Yesterday, the Supreme Court began to hear a case that, for the first time, will define the scope of the “ministerial exception,” a concept grown in the lower courts for the past several decades when settling discrimination lawsuits involving religious organizations. Ministerial exception was established to preserve the First Amendment enumeration of separation between church and state.
The case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concerns a grade school teacher, Cheryl Perich, who was made a “commissioned minister” at the Lutheran School where she works so that she wouldn’t have to work on a year-to-year contract. In 2004, she went on leave for over six months to treat her narcolepsy, and due to the length of her absence was subsequently asked to resign. She refused and filed suit with the EEOC under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
While it was perhaps insensitive to terminate Perich as an employee after giving her a ministerial position, if the Supreme Court chooses to side with the EEOC, it would be a blatant violation of First Amendment separation of church and state. If the Supreme Court were to interfere in ministerial policy, other cases in the future pertaining to religion and government would become more malleable with the basis of a shoddy precedent.
This case is not unlike the situation of Noor Abdallah, an employee at Disneyland who was prohibited from wearing her hijab, a religious garment, while at work. She sued the company and soon afterwards, Disney agreed to provide her with a uniform scarf and cap so that she could comply with the codes of both her religion and her workplace.
The church would do well to give Perich the opportunity to appeal her termination and take into account the seriousness of her medical condition when reexamining their policy. That being said, it is not within the government’s prerogative to tell the church to do so. There is a fine line between upholding the civil rights of citizens and telling a religious organization how it should operate. Cheryl Perich deserves the right to fight for her case, but that does not mean that the government has to fight for her.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
