565 U.S. 171, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012)
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School is a member congregation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and operates a school in Redford, Michigan, offering a Christ-centered education to students in kindergarten through eighth grade.1 The Synod classifies its schoolteachers into two categories: called and lay.2 Called teachers are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God through a congregation and must complete academic requirements, including a colloquy program requiring eight courses of theological study, endorsement by the local Synod district, and passage of an oral examination by a faculty committee before receiving the formal title Minister of Religion, Commissioned.3
Lay teachers are not required to be trained by the Synod or even to be Lutheran.4 Lay teachers are hired only when called teachers are unavailable.5 Cheryl Perich was first employed by Hosanna-Tabor as a lay teacher in 1999.6 After Perich completed her colloquy later that school year, Hosanna-Tabor asked her to become a called teacher.7 Perich accepted the call and received a diploma of vocation according her the title Minister of Religion, Commissioned.8
Perich taught kindergarten during her first four years and fourth grade during the 2003-2004 school year, covering math, language arts, social studies, science, gym, art, and music.9 She also taught a religion class four days a week, led the students in prayer and devotional exercises each day, and attended a weekly school-wide chapel service, leading the service herself about twice a year.10
Perich became ill in June 2004 with what was eventually diagnosed as narcolepsy.11 Perich began the 2004-2005 school year on disability leave.12 On January 27, 2005, Perich notified the school principal that she would be able to report to work the following month.13 The principal responded that the school had already contracted with a lay teacher to fill Perich's position for the remainder of the school year.14 On January 30 the congregation voted to offer Perich a peaceful release from her call, whereby the congregation would pay a portion of her health insurance premiums in exchange for her resignation as a called teacher.15 Perich refused to resign and produced a note from her doctor stating that she would be able to return to work on February 22.16
On the morning of February 22 Perich presented herself at the school and refused to leave until she obtained written documentation that she had reported to work.17 Later that afternoon the principal called Perich at home and told her that she would likely be fired.18 Perich responded that she had spoken with an attorney and intended to assert her legal rights.19 Following a school board meeting that evening, board chairman Scott Salo sent Perich a letter stating that Hosanna-Tabor was reviewing the process for rescinding her call.20 Salo subsequently followed up with a letter advising Perich that the congregation would consider whether to rescind her call at its next meeting.21 As grounds for termination, the letter cited Perich's insubordination and disruptive behavior on February 22 as well as the damage she had done to her working relationship with the school by threatening to take legal action.22 The congregation voted to rescind Perich's call on April 10, and Hosanna-Tabor sent her a letter of termination the next day.23
Perich filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that her employment had been terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.24 The EEOC brought suit against Hosanna-Tabor alleging that Perich had been fired in retaliation for threatening to file an ADA lawsuit.25 Perich intervened in the litigation.26 The District Court granted summary judgment for Hosanna-Tabor.27 The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded.28 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.29
Whether the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws?30
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws.31
Yes. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School is a member congregation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and operates a school in Redford, Michigan.32 The Synod classifies its schoolteachers into called and lay categories, with called teachers requiring theological training and receiving the title Minister of Religion, Commissioned.33 Cheryl Perich was hired as a lay teacher in 1999 and later became a called teacher after completing the required colloquy program.34
Perich taught math, language arts, social studies, science, gym, art, and music along with religion classes four days a week and led prayer and devotional exercises daily.35 She also participated in weekly chapel services, leading them about twice a year.36 In 2004, Perich developed narcolepsy and took disability leave, later attempting to return to work in February 2005.37
Upon her attempt to return, the school had filled her position and offered her a peaceful release, which she refused.38 After presenting herself at the school and threatening legal action, the congregation rescinded her call and terminated her employment.39 The suit challenges the church's decision to terminate Perich's employment as a minister, which interferes with the church's internal governance and right to select its ministers under the First Amendment.40
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses bar such suits.41
Whether Cheryl Perich qualified as a minister covered by the ministerial exception based on her title, training, and duties at Hosanna-Tabor?42
An employee qualifies as a minister under the exception when the church holds her out as a minister through title and training, and she performs religious functions including teaching religion and leading worship activities.43
Yes. Perich accepted the call and received the diploma of vocation according her the title Minister of Religion, Commissioned after completing eight college-level courses in theological subjects, obtaining Synod endorsement, and passing an oral examination.44 Her job duties included teaching religion four days a week, leading students in prayer and devotional exercises each day, and leading chapel services about twice a year.45 These factors demonstrate that Perich was a minister covered by the exception, so the suit must be dismissed.46
Perich qualified as a minister covered by the ministerial exception.47
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Thomas concurs in the Court's opinion but writes separately to emphasize that the Religion Clauses require civil courts to defer to a religious organization's good-faith understanding of who qualifies as its minister.48 The Religion Clauses guarantee religious organizations autonomy in matters of internal governance, including the selection of those who will minister the faith.49 A religious organization's right to choose its ministers would be hollow if secular courts could second-guess the organization's sincere determination that a given employee is a minister under the organization's theological tenets.50
The question whether an employee is a minister is itself religious in nature, and the answer will vary widely among different religious groups.51 Judicial attempts to fashion a civil definition of minister through a bright-line test or multifactor analysis risk disadvantaging religious groups whose beliefs, practices, and membership are outside the mainstream or unpalatable to some.52 Uncertainty about whether a ministerial designation will be rejected might cause a religious group to conform its beliefs and practices to prevailing secular understandings, which the First Amendment was designed to guard against.53
The Court thoroughly sets forth the facts demonstrating that Cheryl Perich was one of Hosanna-Tabor's ministers, and the evidence also shows that Hosanna-Tabor sincerely considered Perich a minister, which is sufficient to bar her suit by the ministerial exception.54
Justice Alito joins the Court's opinion but writes separately to clarify the significance of formal ordination and designation as a minister in determining whether an employee of a religious group falls within the ministerial exception.55 The term minister is commonly used by many Protestant denominations but is rarely used in this way by Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists.56 The concept of ordination as understood by many faiths has no clear counterpart in others.57
Because virtually every religion is represented in the United States, it would be a mistake to view the term minister or the concept of ordination as central to religious autonomy in cases like this.58 Courts should instead focus on the function performed by persons who work for religious bodies.59 The ministerial exception should apply to any employee who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.60
The Court's opinion holds that the ministerial exception applies to Cheryl Perich, who is regarded by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod as a commissioned minister.61 While a ministerial title is relevant, it is neither necessary nor sufficient.62 Perich played a substantial role in conveying the Church's message and carrying out its mission by teaching religion four days a week, taking students to chapel weekly, leading daily devotional exercises, leading students in prayer, and alternating in planning and leading worship services.63
It makes no difference that Perich also taught secular subjects.64 What matters is that she played an important role as an instrument of her church's religious message and as a leader of its worship activities.65 Hosanna-Tabor discharged Perich because she threatened to file suit against the church in civil court, contravening Lutheran doctrine that disputes among Christians should be resolved internally.66
For civil courts to engage in a pretext inquiry would dangerously undermine religious autonomy by requiring courts to make judgments about church doctrine.67 There is no principled basis for proscribing a pretext inquiry in a case involving a Roman Catholic priest dismissed for getting married while permitting it in a case like this.68 What matters is that Hosanna-Tabor believes Perich's religious function made it essential that she abide by the doctrine of internal dispute resolution, and civil courts are not in a position to second-guess that assessment.69