a California law that bans the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.  The Court's ruling in this area will likely have a drastic impact on the status of First Amendment law. 

Supporters of the law provide studies that show a correlation between playing these video games and a desensitization to real violence.  They argue that this law gives parents more control over the actions of their children.  In terms of their legal support, supporters argue that these violent video games are akin to obscene sexual material, and the law prohibiting sale of these games to minors should be subject to a rational basis test, as opposed to strict scrutiny.

Opponents of the California law provide their own studies that deny any correlation between playing these games and the player's propensity to commit actual violence.  The law's opponents further argue that if violent video games are subject to this law, what would prevent states from prohibiting sales of books or movies that contain violence.  Further, what level of violence would the game need to contain for it to be regulated under the law.  Opponents argue that the California law restricts protected speech, and the law should accordingly be held to a strict scrutiny standard.

The transcript of the oral argument is linked above.  If you have the time, it provides interesting insight into how the US Supreme Court (and state supreme courts) have to deal with a number of legal precedent standards, statutes, and policy issues in each decision they make. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last weekend, the Drake Law School Constitutional Law Center hosted a symposium on same-sex marriage on campus.  Members of the ever-famous Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kansas came to the event to protest, displaying incendiary signs and shouting off-color remarks.  See the Des Moines Register piece on the event.  Luckily, the protest (and counter-protest of over 400 Drake students) was peaceful, and no arrests were made or lawsuits filed (yet). 

The Westboro Baptist Church has also protested at military funerals, essentially arguing that these military deaths are God's punishment to the United States for condoning homosexuality.  One father of a slain soldier in Pennsylvania brought a lawsuit against the church, arguing that the church's protest was an invasion of privacy and was an intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The church responded that its speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Interestingly, the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the case. 

This case represents a classic moral dilemma:  although one can sympathize with the father who likely wanted to mourn his son's death in quiet dignity, it is dangerous to prohibit types of speech that we find repulsive. 

Although this author believes the Court will ultimately side with the church, this case represents one of the truly fascinating aspects of legal theory (and made sitting through law school class bearable).  Stay tuned!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks