Are Religious Ventures Backed by the First Amendment to Only Be Allowed to Hire Like-Minded Employees?

 “We serve everybody regardless of belief or background, personal experience but through the years, our entire history, we hire folks on our staff who share a common faith in Jesus Christ and have the ability to communicate that faith as well,” said Hopkins.

So do religious institutions have the support of the First Amendment to only hire employees of the same faith? The answer to this question does get murky, but for the most part the answer is yes, but why? It would be according to the rights under the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion and something known as a “ministerial exception,” which can pave the way for these religious institutions defending who they can employ. A Wyoming homeless shelter defends its religious freedom in hiring who they see fit in sharing their religious beliefs. The Wyoming Rescue Mission is a Christian nonprofit that believes in the power of sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ through deeds of service. Therefore, they hire those of the same faith that way their mission is served to the public. In terms of service, the mission provides shelter, clothing vouchers, free meals, and assisted programs of recovery and support in job training. This program has had astounding success of which include “60,862 free meals were served to the public; provided 41,037 beds for men, women, and children; enrolled 92 people into their Discipleship Recovery Program; 5,597 case management sessions; and gave 1,208 thrift store vouchers worth $39,649.92 that provided free clothing and essentials to families and guests in need. See? The Wyoming Rescue Mission is making an impact on the Casper community in more than one way. So what could be the problem? In 2020, the mission declined a non-Christian applicant for an opening job. The declined applicant decided to take action and filed a discrimination charge against the mission. After a long investigation, it was determined that the mission violated the Wyoming Fair Employment Practices Act of 1965 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire the applicant. However, what was not considered here was the consideration of religious organization’s right of employment. Yet, an impossible question was asked of the mission. They either stand up for furthering their foundational beliefs by letting non-Christian applicants be hired, or face the repercussions of penalties and liability. 

In previous cases of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commision and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru similarly, these cases had the plantiff’s filing discriminatory lawsuits against religious schools indicating that they were being discriminating against, while these religious schools rebuttled against these claims using the ministerial exception. The ministerial exception is a legal document that defends religious institutions by helping them be exempt from federal employment discrimination laws that would otherwise be considered discriminatory. Nonetheless, these religious institutions have a say in who they can employ as “ministers.” Yet what defines the broad term of minister? Is it merely someone who preaches the Gospel? Is it a figure-head that conducts services? The term minister was a little too broad and the US Supreme Court declared that the “ministerial exception” was based upon the religion clauses within the First Amendment and that the government cannot interfere with matters of faith. Therefore, the court looks at what the employees do that makes them carry out a religious mission. To reinstate, the exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will conduct the religion of the religious organization is the organization’s alone. 

So where does Wyoming Rescue Mission v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission fall in line with these precedent cases? If the federal government decides to agree with the declined applicant, is the government overstepping its means of entanglement with its religious institutions? Is there a clear violation of the mission’s First Amendment right of free exercise of religion? After considering Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commision and the most recent precedent the Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the key fact is understanding if the ministerial exception can be used by the mission to avoid the discrimination lawsuit. I would say that the mission can use this exception because the Supreme Court granted the exemption in Hosanna-Tabor when they looked at what the employee does. The questions that were looked at were: are the mission’s employees carrying out their faith? Yes. Are the employees actively spreading the Gospel? Yes. Therefore I would defend the Mission because of this exception. Furthermore, government entanglement in matters of religious affiliations is a clear no, no. In Lemon v. Kurtzman a series of questions were conducted on legislation concerning religion. The questions of a secular legislative purpose, must neither advance or inhibit religion, and must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. If the court decided with the non-Christian applicant and tried regulating religious organizations internal management affairs, there is a clear violation of government entanglement, inhibiting religion, and there would be no secular legislative purpose because it is directly concerning the applicant’s religious status. 

I believe letting the applicant win the case for discrimination is a clear violation of the Free Exercise Clause.The First Amendment protects the right of religious institutions “to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.” Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America. This case argues that the state of New York intruded on the religious freedom of the Saint Nicholas Cathedral indicating that New York violated the Religious Corporations Law of New York that prohibited the state to interfere in the church administration.

There is a slippery slope because discrimination is a just as an important issue as religion. The discrimination clause makes it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or genetic information. However, our Constitution does not highlight discrimnation policies, it highlights and favors religion. That being said, the Wyoming Mission should be able to hire the employees they see fit without government interference because they have the right as a religious institution to promote and hire people who will further their religious causes. “Requiring a church to accept an unwanted person who will not further their cause, and punishing the religious organization intrudes with the internal governance of the church choosing who will personify its beliefs” Hosanna-Tabor. I believe that one could infer that there could be a compelling state interest in regulating the religious organizations actions by interfering with their hiring process, which could lessen the impact of the organization’s work in providing many deeds of service to the Casper community. By imposing a non-religious applicant the state clearly violates the Free Exercise Clause which protects the rights of the religious groups to shape their own faith and mission through whatever means it sees fit. The Establishment Clause can also be invoked in this case because there should be no government involvement in such religious decisions. “For this reason, courts are bound to stay out of employment disputes involving those holding certain important positions with churches and other religious institutions” Hosanna-Tabor.

With that being said, do you think that the government is infringing upon this religious Wyoming mission by violating their exercise of religion by not letting them hire people only aligned with their views? Do you think the materstrial exception could be used to support the Wyoming Mission case? How can the slippery slope of discrimination and violation of the religious clauses of the Constitution be avoided? 

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/170/kedroff-v-saint-nicholas-cathedral

https://adfmedia.org/case/wyoming-rescue-mission-v-equal-employment-opportunity-commission

https://www.newspressnow.com/life/religion/wyoming-rescue-mission-statement-on-employment-discrimination-lawsuit/article_c6f58f87-17cd-5608-9e1d-d06eb3135a61.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-267_1an2.pdf

https://www.wyomingnewsnow.tv/2022/09/22/wyoming-rescue-mission-is-suing-government/