Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The woman took a leave of absence for health reasons. When she completed treatment, she wanted to take up her position again. The church fired her because of her disability. The EEOC took up her cause. SCOTUS ruled in the church's favor because the EEOC guidelines have an exception in the case of ministers. Her complaint asserted two things, that she wasn't a minister and so the exception didn't apply to her, and that the minister exception in the case of disabilities should be closed. SCOTUS found that even if her title was that of a teacher, that her responsibilities at the church did actually fit the definition of minister. The state, then, cannot compel a church to employ anyone as a minister, even if the church's reasons for refusing employment are clearly discriminatory.
Of course, obama’s DOJ tried to argue that religious organizations held no "extra" rights in their hiring practices.
Obama's war on religion hits a bump in the road.
I'm thinking other cases of religious discrimination might be applied as well.
Obama's war on religion is fictional.
Whenever I hear the term, I pretty much assume whoever is espousing it has zero credibility.
The Supreme Court made the right decision, there is no war on religion, and despite the decision, as much as you wish it to be, this is still not a Christian Country. Sorry.
I think the point that everyone is glossing over is 9-0. All ideologies in agreement on the bench on a major hot button issue. Not very often does that happen.
You want government labor protection? DONT WORK for a religious organization as a minister. As a matter of fact I think all religious organizations should be at will employment for ALL positions for any reason, barring any contract considerations of course.
I think the point that everyone is glossing over is 9-0. All ideologies in agreement on the bench on a major hot button issue. Not very often does that happen.
I saw that. Very good to see there is still a line between government and religion that will not be crossed.
What an innacurate and misleading thread title. That and the linked Fox news article is horribly biased. Just read the completely incorrect first sentence: "The Supreme Court has sided unanimously with a church sued for firing an employee on religious grounds". She wasn't fired on religious grounds - she was fired because of her disability. The firing had nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about;
In this particular case, involving a parochial school teacher in Redford, Mich., who spent most of her work time on non-religious duties, the Court found these to be decisive factors: that she was formally commissioned or ordained as a “minister” in the Lutheran denomination’s internal practices, that she did perform “important religious functions” in addition to her teaching of lay subjects in the classroom, and that her non-religious duties, however extensive, did not make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff
Obama's war on religion is fictional.
Whenever I hear the term, I pretty much assume whoever is espousing it has zero credibility.
The Supreme Court made the right decision, there is no war on religion, and despite the decision, as much as you wish it to be, this is still not a Christian Country. Sorry.
She was a teacher. She had received religious training, but the primary responsibility of her position was teaching secular subjects. She spent about 45 minutes a day accompanying students to religious services and providing religious guidance. SCOTUS stated in their decision that even a minimal amount of time spent for religious purposes could be used to argue that she served in the capacity of a minister. That's pretty broad, and they further state that they would not offer up a definitive interpretation of "minister" preferring to leave that to churches. While I fully support freedom of religion, and don't necessarily disagree with SCOTUS in this case, I do think that this particular court has a bad habit of refusing to offer up solid definitions and verifiable criteria. Their reluctance to do so actually creates legal ambivalence that leads to more court cases, and the Supreme Court should be resolving legal ambivalence, not creating more confusion.
She was a teacher. She had received religious training, but the primary responsibility of her position was teaching secular subjects. She spent about 45 minutes a day accompanying students to religious services and providing religious guidance. SCOTUS stated in their decision that even a minimal amount of time spent for religious purposes could be used to argue that she served in the capacity of a minister. That's pretty broad, and they further state that they would not offer up a definitive interpretation of "minister" preferring to leave that to churches. While I fully support freedom of religion, and don't necessarily disagree with SCOTUS in this case, I do think that this particular court has a bad habit of refusing to offer up solid definitions and verifiable criteria. Their reluctance to do so actually creates legal ambivalence that leads to more court cases, and the Supreme Court should be resolving legal ambivalence, not creating more confusion.
I don't think there is any ambivalence on this issue. 9-0 is about as black and white as it comes. Especially on issues involving the Government vs Religion.
I don't think there is any ambivalence on this issue. 9-0 is about as black and white as it comes. Especially on issues involving the Government vs Religion.
