In a landmark decision, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, No. 10-553 (Jan. 11, 2012), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws for religious organizations. This exception prevents “ministers” of religious organizations from suing their employers for violations of employment discrimination laws.
Facts of the Case
In Hosanna-Tabor, Cheryl Perich worked at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, where she taught both religious and secular classes and lead students in prayer. In 2004, Perich took a medical leave of absence, and was ultimately fired from the school upon her return. Perich sued the school claiming she was terminated in retaliation for asserting her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law which protects the rights of individuals with disabilities.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Perich’s claim, holding that, pursuant to the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, religious organizations had the freedom to select their leaders. The Court reasoned that applying employment discrimination laws to the termination of ministers by religious organizations would have the effect of “interfer[ing] with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.”
Implications for Religious Employers
The ministerial exception only applies to “ministers” of religious organizations who sue their religious employers for employment discrimination. The determination of whether an individual is a “minister” is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account such factors as: (a) whether the individual has a religious title; (b) whether the individual completed religious schooling; (c) whether the individual holds himself/herself out as a religious leader; and (d) whether the individual performs religious duties.
In Hosanna-Tabor, the Supreme Court found that Perich qualified as a “minister,” because she studied Christian theology at a Lutheran college, taught religious classes, lead students in prayer, held the title of a “called” teacher (e.g., one who completed a colloquy program at a Lutheran college or university, as opposed to a “lay teacher” who is not required to undergo religious training), and claimed a special housing allowance on her taxes for those who earned their compensation “in the exercise of the ministry.”