Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC

[CARLHAYDEN]

An important case is being appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The name of the case is Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC.

The point in contention is who should decide who should be a minister, the government or the religious bodies.

For 40 years lower courts have applied a "ministerial exception," which bars the government from any role in deciding who should be a minister.

This in turn is based on the Supreme Court decision in Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) where the Court held that religious organizations must be free to select their own leaders, define their own doctrines, resolve their own disputes, and run their own institutions.

Naturally, the Obama Justice Department has now asked the court to disavow the ministerial exception altogether, and allow the government to control these matters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576603221206193838.html

[Verily]

No one agrees with what you think Bishop says. All Bishop says is that churches hiring ministers are exempt from nondiscrimination laws, not that churches are free to determine who is a minister and who isn't. It is quite clear that many church employees are not ministers and must be subject to nondiscrimination law under Bishop (indeed, Bishop foresees non-minister church employees being subject to nondiscrimination laws). Yet your position would allow churches to call any employee a minister, even a janitor or systems administrator or any other person with a clear lack of any religious function, and be completely exempt for nondiscrimination requirements for all employees, clearly not the court's intent in Bishop.

The result in Hosanna-Tabor is pretty much a foregone conclusion in favor of the employee.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since the person who filed the original complaint was apparently doing duties that were also being done by non-ministerial employees (and indeed had once been one herself) I think the Supreme Court should be skeptical to a claim by Hosanna-Tabor to the ministerial exception.  Unless they can show some distinction in duties between the two classes of employees, Hosanna-Tabor should not be able to claim the ministerial exemption.  At first glance, this looks a lot like what happens when businesses misclassify employees as independent contractors or supervisors to game other employment laws.

However, all this misses the larger point.  Why do we have these laws in the first place?  There really shouldn't be this level of government interference in private contracts.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oral arguments on Hosanna-Tabor occurred last week before the Supreme Court, which resulted in some rather interesting developments.

Perich had been a temporary lay teacher before being changing to a “called” (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_CHURCH_EMPLOYEES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) teacher and “commissioned” minister who taught a religious class and led chapel service subsequent to being “called” or “commissioned.”  (most religious organizations would use the term “ordained.”)

Justice Kennedy (who most observers believe will be a key vote on the case) seemed to imply that the key matter was the distinction between “secular duties” and religious duties.
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/05/141089062/high-court-considers-disabilities-act-dispute

Even  Justice Elena Kagan asked “why this commissioned minister does not counted as a minister.”

While Justice Kennedy was concerned about Perich getting a hearing, it was acknowledged that she brought her grievance to the EEOC “rather than using church processed to get her job back,”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2011-10-06/supreme-court-church-state/50670026/1

There was some consensus among the advocates that if the individual involved (Perich) were not a minister and was involved exclusively in lay (non-religious) duties, the EEOC would have jurisdiction.

There was also consensus among the Justices that virtually all “ministers” have perform both  lay and religious duties.

The central question being to what extent the government has jurisdiction over cases where the party has both lay and religious duties.  The guarded optimism of the church’s lawyers and religious groups contrasted with that of opponents.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/supreme-court-hears-religious-hiring-case/2011/10/05/gIQA8plEOL_story.html

[CARLHAYDEN]

Seems I was correct and a certain other poster was, well wrong again.

While the New York Times article is inaccurate in details, it does get it correct about the decision being 9-0 for the Constitution and against the EEOC.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/12/us/12scotus-text.html

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Unless they can show some distinction in duties between the two classes of employees, Hosanna-Tabor should not be able to claim the ministerial exemption.

The court did find distinctions between the called teachers and the lay teachers.  Hence the positions were not equivalent. As I held all along, that was sufficient for Hosanna-Tabor to claim the ministerial exemption.