HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012)
- Argued:
- October 05, 2011
- Decided:
- January 11, 2012
- Decided by:
- Roberts Court, 2011
- Action:
- Reversed. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.
Facts/Syllabus:
Petitioner Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School is a member congregation of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. The Synod classifies its school teachers into two categories: “called” and “lay.” “Called” teachers are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God. To be eligible to be considered “called,” a teacher must complete certain academic requirements, including a course of theological study. Once called, a teacher receives the formal title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.” “Lay” teachers, by contrast, are not required to be trained by the Synod or even to be Lutheran. Although lay and called teachers at Hosanna-Tabor generally performed the same duties, lay teachers were hired only when called teachers were unavailable.
After respondent Cheryl Perich completed the required training, Hosanna-Tabor asked her to become a called teacher. Perich accepted the call and was designated a commissioned minister. In addition to teaching secular subjects, Perich taught a religion class, led her students in daily prayer and devotional exercises, and took her students to a weekly school-wide chapel service. Perich led the chapel service herself about twice a year.
Perich developed narcolepsy and began the 2004–2005 school year on disability leave. In January 2005, she notified the school principal that she would be able to report to work in February. The principal responded that the school had already contracted with a lay teacher to fill Perich’s position for the remainder of the school year. The principal also expressed concern that Perich was not yet ready to return to the classroom. The congregation subsequently offered to pay a portion of Perich’s health insurance premiums in exchange for her resignation as a called teacher. Perich refused to resign. In February, Perich presented herself at the school and refused to leave until she received written documentation that she had reported to work. The principal later called Perich and told her that she would likely be fired. Perich responded that she had spoken with an attorney and intended to assert her legal rights. In a subsequent letter, the chairman of the school board advised Perich that the congregation would consider whether to rescind her call at its next meeting. As grounds for termination, the letter cited Perich’s “insubordination and disruptive behavior,” as well as the damage she had done to her “working relationship” with the school by “threatening to take legal action.” The congregation voted to rescind Perich’s call, and Hosanna-Tabor sent her a letter of termination.
Perich filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that her employment had been terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC brought suit against Hosanna-Tabor, alleging that Perich had been fired in retaliation for threatening to file an ADA lawsuit. Perich intervened in the litigation. Invoking what is known as the “ministerial exception,” Hosanna-Tabor argued that the suit was barred by the First Amendment because the claims concerned the employment relationship between a religious institution and one of its ministers. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment in Hosanna-Tabor’s favor. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded. It recognized the existence of a ministerial exception rooted in the First Amendment, but concluded that Perich did not qualify as a “minister” under the exception.
Held:
1. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws. Pp. 6–15.
(a) The First Amendment provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Familiar with life under the established Church of England, the founding generation sought to foreclose the possibility of a national church. By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the Religion Clauses ensured that the new Federal Government—unlike the English Crown—would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices. Pp. 6–10.
(b) This Court first considered the issue of government interference with a church’s ability to select its own ministers in the context of disputes over church property. This Court’s decisions in that area confirm that it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers. See Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U. S. 94 ; Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 . Pp. 10–12.
(c) Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other employment discrimination laws, the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized the existence of a “ministerial exception,” grounded in the First Amendment, that precludes application of such legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. The Court agrees that there is such a ministerial exception. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church 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. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.
The EEOC and Perich contend that religious organizations can defend against employment discrimination claims by invoking their First Amendment right to freedom of association. They thus see no need—and no basis—for a special rule for ministers grounded in the Religion Clauses themselves. Their position, however, is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. The Court cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.
The EEOC and Perich also contend that Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 , precludes recognition of a ministerial exception. But Smith involved government regulation of only outward physical acts. The present case, in contrast, concerns government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself. Pp. 13–15.
2. Because Perich was a minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of this employment discrimination suit against her religious employer. Pp. 15–21.
(a) The ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation. The Court, however, does not adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister. Here, it is enough to conclude that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment. Hosanna-Tabor held her out as a minister, with a role distinct from that of most of its members. That title represented a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning. Perich also held herself out as a minister by, for example, accepting the formal call to religious service. And her job duties reflected a role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission: As a source of religious instruction, Perich played an important part in transmitting the Lutheran faith.
