Aubry McMahon v. World Vision, Inc.
Aubry McMahon was offered a position as a customer service representative at World Vision Incorporated, a Christian nonprofit organization. The nonprofit required employees to engage in many religious actions such as praying with donors and engaging in religious training in order to assist the organization in carrying out their mission as Christians. McMahon had managed to advance beyond the beginning interview stage and had seemed to have made a great impression, however when the nonprofit learned that McMahon is currently in a marriage with another woman, they rescinded their offer. World Vision claimed that the basis for doing so was that McMahon would be violating their Standard of Conduct which, among other religious based policies, prohibited same sex marriage for their employees.
McMahon subsequently the filed a lawsuit against World Vision claiming that they had violated both Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). World Vision argued that the Church Autonomy Doctrine protected their right to terminate her employment on the basis of her marriage. McMahon countered that the Church Autonomy Doctrine did not protect them because they had violated the laws that were put in place to protect her civil rights.
The Legal issue here is whether World Vision’s actions to fire McMahon, based on her marriage to a member of the same sex, violated the protections given to her by Title VII and the WLAD or if World Vision has the right to fire her because they were exercising their constitutionally protected religious freedom.
At the heart this issue is the Free Exercise Clause which protects citizens rights to religious expression, however it does not always extend to the actions that may come along with the beliefs one may hold. Take for example Reynolds V. US [98 U.S. 145 (1878)], James Reynolds was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints who had married two separate women because of his religious obligation to so. However, Reynolds was in direct violation of a federal statute that prohibited polygamous marriages and Reynolds was charged with committing bigamy. When Reynolds fought the case to the supreme court, they decided that; “It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion: it was still belief, and belief only.” [98 U.S. 145 (1878)] This reveals that only beliefs are protected by the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause and as such laws can be made to prohibit certain practices that may pose a danger to societal order. While this case may have been decided in such an early part of American history, it still holds merit in emphasizing that there can, and has been, an extent to which one is able implement their faith into their actions.
Furthermore, in Everson V. Board of Education [330 U.S. I (1947)] in which it was decided that the New Jersey statute permitting reimbursement of transportation costs to public and parochial school attendees. They cited the fact that; “Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools” [330 U.S. I (1947)] as evidence that the mentioned law was protected by the Constitution. In other words, the fact that the law was religiously neutral protected it under the constitution would imply that laws have the ability to impede on certain freedoms to promote societal durability, as long the law is facially neutral.
As these two case studies apply to the case at hand, the WLAD and Civil Rights act are both laws that protect certain minorities from discrimination and, because the government is allowed to impede religious freedom in the name of promoting good order, both of the laws should apply against World Vision for firing McMahon. Since the laws were enacted aiming to protect workers from discrimination, without disproportionately affecting any individual group or organization, the constitutionality of these laws should not be questioned. There is ample precedent for such restrictions to religion. If World Vision were permitted to discriminate on the basis that they claim to be religious, where is line as to who they can reasonably deny? Additionally, what is preventing a large swath of business owners from claiming that their religion prevents them from hiring people who were Atheists? Such a situation would cause systematic oppression of a group of people who would now find it quite difficult to find employment anywhere. By restricting employment, one restricts nearly every aspect of an individual’s life, thus cases involving employment should be treated with the utmost care.
5 comments:
While I agree with a lot of the precedents set forth, some things to note could be previous dissenting opinions we have read. For example, with regards to Reynolds, some would argue that him partaking in Bigamy (as mentioned in class) was not directly affecting others in a negative way. In fact - as discussed in class - It could be reasonably argued that while he was breaking a law, that law could be seen as not neutral (especially from a minorities perspective). This question of sincerity in religious conviction - as you mentioned - is super important. You highlight that "If World Vision were permitted to discriminate on the basis that they claim to be religious, where is line as to who they can reasonably deny? Additionally, what is preventing a large swath of business owners from claiming that their religion prevents them from hiring people who were Atheists?" I 100% agree that there is a very slippery slope here - especially in regards to sincerity. However, at the same time, and again like we mentioned in class; how can you judge the sincerity of someones religious conviction, or even prematurely restrict their actions on the basis of the possibility of them being insincere - you can't. Only after the fact, may you impose a restriction.
I would argue (and I may be way off here) that today, less and less people are religious, and I am not fully convinced that enacting this law in order to "force" World Vision to employ Aubry is in the name of "good order". While employment does dictate a lot with regards to someones life, and could be something that the government finds reasonably important to regulate through anti-discrimination laws - I think that one could argue forcing employers to hire someone against their religious conviction is a violation of their free exercise, and not only that, opens up another slippery slope where the government is able to enforce unwanted employment for not only religious reasons, but potentially even secular reasons as well in the future.
While I do recognize your arguments, I am going to take a dissenting view. Since the whole idea of World Vision is to pursue a religious mission, they should have the right to hire those who align with their values. Their work is based on faith, and they should undoubtedly have the right to hire employees who will be following these religious practices. If the court ends up ruling against world vision, it would create a slippery slope for other companies moving forward to hire employees that go against their religious belief, ultimately weakening both their identity and mission. In conclusion, a company's religious freedom must be respected, especially when its mission is directly tied to its faith.
The slippery slope argument you present is important: If World Vision can deny employment to a legally protected class based on religious beliefs, what prevents other employers from refusing to hire individuals of different faiths, marital statuses, or even races, citing their religious doctrine? The potential for systemic discrimination is real, and as you point out, employment is fundamental to an individual’s ability to participate fully in society.
However, it worth considering how World Vision can use the Free Exercise Clause to affirm their right to hire those who align with their mission and values. If World Vision is instructed to hire those who do not follow their belief, it could be said that it risks the religious purpose of the organization being undermined.
While it is a slippery slope that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause may be subjected to further violation in the future with a ruling for World Vision, the Free Exercise Clause grants the organization the ability to hire those to align with their values to protect the religious beliefs at the core of the organization.
I agree with McMahon; religious beliefs should not justify employment discrimination. Just as Reynolds v. U.S. upheld limits on religious practices that violate the law, World Vision should not be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. Allowing such exemptions could create a dangerous precedent where businesses deny employment based on faith-based biases, leading to systemic discrimination. This systemic discrimination could then be applied to any group should there be a religion that denies/ostracizes that group.
Post a Comment