Supreme Court Recognizes "Ministerial Exception" as Bar to Employment Discrimination Claims
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion expressly recognizing "a ministerial exception," which bars "ministers" employed by faith based employers from suing for discrimination. In Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC, the Supreme Court considered the case of Cheryl Perich, an elementary teacher at a Church School. Although Perich was also a commissioned minister, the vast majority of her working time was devoted to teaching secular subjects. Perich took a six-month leave of absence from work after being diagnosed with narcolepsy. When she attempted to return to work, she was informed by her principal that the school already hired a lay teacher to fill her position. The school asked Perich to resign. She refused to quit, stating that she intended to pursue her legal rights. The Church School fired Perich for insubordination, disruptive behavior, and threatening to take legal action against the school. The EEOC sued on Perich's behalf, claiming Perich's discharge constituted unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Supreme Court held Perich's suit was barred by the "ministerial exception" created by the First Amendment religion clauses. The Court recognized the "ministerial exception" because "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 governments of the church." The Court did not decide whether the ministerial exception bars other types of employee suits, such as actions for breach of contract or torts.
The Hosanna-Tabor decision grants churches and other religious entities broad discretion in making decisions concerning the employment of their "ministers." Still, employers should still be cautious when making these types of employment decisions, even if the employer believes it will be shielded by the ministerial exemption. Remember, just because you think you have the "right" to do something, does not mean you should do it.
couple of events prompted this post. First, as I was driving to work last week, I saw a car sporting an "Insured by Smith & Wesson" bumper sticker. Perhaps this will officially out me as an employment law nerd, but, being that it was on a vehicle, this bumper sticker made me think of Florida's Bring Gun to Work, which I've posted about 
Happy New Year! Can you believe it is 2012? Employees who make minimum wage can ring in 2012 by celebrating their 36-cent per hour raise. That's right, as we 
As I've mentioned in previous posts, here in the Middle District of Florida employers are all too familiar with these cases, as we have one of the highest FLSA filing rates in the country. We get calls from recently-served clients, both new and old, all the time. Though we are obviously grateful for the work, I can't help but wince everytime I receive those calls. One of the first things I tell the client during the initial conference is that I feel like the grim reaper -- there really isn't a bright side for the employer in these cases. More often than not the goal is to get out as quickly and cheaply as possible, even when the employer believes it has done everything right. And that, to me, means something needs to change. 