Thoughts on the recent Hosanna-Tabor decision

 

In the recent Supreme Court decision, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the court unanimously ruled to further the separation between church and state. In this article, the author applauds the court's decision and says that "all of us who think that religious freedom is a fundamental human right should be grateful." In this case, a woman's employment was terminated after she took time off due to being diagnosed with narcolepsy. In Chief Justice John Roberts' written opinion he claims that granting the plaintiff re-occupation would violate the constitution's free exercise clause by interfering with Hosanna-Tabor's ability to hire personnel that share their faith, saying,

"Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving it of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs . . . By imposing an unwanted minister the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments."

In a rare showing, the other eight justices on the court agreed with Roberts, almost ensuring that the precedent from this case will be followed closely. That precedent means that workers of religious institutions can't sue their employer as per the discrimination clause of the American With Disabilities Act (ADA). Unfortunately, as the article points out, this means that groups that are the usual suspects for discrimination (especially homosexuals and women) would have no recourse if they feel that their termination was based on discrimination. The author of the article provides the story of a priest in Philadelphia whose contract was terminated when it was discovered he was in a long-term homosexual relationship. Apparently this sparked a public outcry, as people talked and wrote about "how horrible it was for the school to essentially fire a good man based upon his sexual orientation." However as the author put it, "That's not discrimination. That's maintaining the integrity of the faith."

The things that the woman in the Hosanna-Tabor case and the gay Priest have in common is that their jobs consist of constant interactions with people of their faith and their relative positions of authority (as a teacher, and as a priest) suggest that they have conformed to the standards set by their religion. As the Hosanna-Tabor case made its way through the appellate court system, the women argued that since she taught mostly secular subjects, the ministerial exception should not apply to her. The 6th circuit court agreed with her, but the Supreme Court reversed that ruling, insisting that forcing Hosanna-Tabor to rehire her would be a government encroachment into the church's private sphere.

While I agree that religious institutions should have control over whom they hire to represent them and their faith, I think the precedent set by this case may be overreaching. Obviously when a person's orientation or performance conflicts with the ministry and the spreading of that religion's message, the church should have the right to make executive decisions regarding their employment. However, there are many people that work for religious institutions that do not have positions of power, and their job does not involve ministry. For instance, any large church has one or more janitors to keep the place clean. If a janitor is fired and he believes it was because of some form of discrimination, does he have no legal recourse? Do you think this is fair? Please leave some comments with your thoughts.