United States Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Essentially Ignored its Previous Ministerial Exception Test, In Favor of the Vague Instruction that Assessment of the Exception Should Include all Relevant CircumstancesOUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL v. MORRISSEY-BERRU
THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS RESPONSIBLE FOR TEACHING ALL SUBJECTS, INCLUDING RELIGION, AND FOR PRAYING WITH STUDENTS.
Plaintiffs Agnes Morrissey-Berru and Kristen Biel had nearly identical agreements to teach elementary students at Catholic schools Our Lady of Guadalupe School (OLG) and St. James School, respectively. Morriseey-Berru taught all subjects to fifth or sixth graders for several years. The curriculum included religion, which she also taught. She took religious education courses at the school’s request and was expected to attend faculty prayer services. Her yearly employment agreement stated that all of her duties as a teacher should be performed within the overriding commitment of developing and promoting a Catholic School Faith Community. Teachers were expected to model and promote Catholic faith and morals and were responsible for the “faith formation” of their students each day. Morrissey-Berru prepared her students for participation in Mass and for communion and confession and prayed with her students every day. In 2014, OLG suddenly demoted Morrissey-Berru to part time and then declined to renew her contract the following year. She filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging age discrimination and subsequently filed a lawsuit. OLG moved for summary judgment
Plaintiff Kristen Biel worked for St. James School as a substitute for part of a year and then as a full-time fifth grade teacher for a year. She taught all subjects, including religion. Her employment agreement was nearly identical to OLG’s. Like OLG, St. James stated that religious development was its first goal and required teachers to model the faith life, integrate Catholic principles into secular subjects, and prepare students to receive the sacraments. She was required to teach religion for 200 minutes per week and administer weekly tests on religion. She also worshipped with her students and prepared them for Mass. She was required to pray with her students every day. St. James declined to renew Biel’s contract after one year. She alleged that she was fired after requesting a leave of absence for breast cancer treatment. The district court granted summary judgment based on the ministerial exception. A divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed. The Supreme Court granted review and consolidated the two cases.
THE SUPREME COURT BACKTRACKED ON ITS PREVIOUS CRITERIA FOR THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION IN ORDER TO FIND THAT THE EXCEPTION APPLIED HERE.
The First Amendment protects religious institutions from government interference. Under the ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws, these laws do not apply to people holding certain positions in religious institutions. There is no rigid formula for qualification for the ministerial exception, though the Supreme Court previously identified four relevant circumstances in Hosanna-Tabor: (1) the title of “minister”; (2) the position reflects a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning; (3) the employee holds themselves out as a minister by accepting the formal call to religious service; and (4) the employee’s job duties reflect a role in conveying the church’s message and carrying out its mission. No single circumstance is essential, and these circumstances may vary from case to case. Simply giving someone the title of “minister” is insufficient, and the presence of such a title is not required for the exception. What matters is what the employee does. Educating children in their faith and training them to live their faith are at the very core of the mission of a private religious school. Both Morrissey-Berru and Biel performed vital religious duties. Therefore, both qualified for the ministerial exception. The Ninth Circuit misunderstood the Supreme Court’s previous Hosanna-Tabor decision, treating the four circumstances as a checklist to be weighed in every case. All relevant circumstances should be taken into account to determine whether the exception applies. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, in which Justice Ginsburg joined, soundly criticized the majority for skewing the facts and twisting the careful analysis previously done in Hosanna-Tabor.
CELA Involvement: Thanks to CELA members Joseph Lovretovich and Cathryn G. Fund of JML Law for fighting the good fight.
United States Supreme Court. Filed 7/8/20. 140 S.Ct. 2049. Opinion by Justice Alito, concurrence by Justice Thomas, dissent by Justice Sotomayor.
Read More