In concluding that Perich was not a minister under the exception, the Sixth Circuit committed three errors. First, it failed to see any relevance in the fact that Perich was a commissioned minister. Although such a title, by itself, does not automatically ensure coverage, the fact that an employee has been ordained or commissioned as a minister is surely relevant, as is the fact that significant religious training and a recognized religious mission underlie the description of the employee’s position. Second, the Sixth Circuit gave too much weight to the fact that lay teachers at the school performed the same religious duties as Perich. Though relevant, it cannot be dispositive that others not formally recognized as ministers by the church perform the same functions—particularly when, as here, they did so only because commissioned ministers were unavailable. Third, the Sixth Circuit placed too much emphasis on Perich’s performance of secular duties. Although the amount of time an employee spends on particular activities is relevant in assessing that employee’s status, that factor cannot be considered in isolation, without regard to the other considerations discussed above. Pp. 15–19.
(b) Because Perich was a minister for purposes of the exception, this suit must be dismissed. An order reinstating Perich as a called teacher would have plainly violated the Church’s freedom under the Religion Clauses to select its own ministers. Though Perich no longer seeks reinstatement, she continues to seek frontpay, backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. An award of such relief would operate as a penalty on the Church for terminating an unwanted minister, and would be no less prohibited by the First Amendment than an order overturning the termination. Such relief would depend on a determination that Hosanna-Tabor was wrong to have relieved Perich of her position, and it is precisely such a ruling that is barred by the ministerial exception.
Any suggestion that Hosanna-Tabor’s asserted religious reason for firing Perich was pretextual misses the point of the ministerial exception. The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful is the church’s alone. Pp. 19–20.
(c) Today the Court holds only that the ministerial exception bars an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. The Court expresses no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits. Pp. 20–21.
597 F. 3d 769, reversed.
Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kagan, J., joined.
Majority Opinion
John Roberts Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy Ruth Ginsburg Stephen Breyer Sonia Sotomayor
Concurring Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
No opinions found
CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW, AKA HASTINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP v. LEO P. MARTINEZ et al., 561 U.S. 661 (2010)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
KEN L. SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al. v. FRANK BUONO, 559 U.S. 700 (2010)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE UNIAO DO VEGETAL et al., 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
THOMAS VAN ORDEN v. RICK PERRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS AND CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, et al., 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
MCCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al., 545 U.S. 844 (2005)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
JON B. CUTTER, et al. v. REGINALD WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al., 544 U.S. 709 (2005)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al. v. VILLAGE OF STRATTON et al., 536 U.S. 150 (2002)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
GOOD NEWS CLUB, et al. v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JANE DOE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR HER MINOR CHILDREN, JANE AND JOHN DOE, et al., 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
CITY OF BOERNE v. P. F. FLORES, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO, AND UNITED STATES, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW AND ADVISORY BOARD, et al. v. VINCENT J. PINETTE, DONNIE A. CARR AND KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
RONALD W. ROSENBERGER, et al. v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA et al., 515 U.S. 819 (1995)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. AND ERNESTO PICHARDO v. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
LAMB’S CHAPEL AND JOHN STEIGERWALD v. CENTER MORICHES UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., 508 U.S. 384 (1993)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
ROBERT E. LEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRINCIPAL OF NATHAN BISHOP MIDDLE SCHOOL, et al. v. DANIEL WEISMAN ETC., 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF OREGON, et al. v. SMITH et al., 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
JIMMY SWAGGART MINISTRIES v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA, 493 U.S. 378 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER, et al., 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
FRAZEE v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al., 489 U.S. 829 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
TEXAS MONTHLY, INC. v. BULLOCK, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF STATE OF TEXAS, et al., 489 U.S. 1 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. KENDRICK et al., 487 U.S. 589 (1988)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF OREGON, et al. v. SMITH, 485 U.S. 660 (1988)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
RICHARD E. LYNG, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, et al. v. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION et al., 485 U.S. 439 (1988)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS et al. v. AMOS et al., 483 U.S. 327 (1987)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
