Kuilema v. Calvin University is a case that began in April of 2023 and is currently awaiting trial with the deciding court, the Michigan Court of Appeals. Calvin University is a private religious institution affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church. Faculty of Calvin University are expected to follow the Christian Reformed Church's standards and implement teachings of good faith into their curriculum. Calvin University makes this commitment extremely clear to faculty, outlining what is expected of them and what is or will not be tolerated. This agreement between Calvin University and its staff is put in place to ensure the university’s religious mission stays strong.
In 2021, a professor at the university officiated a wedding for a same-sex marriage. Due to this act directly going against the university’s guidelines of what is expected of their staff and for contradicting the Christian Reformed Church’s beliefs, Calvin University raised concerns about the professor’s employment. After trying to settle the issue with the professor but failing to resolve any disagreements, the university did not renew the professor's contract. In response to terminating his employment, the professor sued the university under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. In doing so, the professor claimed that the university discriminated against him due to his involvement in an act, officiating a same-sex marriage, and was liable for firing him due to religious beliefs.
The university’s defense is rooted in the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. Calvin University argues that not allowing the university to decide who can or cannot work at their institution based upon how their employees uphold their core beliefs inhibits their ability to freely exercise their religion. Given that the university has made it abundantly clear that they do not support same-sex marriage as it contradicts its religious beliefs, the professor not only went against the beliefs of the university, but the agreement made between employees and Calvin University.
When it comes to matters of faith, the Court has historically sided with religious institutions. The Court has emphasized the importance of the constitutional wall between church and state, yet complete separation is unworkable in practice. The Court has time and time again had to balance the challenge of accommodating religious practices and institutions, while simultaneously avoiding government entanglement. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru is a case that went to the Supreme Court in 2019. This case dealt with the issue of a teacher suing Our Lady of Guadalupe School after being fired for poor performance and not upholding religious beliefs that were rooted in the school's mission. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the school arguing that in determining who can and cannot work at religious institutions the government is infringing upon the institution's autonomy. For religious groups, whether that be religious schools, churches, etc. to have religious freedom, they must be able to freely exercise their religious beliefs without excessive interference from the government. In getting involved in decisions of who can secure their employment at a religious institution despite not upholding the establishment's religious mission and beliefs, there would be excessive government entanglement. This ruling reinforced that religious institutions have constitutional protection to make employment decisions about employees with religious duties.
This case tests the ministerial exception, a legal doctrine derived from the First Amendment that shields religious institutions from government interference in employment decisions involving employees who have religious responsibilities. The purpose of terminating the professor's employment was rooted in upholding the university’s sincere religious beliefs. The professor made a pledge to uphold the university's strong religious beliefs upon deciding to work at the establishment, thus making them responsible for abiding by those rules. By stepping outside of what the university believes to be acceptable for its employees, the professor risked his employment which the university is at liberty to terminate.
10 comments:
This was a hard one for me to grapple with. On the one hand, I agree that Calvin University has the right to make employment decisions based on its religious mission. The ministerial exception, upheld in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, reinforces that religious institutions must have autonomy over employees who perform religious duties. If courts force religious schools to retain employees who violate their faith-based mission, it could undermine the First Amendment protections. The government shouldn’t be deciding how religious institutions interpret and uphold their beliefs.
However, while I understand the argument for religious autonomy, I think Calvin University’s actions blur the line between religious freedom and discrimination. The professor wasn’t teaching theology, and instead, he was officiating a wedding OUTSIDE of work. This isn’t a ministerial role like in Our Lady of Guadalupe, where teachers were explicitly responsible for religious instruction. If religious institutions can fire employees for personal actions unrelated (in a sense) to their job duties, this leaves a lot open for discrimination under the guise of faith. Religious freedom shouldn’t mean an exemption from basic civil rights protections.
Overall, I think I lean more into the latter, with his basic civil rights being infringed on. He agreed to uphold his religious duties while at work, and I think there are also many other variables as to why he could have been officiating the same-sex wedding. Maybe he is friends with a family member of those getting married, or maybe it was purely financial. I don't think there is enough to prove that he is against mission of the University, and even if he is, I don't think this act outside of work should restrict his ability to uphold his religious duties while AT work.
I could be interpreting this wrong, but those were my thoughts.
