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.
12 comments:
According to this school, being a teacher means you are part of the clergy. Yet the teacher never went through seminary. I always thought that in the Lutheran church you had to go through formal seminary to become a part of the clergy. If a woman can be hired as a teacher and automatically be ordained with no training, then it takes away the importance of the seminary education. I do not agree with the court’s assessment that she is considered clergy just because she teaches at the institution.
Although respondent Cheryl Perich did not attend seminary, she did complete a "colloguy,"received a "diploma of vocation" designating her a commissioned minister and accepted the position to become a "called teacher." In adddition, when it was determined she would be unable to fulfill her key functions she was offered a reasonable "peaceful release." She filed suit. Therefore, I feel the court ruling was correct.
I agree that this ruling seems to be overreaching and that was my initial take when I read the Hosanna v. EEOC opinion. However, the deeper issue at hand is the court’s refusal to interfere in a religious group’s right to hire and fire. What the court is doing here, is further reaffirming that it will not interfere with church decisions - at all.
This blog was very informative as to the mind set of many Americans toward the issue of Disability. I don’t believe that it is so much an issue of Religious Rights. However, I believe that it is an issue of the lack of rights for individuals with Disabilities. Whether it is a Religious Institution or any other Employer, or for that fact any Governmental or Private Institution or Agency, Americans view and treat disabled individuals as second (2nd) Class Citizens in every respect. The ADA is a very weak Law that gives very basic rights to disabled citizens in respects to employment and other services. However, to enforce these rights is another matter. The ADA is like a dog with no teeth. A lot of barks no bite...a useless waste of paper.
I have two concerns with this ruling. First, the fact that the Supreme Court decided to take a broad interpretation of "clergy" to include a teacher of secular subjects that had been "called" by the church is concerning. It allows religious institutions to use religious ceremony and rhetoric to avoid complying with employee protection laws. My second concern is that the Supreme Court was not willing to distinguish between reasons for termination. This case would have been different (in my opinion) if she had been terminated on a religious or moral basis. Instead it was due to a short term disability that had nothing to do with her religious tenets. A dangerous precedent indeed.
I disagree with this particular Supreme Court decision, I believe that no matter where you are employed the protection that the Constitution provides must be applied. I think that the Supreme Court is applying the free exercise clause too broadly. Her inability to do her job had nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. In my opinion the Court should have had no reservations while ruling on this case because administrative aspects of the church do not coincide with the free exercise of religion.
I believe that this case offers some very interesting perspectives on the topic of religion and education. The court seems to recognize the label of "called" as a designation of a clergy person which if there was a moral reasoning for termination I would not have a problem. But with the introduction of disability to the equation, I believe that this becomes a more complicated matter. For a religious institution to have the authority to release a clergy person for any reason, even disabilities, is a very dangerous precedent to set. At what point should the church step in and protect the rights of disabled citizens, even in the case of a religious institution? I believe this question is central to this issue if we are going to discuss the prospect of protecting a person's rights.
I disagree with the court ruling in this case. I was actually surprised that the A.D.A.(American Disability Act) was over shadowed by the fact that this was a religious institute. Although the school was protected using religious legal loop hole, I believe her rights were violated under the A.D.A. The school had no issues with her on religious or moral isssues. They excersied their right to fire her without just cause. I do believe that Religious groups should have a right to practice without interferance from the goverment, however I do believe that there should be some ethical and human rights considerations factored in.
Separation of Church and State is the main argument. Christians cannot have it both ways. A side must be chosen and stuck to. Churches want separation of church and state when it comes to hiring and firing; however, they do not want separation of Church and State when it comes to prayer in school or placing the 10 Commandments in a court of law. As a Christian myself, I cannot have it both ways. I have to decide whether my faith is personal or private. I must follow my arguments and beliefs to there logical conclusions. If I want separation of Church and State, then I cannot require the State or Government to do anything Christian. I do, however, expect them to conduct themselves in a manner that befits a good servant leader- no lying, no stealing, no cheating. This does not require them to be a Christian. I cannot expect them to open a meeting in prayer, attend church, etc. If I am a Christian that does not believe in separation of Church and State, then I have to keep the employee that is diagnosed with narcolepsy and hire people that do not share my beliefs. I have to abide by all other employment laws. As a Christian, I cannot have my cake and eat it too!
I have to agree with you on the idea that this ruling by the Supreme Court was actually far away from using precedents in coming up with the ruling. The ministerial exception would not have even applied to the teacher, who as said in her defense, was mostly teaching secular subjects. The teacher had no major power over the Church internal workings, with her job being only a teacher that the “integrity of the faith” would not have been harmed by her being fired or actually rehired. This ruling I believe will cause a slippery slope for First Clause cases in which the court will have to look at this cases a important precedent, making it harder for the justice system to fight to stop discrimination within American society.
Post a Comment