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, 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