HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » Will the Supreme Court Pr...

Thu Mar 26, 2020, 05:34 PM

Will the Supreme Court Protect 'Ministers' From Their Church? by Linda Greenhouse

A case will determine the extent to which religious groups are shielded from employee lawsuits.

'The Supreme Court, now even more invisible than usual, may seem beside the point these days, although we saw from the batch of opinions handed down on Monday that the justices are still at work. The 11 cases that were fully briefed and ready for argument this week and next will be heard eventually. I want to focus on one of those cases, a largely overlooked religion case that will have a great deal to tell us about the court’s receptivity to the increasingly audacious claims of religious supremacy now hurtling its way.

Ordinarily, at this point in a column about a Supreme Court case, I would write: “The question in the case is … ” But in fact, the two sides view this case as presenting fundamentally different questions. I can’t recall such a crucial divergence between the way petitioners and respondents — the terms the Supreme Court uses for the opposing parties — frame the issue to be decided. The justices’ choice of which question to address will very likely determine the answer they give.

The petitioners in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru are two Catholic schools in Los Angeles County, each of which dismissed a lay fifth-grade teacher, giving reasons that may or may not have been the real reasons. Each of the teachers — the respondents — brought suit under federal law for employment discrimination, one for disability discrimination (St. James School refused to renew Kristen Biel’s contract after she told them she had breast cancer and needed time for treatment and recovery) and one for age discrimination.

Here is the question the schools present to the court:

“Whether the Religion Clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, where the employee carried out important religious functions.”

And here is the question the teachers are asking the court to decide:

“Whether the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses prohibit lay teachers at religious elementary schools from bringing employment discrimination claims.”

Note that the first question incorporates the assumption that the teachers, Agnes Morrissey-Berru and Ms. Biel, each of whom taught an ordinary fifth-grade curriculum along with a religion module they taught by following a workbook, were performing “important religious functions.” The second question refers only to “lay teachers.” It contains no suggestion that either teacher was serving in a religious capacity; in fact, neither school required members of its faculty to be practicing Catholics, and Ms. Morrissey-Berru was not. She had taught full time at Our Lady of Guadalupe School for 16 years and was in her 60s when the school’s principal asked her if she wanted to retire. When she said no, she was demoted to a part-time position and her contract was not renewed for the following year.

These facts along with the difference between the two questions are important because this dispute is playing out against the background of a 2012 decision in which the Supreme Court first recognized a “ministerial exception” that shields religious employers from discrimination claims by their employees. The unanimous opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts in that case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, relied on an amalgam of the First Amendment’s two Religious Clauses: the Establishment Clause, which the Supreme Court has long interpreted as barring government “entanglement” with the affairs of churches, and the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits government obstruction of religious practice.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/opinion/supreme-court-religion-discrimination.html?

2 replies, 840 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 2 replies Author Time Post
Reply Will the Supreme Court Protect 'Ministers' From Their Church? by Linda Greenhouse (Original post)
elleng Mar 26 OP
Karadeniz Mar 26 #1
Igel Mar 27 #2

Response to elleng (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2020, 10:07 PM

1. I hope they consider a lot of framers'attitude to religion...keep it irrelevant to govt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karadeniz (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 09:32 AM

2. I'm split.

Wouldn't like these two cases being merged.

One case the teacher was asked if she was going to retire. Then made part time. Then not renewed. Sounds like age discrimination, except that the school was revamping things, changing curricula, and the teacher was balking. Where I teach, if the administration doesn't like you for administrative reasons, they ask if you're going to retire or perhaps might be seeking other employment. Easier than the process for disposing of a teacher. Each side focuses on one side. The truth is a 3-edged sword, one fictional series said. There's always one side, the other side, and the truth.

The second sounds more like discrimination, but may boil down to simple numbers. I work for a large school in a good-sized district. If one employee goes out, there's a large infrastructure, state funding, and state/local leave. There are resources to cover for that one employee. Still, one teacher went out and it was difficult to cover for her because she was the only person that taught that course or still the school who'd taught the course. Yeah, there was a sub--but between district and federal policies over coursework, lab safety, training, grading, grade assignment, special-ed/504 meetings, etc., getting it all handled meant people put in a lot of unpaid time. And when the long-term sub needed to be out for a couple of weeks ...

Makes it less easy to judge based on one side of a triangle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread