Belya v. Kapral: Government Intervention in alleged Defamatory and Discriminatory Suspension of a Russian Orthodox Priest

    Father Alexander Belya was a priest in the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia (ROCOR) and claimed he was elected as the Vicar Bishop of the Church. When leadership became aware of this new transition, many members expressed concerns about the validity of this claim and some conduct issues regarding Father Alexander and his priestly duties. The Church suspended Father Alexander from his priestly duties pending an investigation. The suspension was due to irregularities regarding his election and many members expressing concerns regarding his ability to succeed in this position. Rather than appeal the suspension through the Church, Father Alexander sued the Church, the head of the Church, and other ranking officials on the grounds of defamation. This meant Father Alexander Belya sued for defamation and wrongful termination in a civil court. The precedents of Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC set the example that the government is not allowed to interfere with the hiring and firing process in religious organizations under the protection of "ministerial exception."

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru dealt with a teacher that filed an age discrimination suit against Our Lady of Guadalupe School. This case was argued before the Supreme Court, and it decided that a "ministerial exception" applied in this case. "Ministerial exception" grants churches and religious institutions the ability to use discriminatory measures when selecting their clergy. A necessary clarification is that the employee must be considered a clergy member or have a ministerial role. A ministerial role is defined as “someone who performs spiritual functions associated with beliefs and practices of religious faiths, and provides motivation, guidance and training in religious life for the people of congregations and parishes, and the wider community.” The teacher was declared to have a "ministerial role" due to the nature of her job as she was teaching catholic messages to children. Therefore the Religious school was allowed to fire her as the court could not interfere with the religious freedoms of the Church. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Church was not given a "ministerial exception" as the nature of the job held by the plaintiff didn't classify as a "ministerial," and discriminatory behavior is unlawful just like any other non-religious organization. In order for a church or congregation to be granted an exception for using discriminative methods in firing and hiring relies solely on the job held by the plaintiff. If the job is considered "ministerial," then the government can play no part in limiting how they select or release members of their clergy.

Despite these precedents, the Civil Court of New York denied ROCOR's appeal for dismissal on the grounds of "ministerial exception" and allowed the case to continue in civil court.

In this case, did the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia have the right to suspend Father Alexander Beyla with no due process under the protection of the First Amendment and "ministerial exception"? I argue they did have the right to suspend Father Alexander Beyla with no due process and under measures that could be considered defamatory and discriminatory under the protection of "ministerial exception." To be protected by the First Amendment freedom of religion and exercise, the job held by the plaintiff must be considered "ministerial." In this instance, Father Alexander Beyla is a priest. According to precedent, the government can't get involved in the releasing of clergy. While it might seem unfair to discriminate in religious institutions, not allowing religious organizations to select members representing their views and ideals violates the freedom of exercise clause and induces excessive entanglement in religion and state. Suppose the government can place limitations on who these religious institutions can select to represent and carry out their religion. In that case, the government is directly playing a role in religion and violating their freedoms. Just like religion can't be intertwined in state matters, the government can't violate religious freedoms or dictate how religious organizations are run. There is also no compelling state interest here. Father Alexander Belya is a priest and therefore stands to represent the values and goals of the Russian Orthodox Church; if he doesn't align with those goals, they have a right to terminate, suspend, and investigate him. He, in other words, is an extension of the religion, and the government deciding that the Church can't terminate him for violating their standards allows the government to dictate who can and can't be clergy members. While the government strives to prevent unfair discrimination in the workplace, denying religious organizations the right to select those who best represent their ideals effectively diminishes their religious beliefs. Therefore, this case should be dismissed, and allowing it to continue infringes on the Russian Orthodox Church's rights to religious freedoms and exercise.