O’LONE, ADMINISTRATOR, LEESBURG PRISON COMPLEX, et al. v. ESTATE OF SHABAZZ et al., 482 U.S. 342 (1987)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
HOBBIE v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION OF FLORIDA et al., 480 U.S. 136 (1987)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. v. ROY et al., 476 U.S. 693 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
BENDER et al. v. WILLIAMSPORT AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., 475 U.S. 534 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
GOLDMAN v. WEINBERGER, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
ESTATE OF THORNTON et al. v. CALDOR, INC., 472 U.S. 703 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
JENSEN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF NEBRASKA, et al. v. QUARING, 472 U.S. 478 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE, et al. v. KATHLEEN S. MCCREARY et al., 471 U.S. 83 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
LYNCH, MAYOR OF PAWTUCKET, et al. v. DONNELLY et al., 465 U.S. 668 (1984)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
MARSH, NEBRASKA STATE TREASURER, et al. v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
LARKIN et al. v. GRENDEL’S DEN, INC., 459 U.S. 116 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
LARSON, COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al. v. VALENTE et al., 456 U.S. 228 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
WIDMAR et al. v. VINCENT et al., 454 U.S. 263 (1981)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
HEFFRON, SECRETARY AND MANAGER OF THE MINNESOTA STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY BOARD OF MANAGERS, et al. v. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., et al., 452 U.S. 640 (1981)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
THOMAS v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al., 450 U.S. 707 (1981)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
STONE et al. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
JONES et al. v. WOLF et al., 443 U.S. 595 (1979)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
NEW YORK v. CATHEDRAL ACADEMY, 434 U.S. 125 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
WOOLEY, CHIEF OF POLICE OF LEBANON, et al. v. MAYNARD ET UX., 430 U.S. 705 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
SERBIAN EASTERN ORTHODOX DIOCESE FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA et al. v. MILIVOJEVICH et al., 426 U.S. 696 (1976)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, et al. v. ROBISON, 415 U.S. 361 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
SLOAN, TREASURER OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al. v. LEMON et al., 413 U.S. 825 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
CRUZ v. BETO, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, 405 U.S. 319 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
CLAY, AKA ALI v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 698 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
DEWEY v. REYNOLDS METALS CO., 402 U.S. 689 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES et al. v. MARY ELIZABETH BLUE HULL MEMORIAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH et al., 393 U.S. 440 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
EPPERSON et al. v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
CHAMBERLIN et al. v. DADE COUNTY BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION et al., 377 U.S. 402 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, et al. v. SCHEMPP et al., 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
SHERBERT v. VERNER et al., MEMBERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, et al., 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
ARLAN’S DEPARTMENT STORE OF LOUISVILLE, INC., et al. v. KENTUCKY, 371 U.S. 218 (1962)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
ENGEL et al. v. VITALE et al., 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
MCGOWAN et al. v. MARYLAND, 366 U.S. 420 (1961)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
TWO GUYS FROM HARRISON-ALLENTOWN, INC., v. MCGINLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, et al., 366 U.S. 582 (1961)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
GALLAGHER, CHIEF OF POLICE OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS, et al. v. CROWN KOSHER SUPER MARKET OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., et al., 366 U.S. 617 (1961)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
BRAUNFELD et al. v. BROWN, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., 366 U.S. 599 (1961)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
KRESHIK et al. v. SAINT NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA, 363 U.S. 190 (1960)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
KEDROFF ET AL. v. SAINT NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA, 344 U.S. 94 (1952)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
UNITED STATES v. BALLARD et al., 322 U.S. 78 (1944)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
FOLLETT v. TOWN OF MCCORMICK, 321 U.S. 573 (1944)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
MURDOCK v. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE), 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. v. GOBITIS et al., 310 U.S. 586 (1940)
- Lower Court Ruling:
- Overruled
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
CANTWELL et al. v. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
THE LATE CORPORATIONN OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS v. UNITED STATES., 136 U.S. 1 (1890)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
TERRETT AND OTHERS V TAYLOR AND OTHERS, 13 U.S. 43 (1815)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Free Exercise
Topics: Establishment, Free Exercise, Freedom of Religion
Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.
Follow FIRE