“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.
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.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/
4 comments:
I agree that the government is infringing upon the Wyoming Rescue Mission. As you said, they believe in "the power of sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ through deeds of service." From this mission alone, there is a reasonable expectation that anyone hired by this company would share their similar beliefs about Jesus Christ in order to be a productive member of the non-profit. I agree that there would be entanglement if the government tried to control who the non-profit could hire, and requiring them to hire somebody outside of their faith would violate their free exercise.
Based on the facts, I do not think that the government has the ability to manage who the Wyoming Rescue Mission hires. First, the organization is a recognized religious non-profit, and has made it their mission to spread their religion through their work. Because of these factors, the organization should receive the ministerial exemption and be allowed to hire based off of religion. If they were not able to do this, then the organization may struggle to fulfill their mission. If the government were to make them not hire based on religion, then it would also be a violation of the Establishment Clause, as the government is regulating action that directly impacts the ability of a religious organization to carry out its purpose.
I agree that the free exercise of the Wyoming Rescue Mission is being impeded here. Because of the religious nature of the established group, it is logical that they would want to employ and work with like-minded individuals who share a common set of values and beliefs. Thus, the centrality of belief is an important factor here. I believe that the government does not have the right to force anti-discrimination hiring policies on religious nonprofits.
I agree that the government is infringing on the Wyoming mission by violating their exercise of religion. This reminds me of a case we discussed in a blog post last week, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Similarly to the state of Colorado in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the state of Wyoming, in this case, does have a compelling state interest in preventing discrimination; however, is there a less restrictive means of meeting this compelling state interest without infringing on the free exercise rights of the Wyoming Rescue Mission? I believe there is. The non-Christian applicant can simply apply to another nonprofit and the religious institution can be granted an exemption.
Post a Comment