Skip to main content

U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on Whether "Ministerial Exception" Applies to Catholic School Teachers


The U.S. Supreme Court accepted two cases out of the Ninth Circuit, in which the Court will consider whether the "ministerial exception" applies to two Catholic school teachers that filed discrimination claims against their employers.

As a bit of a refresher for readers, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in 2012, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and held that the "ministerial exception" under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment prohibited discrimination claims from being brought against churches or religious organizations.  As a result, under this exception, religious organizations were given leeway to hire and fire their ministerial leaders without government interference.  However, while the Supreme Court delineated four factors for a court to consider when addressing the matter, the Supreme Court declined to establish a clear cut test for determining who would qualify as a ministerial employee.  (The Court declined to take up a case in 2018, Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., which would have provided some clarity on the matter.)

However, with the Court accepting these two cases, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel, we might get some clarity on how the "ministerial exception" applies.  In Our Lady of Guadalupe School, the claimant filed suit for age discrimination after the school did not renew her contract.  In St. James School, the claimant filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act after she was diagnosed with cancer and the school did not renew her contract.  The district court in both cases granted the schools' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the "ministerial exception" applied.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court in both cases and held that the teachers were not covered by the exception on the grounds that neither the teachers nor the schools considered them to be ministers.

The Supreme Court consolidated the two cases (which makes sense given that they both ask the Court to address similar matters.)  While no oral argument has been set as of yet, I would expect this to get a lot of attention leading up to arguments and thereafter while we await a ruling from the Court.  Although it is too early to say for certain how the Court would rule, the Court's unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor in 2012 gives me reason to pause and suspect that the schools might again prevail here.  Bear in mind, if anything, the Court has taken on a more conservative tilt in recent years (with Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh being appointed since the ruling in Hosanna-Tabor), which could lead to a (strong) majority finding in favor of the schools.


For additional information:  http://www.bpnews.net/54096/court-to-review-ministerial-exception-rulings

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more