Supreme Court Watch: Hosanna-​​Tabor v. EEOC

Hosanna-​​Tabor Lutheran Church

Hosanna-​​Tabor v. EEOC asks a series of fas­ci­nat­ing ques­tions about the First Amend­ment, the Sep­a­ra­tion of Church and State, the rights of employ­ees, and the con­sti­tu­tional lim­i­ta­tions of the Fed­eral gov­ern­ment. See here for the offi­cial filing.

The Lit­i­gants

The Hosanna-​​Tabor Evan­gel­i­cal Lutheran Church in Red­ford, Michi­gan was founded in 1955 as the amal­gam of the Tabor Lutheran Church (estab­lished 1916) and the Hosanna Lutheran Church (est. 1948). There is a parochial school attached to the church, the Con­cor­dia Lutheran School, which was sued in 2004, by the Equal Employ­ment Oppor­tu­nity Com­mis­sion (EEOC), under the Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act (ADA), for fir­ing a teacher. The Church is appeal­ing the right of the EEOC to sue, and claim­ing the ADA does not apply. The ques­tion before the court is not the mer­its of the under­ly­ing case, but rather whether the suit should be allowed. Hosanna-​​Tabor is thus the Peti­tioner, and the EEOC is the Respondent.

The Back­ground

In 2004, a teacher at the Con­cor­dia Lutheran School, Cheryl Perich, became ill and was forced to take a months-​​long leave of absence, dur­ing which she col­lected dis­abil­ity pay­ments. She was finally diag­nosed with nar­colepsy, received treat­ment, and pro­nounced able to return to work with­out restric­tions. She claimed that the school instead asked her to resign. When she refused, they fired her.

Image via Wikipedia

Ms. Perich filed a com­plaint with the EEOC, which ruled in her favor and autho­rized a law­suit under the ADA. The school claimed that the “min­is­te­r­ial excep­tion” should allow them to hire and fire whom they pleased, and that the ADA, there­fore, could not apply.

The “min­is­te­r­ial excep­tion” is an oft-​​cited con­cept in Amer­i­can law, deriv­ing from the First Amend­ment, that claims the employ­ment deci­sions of a reli­gious insti­tu­tion, par­tic­u­larly as regards peo­ple who per­form reli­gious duties, should not be sub­ject to gov­ern­ment inter­fer­ence. Since Ms. Perich taught reli­gious instruc­tion classes (along with a full sec­u­lar cur­ricu­lum), the church argued that the Fed­eral gov­ern­ment, through the EEOC, had no stand­ing to bring suit.

The dis­trict court agreed with the school. The EEOC appealed this deci­sion, and the 6^th Cir­cuit Court of Appeals held that Perich’s role at the school was not reli­gious in nature, and there­fore the min­is­te­r­ial excep­tion did not apply. The Cir­cuit Court thus over­turned the lower court’s rul­ing, and remanded the case back to dis­trict court for a full trial on the mer­its. The church has now asked SCOTUS to review the Court of Appeals ruling.

Sev­eral churches and reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions have filed ami­cus briefs sup­port­ing Hosanna-​​Tabor. A large num­ber of civil rights and First-​​Amendment orga­ni­za­tions have sup­ported the EEOC. See here for a listing.

The Ques­tions

One of the biggest issues here is not merely whether the “min­is­te­r­ial excep­tion” applies, but whether it exists at all. SCOTUS has never addressed the issue of “min­is­te­r­ial excep­tion,” never con­firmed nor denied it as a Con­sti­tu­tional mat­ter. One of the argu­ments that EEOC may make in this case is that no employer, whether reli­gious or not, is empow­ered under the Con­sti­tu­tion to vio­late the rights of employ­ees. First Amend­ment advo­cates can eas­ily argue this one either way.

Does a reli­gious insti­tu­tion have the right to hire and fire whom they please? Or does an indi­vid­ual have the right to be pro­tected by the law, even from reli­gious insti­tu­tions? Would the gov­ern­ment uphold­ing the rights of a church over that of an indi­vid­ual amount to “estab­lish­ment of reli­gion” (out­lawed under the First Amend­ment), or does the wall of sep­a­ra­tion between Church and State mean that the Fed­eral gov­ern­ment has no right to intrude upon a reli­gious organization’s hir­ing decisions?

Hosanna-​​Tabor may argue this under the Estab­lish­ment Clause, or the Free Exer­cise Clause, or even the Asso­ci­a­tion Clause (which for­bids the gov­ern­ment from inter­fer­ing in the right of cit­i­zens to asso­ciate with whom they choose). In any of these argu­ments, Hosanna-​​Tabor will be claim­ing that, at least in some instances, a reli­gious insti­tu­tion is above sec­u­lar law. If their argu­ment is upheld, what are the lim­its of that?

Ms. Perich claims that she was actively harmed by hav­ing been fired, in vio­la­tion of her rights under the Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act. How far are reli­gious insti­tu­tions allowed to go in harm­ing Amer­i­cans, in ways that would be ille­gal for any other orga­ni­za­tion or corporation?

Your Thoughts

• Does the First Amend­ment here favor Ms Perich, or Hosanna-​​Tabor?
• Is a reli­gious insti­tu­tion above the law — or is that the wrong question?
• What are the lim­its to which a church is not bound by Fed­eral law?
• Is there a “min­is­te­r­ial excep­tion” to be found in the Con­sti­tu­tion — or is this idea Con­sti­tu­tion­ally indefensible?

Related arti­cles

• Supreme Court To Exam­ine ‘Min­is­te­r­ial Exemp­tion’ Case (brandt​stan​dard​.com)
• Supreme Court To Weigh Churches’ Hir­ing Rights (huff​in​g​ton​post​.com)
• Major Reli­gion Case Ush­ers in SCOTUS Term (blogs​.wsj​.com)