Skip to main content

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal on Ministerial Exception For Religious Discrimination Claims


In February, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in a case that dealt with the ministerial exception in regard to discrimination claims brought against employers.  


Facts:  The case, Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., dealt with a Hebrew teacher, Miriam Grussgott ("Grussgott"), that sued her former employer on the grounds that she was improperly terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  The employer, the Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc. ("Day School"), argued that Grussgott's religious role at the school fell within the ministerial exception and thus barred her ADA claim.

For those unaware, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, the United States Supreme Court adopted the ministerial exception to employment discrimination claims.  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 Court declined to establish a clear cut test for determining who would qualify as a ministerial employee.  (Can you see what question Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc. asked the Seventh Circuit to address?)

Holding:  In Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., Grussgott argued that she fell outside the ministerial exception as the Day School was not a religious institution because it did not adhere to Orthodox principles, employed a rabbi only in an advisory capacity (rather than a supervisory role), and had a nondiscrimination policy in place.  The Seventh Circuit dismissed each of the three arguments raised by Grussgott and instead pivoted its analysis to whether Grussgott's role could be considered ministerial.  While Grussgott's job title (as she identified as "grade school teacher" rather than "lay leader") and her holding herself out to the public not as an ambassador of the Jewish faith but rather as a teacher of historical, cultural, and secular matters all cut against applying the ministerial exception, the Court did point out that the substance reflected in Grussgott's job title weighed heavily in favor of applying the exception.  In this instance, teachers at the Day School were expected to follow the unified Tal Am curriculum (as teachers were expected to integrate religious teachings into their lessons).  As well, Grussgott's own resume touted her significant religious teaching experience (which was apparently a factor in her being hired by the Day School).

In addition, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Grussgott performed "important religious functions" at the Day School.  Grussgott was found to have taught her students about Jewish holidays, prayer, and weekly Torah readings.  Grussgott also prayed alongside her students and performed religious rituals with them.  The Court disregarded Grussgott's argument that she remained a secular employee because she voluntarily participated in these actions rather than being required to do so.  However, the Court was unswayed as it pointed out that the Day School clearly intended for her role to be connected to the school's Jewish mission.

Judgment:  Applying the four factors from Hosanna-Tabor, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court intended for its decision to impose a totality of the circumstances test, rather than requiring all four factors be satisfied to apply the ministerial exception.  Consequently, the Seventh Circuit held that Grussgott's role fell within the ministerial exception, thus her ADA claim against the Day School was barred.


In November, the Supreme Court declined to take the case on appeal from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  To the disappointment of many, the Supreme Court passed on the opportunity to further define the "ministerial exception" from Hosanna-Tabor.  While the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal without comment, I would suspect that if other circuits issue decisions in conflict with the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., another case will be taken up by the Court to resolve the dispute among circuits.

Stay tuned.


For a copy of Grussgott's appeal to the United States Supreme Court:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-125/55754/20180727144345598_00000001.pdf

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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more