I am honestly conflicted about how I feel about this case. On the one hand, employers have the right to fire employees for any reason they want, or no reason at all, so long as they are not discriminating against the employee. In this case, however, it must be determined whether the University is discriminating against the professor and, if so, whether it can justify that. In firing the professor, Calvin University exclaimed that the sole reason for firing him was because he officiated a wedding for a same-sex marriage, which violates the core religious beliefs held by the school. In firing him, I think that the University is, to an extent, discriminating against his civil rights, however, on the other hand, the University is a private religious institution that wants its employees to uphold their core religious beliefs. In allowing a professor who engaged in a practice that directly violates the school's teachings to remain at the university, the university argues that it would not be upholding its mission. As Luke exclaims, I think that it is important to understand the context in which the professor officiated a same-sex marriage. It seems that in signing his contract, the professor had agreed to uphold the religious mission of the school, therefore he may have been officiating the marriage of a friend. Ultimately, I side with the professor, however, I can understand the university's arguments. Context is needed for me to make a better judgment.
I recognize the value of religious freedom but disagree with Calvin University. However, at a religious institution, state civil rights laws like the Elliott-Larsen Act still cover the professor. Officiating a same-sex wedding is a personal act, not purely religious. Religious universities shouldn't have unchecked power to terminate employees for lawful actions that support anti-discrimination. Allowing this could enable institutions to bypass civil rights protections under the pretext of religious freedom.
This case displays a lot of challenging conflicts between religious freedom and anti-discrimination protections. On the one hand, Calvin University is a private religious institution and has the right to uphold its faith values and mission that requires employees to uphold the beliefs. However, on the other hand, the professor said that his termination was discriminatory. The main issue is whether the university’s decision falls under the protection of religion or is unlawful discrimination. I think the University may have crossed the line for their reasoning being solely based on the religious values of an individual.
I think that this case should be ruled in favor of Calvin University. The professor knowingly entered a contractual agreement to uphold the school's religious values, then publicly contradicted those values by officiating the same-sex wedding. While this may have occurred outside of school hours, religious institutions still have power over who can and cannot represent them, because of the ministerial exception. The case of Our Lady of Guadalupe School is a clear example. Calvin University is a private religious school, and the government deciding whether it was fair or unfair to fire this professor would create excessive government entanglement. So, the school should be left to make its own employment decisions (even if they are unfortunately discriminatory).
My blog post last week argued that private religious institutions should be allow to discriminate in who they hire, and so to remain consistent I will also argue that they should be allowed to discriminate in who they fire. This is to enable an environment that is genuinely conducive to their religious mission, and so to deny those who go against their religious convictions a spot in their community, which may subvert their ability to evangelize, or at a minimum make them seem hypocritical. These organizations should be allowed to employ conditions for continued employment that is based in religion, otherwise these individuals should not apply to these organizations, and apply elsewhere instead!
I understand the complexity of this case especially considering the school is a private university, however, I would have to side with the professor. In my opinion, unless the action is illegal, professors should only be expected to comply to standards while working on the job. If the professor was actively going against expected behaviors and ideals while teaching, I would find Calvin Universities argument more understandable. The professors actions were a personal matter that he/she have the right to do. I also wonder what would have happened if the professor said no officiating the same sex couple. Would he/she themself be under scrutiny for refusing service to the couple?
Like many others, this case is hard to come to a conclusion to. The fact that brings me to the side of the University, however, is that the professor knowingly entered an agreement with the University when he began his unemployment to uphold the values and beliefs of the university's religion, and in turn would be subject to losing is position. Because it is a private institution, the university should be able to choose employees that uphold their beliefs and mission. But, the professor officiated the same-sex wedding during his personal life (I think), so it would be a massive overstep of power for the university to regulate the actions of their employees outside of their professional time at the university.
I believe that religious institutions should be allowed to set their own hiring standards, especially when those standards are clearly tied to their religious mission. In the Calvin University case, the professor’s decision to officiate a same-sex marriage conflicted with the school’s established guidelines, showing why the university felt it needed to protect its core values. Allowing religious institutions to make their own employment decisions is important because it preserves their freedom to practice their faith as they see fit. The ministerial exception has long been recognized by the courts to shield religious organizations from undue government interference in these matters. Forcing a religious institution to retain or hire employees who do not share its beliefs could undermine its mission and set a dangerous precedent. I believe that upholding the university’s right to choose employees who align with its values is essential for protecting both religious freedom and the separation between church and state.
Because this is a religious institution, I do believe it should be allowed for them to make their own employment requirements. In order to preserve religious duties, I see no problem with this private institution making specified employment decisions, although this can be seen as discriminatory. Government reaching into this decision is overstepping boundaries, in my opinion, as it violates the divide between church and state.
Post a Comment