{"id":367,"date":"2014-06-09T20:58:37","date_gmt":"2014-06-09T20:58:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/?p=367"},"modified":"2014-06-09T20:58:37","modified_gmt":"2014-06-09T20:58:37","slug":"what-is-a-ministerial-exception-to-employment-discrimination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dev.discriminationandsexualharassmentlawyers.com\/es\/what-is-a-ministerial-exception-to-employment-discrimination\/","title":{"rendered":"What is a \u201cMinisterial Exception\u201d to Employment Discrimination?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In <\/span>Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC<\/i>, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a ministerial exception to most types of workplace discrimination lawsuits. The case, brought by a parochial school teacher, is one of the most important church-state rulings since 1990.
\nHosanna-Tabor is a Lutheran school with two types of teachers\u2014those who worked on a contract basis, and those who had completed a Lutheran course and were considered \u201ccommissioned ministers\u201d and \u201ccalled\u201d in the spiritual sense. Although Cheryl Perich taught a religious class, led prayers, and attended church with students weekly, she taught mostly non-religious subjects. Perich was hired in 1999 as a contract teacher, but completed the Lutheran course. After taking leave due to illness in 2004, Perich sought to return in early 2005, but the church hired a replacement. Perich filed charges with the EEOC, alleging the church violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
\nA Federal district court ruled that her claim was barred by the \u201cministerial exception,\u201d but the Sixth Circuit Court reversed, reasoning that Perich could not be treated as a \u201cminister\u201d because her duties were not primarily religious. The U.S. Supreme Court <\/span>disagreed<\/a>, explaining that religious organizations have the right to control their internal affairs, including the choice of who will personify the beliefs of the organization.
\nThe decision also reiterated that the ministerial exception only applied to employment discrimination claims, not other claims like breach of contract. As a result of the decision, only a narrow range of discrimination lawsuits brought by employees considered \u201cministers\u201d within their religious organizations can proceed. A court\u2019s threshold inquiry is whether the plaintiff is a \u201cminister.\u201d
\nThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asserted that a ministerial exception should be limited to workers who perform \u201cexclusively religious functions.\u201d The Court rejected this limitation, noting it is unlikely that any employee would do only religious work. The Court found the following factors to be crucial:<\/p>\n