The case, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, involved two teachers in California Catholic schools whose contracts were not renewed. In separate cases combined by the Supreme Court, the teachers alleged that their dismissals were based on disability and age, not poor performance. The schools claimed they were exempt from employment discrimination laws under the principle of “ministerial exception.”
At the heart of the case was a question over what constituted a “minister.” In the 2012 Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC decision, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld ministerial exception in the case of a teacher at a Lutheran school who was commissioned and given the title of “minister.” In today’s ruling, the justices determined that ministerial exception also applied to the Catholic school teachers in question. They noted that even through the teachers were not given the formal title of “minister” or the same level of formal training, the essence of their job was the same as in the Hosanna-Tabor case - to transmit the faith to students.
Adele Keim, an attorney with the religious freedom legal group Becket, said the court’s decision reinforced the idea that “government should not be in the business of telling religious schools who is qualified to teach the faith to their students.”
Keim, who worked on the case, told CNA this is a “common-sense principle” rooted in the First Amendment, which helps to ensure a healthy separation of church and state.
For decades, she said, courts have recognized that Title VII employment discrimination law does not apply in certain cases involving religious institutions.
This principle is important in cases of sexual morality. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that employers cannot fire employees on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.
However, Keim noted that the majority ruling in Bostock gave a nod to religious freedom, acknowledging that there are a special set of legal doctrines that operate in the case of religious organizations, and explicitly mentioning ministerial exception as one of them.
“There’s a protected sphere that gives religious organizations independence in deciding who’s going to carry out core religious functions. And so Title VII doesn’t come in there,” she said.
“If you can show that the employee is carrying out important religious functions, then that’s an area where the state just has to stay out.”
In several high-profile cases in recent years, teachers at Catholic schools who have entered civil same-sex marriages have been fired.
Bursch said today’s ruling could protect schools from lawsuits in these situations, provided they could show that the teachers in question were expected to transmit the faith to students.
“If the teacher is considered a minister at that school, as the Catholic teachers were in the two schools that the court decided today, then Title VII would not apply, no matter what the claim is,” he said. “The ministerial exception simply says that the federal government can’t be involved in regulating appointment law when it comes to religious institutions and their ministers. So the Bostock decision would not apply.”
(Story cotinues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
At Catholic News Agency, our team is committed to reporting the truth with courage, integrity, and fidelity to our faith. We provide news about the Church and the world, as seen through the teachings of the Catholic Church. When you subscribe to the CNA UPDATE, we'll send you a daily email with links to the news you need and, occasionally, breaking news.
As part of this free service you may receive occasional offers from us at EWTN News and EWTN. We won't rent or sell your information, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
Non-teacher employees would be similarly evaluated, with courts looking at their job responsibilities to determine whether the role is ministerial in nature. For example, a school janitor who is only present in the building outside of normal school hours and is not responsible for transmitting the faith would likely not be considered ministerial in nature, he said.
In one case in Indianapolis last year, two guidance counselors were dismissed from a local Catholic school for entering civil same-sex marriages, and a social worker then lost her job after publicly defending them.
Bursch said employment decisions such as these would be evaluated based on what the expectations of the employees are, and what job responsibilities they have.
For a guidance counselor, courts may consider questions such as, “Do they have any kind of religious or theological education or training? Is it expected that they’re going to transmit principles of the Catholic faith to students as they work through issues? Are they going to encourage students to consider religious vocations, such as being Catholic priests or being nuns?”
“The more of those types of things you have, the more likely it is that the court would consider the counselor a minister,” Bursch said.
“Each [case] will be a facts and circumstances examination of how much that person is expected to help carry on the faith to others. And if there’s a lot of that, they’re almost certainly a minister. If there’s none of that, then they almost certainly would not be,” he added.