Supreme Court To Hear Case Of Fired Church Teacher

By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday (March 28) to consider whether a teacher who was fired from a religious school is subject to a "ministerial exception" that can bar suits against religious organizations.

The case involves an employment dispute between a Michigan school and a teacher who is defended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Lawyers for the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., argue that courts have long recognized the First Amendment doctrine that often prevents employees who perform religious functions from suing religious organizations.

They asked the court to determine whether it extends to teachers at a religious school who teach a secular curriculum but also teach religion classes and lead students in prayer.

A lower court sided with the school and against fired teacher Cheryl Perich, citing the ministerial exception. But last March, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, saying it did not apply because Perich spends most of her time teaching secular topics.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the school, said federal appeals courts are divided on the limits of the ministerial exception and the Supreme Court's consideration is groundbreaking.

"If `separation of church and state' means anything, it means the government doesn't get to pick religious teachers," said Luke Goodrich, deputy national litigation director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The EEOC has expressed concern that a ruling against Perich could lead to religious organizations being shielded from all suits filed by staffers "simply by characterizing all of their duties as religious."

Comments

[moldndecay]

08:18 PM on 04/04/2011

Well, time to tax the churches. They want to use the secular courts to decide their problems, then its time to pay.

[thebigbike]

07:29 PM on 03/31/2011

Actually I think the ministerial exception is a good thing. Should anyone be under the impressoin that religious organizations might offer a sense of - oh, I don;t know - say "openness to diversity of thought" well unless you are a contract maintenance firm or some such engaged in CLEARLY secular functions, well... you asked for it.

[cliffhammond]

12:20 AM on 03/31/2011

I've got a solution: Pack up all the evangelicals and send through the wardrobe to Narnia. Then they can do whatever they want.

[Nathaneal Green]

08:02 PM on 03/30/2011

This is the third of three posts. The other two are basically adding facts to fill in the article a little. This post expresses my thoughts on the case.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was very respectful of the right of religious organizations, including schools to hire the spiritual guidance that they choose and to dismiss any spiritual guide they wish, even one within their faith, for any spiritual reason they may choose. The decision seemed to balance whether the teacher's duties were more secular or spiritual. That balancing seems incorrect to me. If the teacher performs any duties dealing with spiritual guidance (including matters a public school teacher could not perform) then the ministerial exception should apply - especially if a confirmed minister as in this case. I say this because of my sensitivity to religions that rely on lay leadership. In an unpaid lay leadership, by necessity, the vast majority of duties anyone engages in are secular in nature. Only a small portion are ecclesiastical. But that small portion is the part that really counts. That small portion is the part the government (in any of its functions) must not and cannot invade. The percentage between secular and spiritual will always be vastly secular for unpaid lay leaders, but that should not impact the unfettered right to choose the spiritual leader desired.

[cliffhammond]

12:21 AM on 03/31/2011

I'm going to save your post until bed time.

[Nathaneal Green]

07:51 PM on 03/30/2011

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, determined that the teacher was not a ministerial employee primarily because her duties did not substantially differ from duties of teachers who were not classified as "commissioned ministers". This does not mean that a teacher at a private religious school cannot qualify for the ministerial employee exception, but merely that in this case the school did not require enough ecclesiastical responsibilites of this teacher to qualify her for that role. In reaching this determination, the Sixth Circuit followed a variety of other courts who have found much the same under similar circumstances. However, this must be a close case for the Supreme Court to accept it. The Supreme Court could agree with the District Court that the teacher was a ministerial employee

Certainly, every congregation or religious school is entitled to select the spiritual guidance of its choice, even from among the qualifying choices within its faith. If any branch of government were to intervene that would be the unconstitutional establishment of religion by the government.

This is not a case of the religious school violating laws. While violation of the ADA has been claimed, there have been no judicial consideration of those claims. The school has a variety of defenses if the ADA claim is ever heard on its merits, meaning, the school may prove it never violated the ADA by dismissing the teacher - if it is determined that the ADA applies to the dismissal of a teacher in this position.

[Nathaneal Green]

07:24 PM on 03/30/2011

The teacher was a "commissioned minister". Here is the description of her ecclesiastical responsibilities as described by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Perich also taught a religion class four days per week for thirty minutes, and she
attended a chapel service with her class once a week for thirty minutes. Approximately
twice a year, Perich led the chapel service in rotation with other teachers. Perich also led
each class in prayer three times a day for a total of approximately five or six minutes.
During her final year at Hosanna-Tabor, Perich’s fourth grade class engaged in a devotional
for five to ten minutes each morning. In all, activities devoted to religion consumed
approximately forty-five minutes of the seven hour school day"

[Murphdogg]

03:30 PM on 03/30/2011

An artcile with a few more facts about the actual case.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/03/supreme_court_to_decide_redfor.html

Just for kicks I'll summarize. The teacher was diagnosed with narcalepsy and fired. She is sueing under the ADA. The HP article takes it from there.

[NunyaBus99]

06:55 PM on 03/30/2011

If she is responsible for the kids while they are in her classroom then being a narcoleptic could pose a problem to that. While it is sad, I would have a hard time hiring someone for that type of job if they had that condition (depending on the frequency of the conditions that could put 3rd to 4th graders at risk). With the link provided, she was out on disability but it did not say if she was protected under FMLA in which she is guaranteed not to be fired while on it. If she was out more than 12 weeks than i don't think they have to hire her. Obviously there is more to this if it is going to be heard but the supreme court.

