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

[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