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,...
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