[Murphdogg]

11:28 AM on 03/31/2011

I had the same questions. I think I also recall that FMLA only applies to employers with over a certain amount of employees. Is Michigan an "employment at will" state? Did she have a contract? It seems very odd on its surface for SCOTUS to hear.

[PlayTOE]

10:20 AM on 03/30/2011

Exempting churches from lawsuits means that Religious organizations don't have to follow the law.
This is a protection the ones pretending to teach morality shouldn't need, and shouldn't get.

[jimdman]

12:54 PM on 03/30/2011

It is difficult to comment on the story as they did not include WHY she was fired but your statement makes the assertion that there is a moral code that all should be accountable to and that the religious organizations are not adhering to it. Isn't this a main criticism that non believers have of Christians? That they know what is moral and what is not?

[fishnetdiver]

01:43 PM on 03/30/2011

as someone who commented on how it doesn't state WHY this teacher was fired I have had a few hours to look into the reasons and she was discharged while on disability leave and is trying to get her job back. but since the school is religious based they are not subject to the Law of the Land and have been hiding behind that for the last 3 years.
as such she has had to take this to the supreme court where it is being decided if these people have a religious case (which they don't) or if it is a civil case (which it is).
so as it stands the school ITSELF is trying to use the First Amendment to excuse it's illegal actions.

[onionboy]

01:44 PM on 03/30/2011

"your statement makes the assertion that there is a moral code that all should be accountabl­e to"

No. She made the assertion that there is a legal code that all should be accountable to. Morality and law are separate entities. Not all laws are moral. Not all morals are codified into law.

[jayde1958]

07:10 PM on 03/30/2011

How do you know she was "pretending" to teach morality? Or for that matter, what is wrong with the idea that teacher can teach morality? No morals anything, I MEAN ANYTHING GOES!!! Then child molestation is okay, immoluation of a widow is fine, beheadding someone of a different religion is fine too. This would bring anarchy. Total and compelte anarchy. FEAR would be the driving force in everyone's life. If there is a separation of church and state (nowhere in the consitution) then why is the state telling the church what it can and cannot do?

[PlayTOE]

08:29 PM on 03/30/2011

Dear jayde1958 ... may I recommend a refresher on reading comprehension.
You mixed up the teacher with the church.

Also, separation of Church and state should not exempt schools from following employment laws just because they are affiliated with a church. (Would you be OK with Church run soup kitchens being exempt from food health and safety regulations?) Laws are not an imposition on the church if they are truly intending to be morally correct.

[Tony Rubino]

09:44 AM on 03/30/2011

Whatever the ruling, it simply won't matter. You'll rue the day when you see a "religious Wal-Mart" type enterprise offering the lowest daily prices and having the ability to fire anyone at-will without explanation. If you think CORPORATE greed is bad, wait for RELIGIOUS greed to step in.

PS - Yes, I was referring to greed as being inherently bad, not corporations or religious organizations. Corporate or religious greed are just two different flavors of the same pie.

[jimdman]

12:56 PM on 03/30/2011

"You'll rue the day when you see a "religious Wal-Mart" type enterprise offering the lowest daily prices and having the ability to fire anyone at-will without explanatio­n."

Is this what happened in the article? If so, I assume you got it from another source as the story is lacking in details.

[JOHNSPEAKS]

08:38 AM on 03/30/2011

Does the seperation of Church and State allow people within the congregation to pray for -GOD- to strike down all the -Liberals- who have destroyed the Christian values of this country? Can the Christian minister tell his parishioners to pray for the -Death- of liberals or only that they burn in Hell forever? Now you realize that I am just joking about the above, right?

[alterego55]

12:51 PM on 03/30/2011

It is a sad day when sarcasm becomes the truth. Yes, a Christian minister can pray for the death of liberal, even the President. It is called imprecatory prayer. Here are two examples:

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-obama-preacher,0,6513505.story
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/a-clockwork-orange/rev-wiley-drake-prays-for-obam/

[KDMac]

12:54 PM on 03/30/2011

Most Christians (exempting the zealots) would tell you that praying for anyone's death -- including truly evil people -- isn't very Christian.

[onionboy]

01:46 PM on 03/30/2011

Very true. Unfortunately, the zealots tend to be very vocal.

[fishnetdiver]

03:01 AM on 03/30/2011

is it asking too much for you to put WHY she was fired in your story?

[jtwalk45]

07:59 AM on 03/30/2011

this is the worst reporting that I have read in a long time,wheres the who,why,when,and where?

[jimdman]

12:59 PM on 03/30/2011

Won't stop people from authoritatively giving their opinion and siding with the defendant.

[jimdman]

12:59 PM on 03/30/2011

Should have read plaintiff.

[KDMac]

12:56 PM on 03/30/2011

According to the first link after the end of the story:

Cheryl Perich, a teacher and commissioned minister, got sick in 2004 but tried to return to work from disability leave despite being diagnosed with narcolepsy. She taught third and fourth graders

The school said she couldn't return because they had hired a substitute for that year. They fired her after she showed up anyway and threatened to sue to get her job back.

[fishnetdiver]

01:32 PM on 03/30/2011

thanky!
guess I missed the link...
kinda think they'd make some brief mention of it but still...
either way that's just kinda messed up.

[ANGEL53545]

10:26 PM on 03/30/2011

SHE SHOULD HAVE ASK IF SHE COULD COME BACK THE NEXT SCHOOL YEAR