They refused to offer up a definition of minister. The crux of the case is that someone who taught secular subjects, but spent less than an hour a day dealing with religious matters was defined as a minister, and so subject to the minister exception. If you determine someone is a minister, but then refuse to explain how you make that determination, when that determination is the key to the case, then you haven't resolved anything, but left matters open. Which means future law cases as the legal community tries to figure out what criteria is used to determine who is a minister and who is not. Ambivalence is not about majority opinions here. Ambivalence is about what the heck they based that opinion on. What is a minister?
Here's the nuts-and-bolts of the case (it doesn't seem many people commenting about it have bothered to actually read what the case is about).
A women, Cheryl Perich, was hired as a teacher at a private religious school affiliated with a Lutheran Church. They hire two different kinds of teachers - Contract and Called.
Contract teachers are hired on a yearly basis. They primarily teach only secular subjects, but sometimes do engage in religious instruction. Called teachers go through a short Colloquy course, and afterwards regularly engage in religious instruction. In addition to a normal 7 hour day of secular teaching (math, reading, etc), they lead each class in a short prayer, teach a daily 30 minute bible class, and 2 times a year lead a chapel service at the school. Called teachers are essentially tenured and are not reviewed and rehired each year. The school only hires Contract teachers where they do not have enough qualified Called teachers. Called teachers are referred to in their contracts as "Commissioned Ministers", which are distinct from the "Ordained Ministers" actually affiliated with this Lutheran Church. In fact, the Called teachers or "Commissioned Minsters" are not required to belong to this specific Church or even be Lutheran.
Cheryl Perich was hired in 1999 as a Contract teacher. She was encouraged to become a Called teacher if she want to remain long term at the school, and did so in 2000. In June 2004, she was hospitalized and the doctors couldn't determine what was wrong. She was unable to teach and went on disability. The principal approved the disability leave and told her that her job would be held until she was able to return. That was consistent with the school's policy handbook which states they operate in “full agreement with the intent of the antidiscrimination laws, including with respect to discrimination on the basis of disability." During her leave, she was payed her salary by the school's insurance.
After 6 months on disability, in December 2004, she was diagnosed with narcolepsy. After being properly treated and observed, her doctor cleared her to return to work on Feb 22nd without restriction. It was during this period that the dispute started.
Upon being diagnosed in Dec., Perich informed the school she expected to be cleared to return to work in 2 or 3 months. The school went ahead and hired a substitute teacher to cover her class. On Jan 18th Perich again contacted the school to tell them treatment was going well, and that her return was still on the 2-3 month timetable. At this time the school informed Perich they had changed policy and that Perich would no longer be carried on the school's disability insurance policy.
3 days later they contacted Perich to ask if she intended to return to school because, if not, they needed to elevate another teacher from Contract to Called in order to replace her. They also informed her of another change in employee policy: that anyone who has a disability extending for longer than six months would be encouraged to resign their Call so the church and school will be able to fill the position responsibly. They also told her they had safety concerns about allowing somebody with narcolepsy to teach children.
On Jan 30 the church/school administration had a meeting to discuss Perich, and they concluded that because of her diagnoses she could not return to the school. They decided that if she agreed to quit, they'd pay her medical insurance premiums for 1 year. The asked Perich to meet with them on Feb 8th, at which point they told her of this decision and asked her to make up her mind about quitting by Feb 21st (the day before she had been cleared by her doctor to resume teaching).
On Feb 21st, she informed the school she would not be quitting and that, per the school's handbook (which stated “Failure to return to work on the first workday following the expiration of an approved leave of absence may be considered a voluntary termination”), she would be reporting to work on Feb 22nd. Upon reporting to work, she was asked to leave. At this point, she informed the school she was considering legal action against them. That evening, she was sent a letter saying "it is clear that your intent was not to return to work, but rather to create upheaval in our school…Your behavior demonstrates your total lack of concern for the ministry of Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran School. We are therefore reviewing the process of rescinding your call."
She subsequently filed suit claiming she was illegally fired under the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Church defended itself saying that as a minister, she is not covered by the ADA. The ADA has a ministerial exception and does not cover religious positions within religious organizations. Churches are able to dismiss their religious leaders for any reason whatsoever (even for something like "because he became disabled"). The lower courts concluded that she was a teacher, not a minster, and decided the case on her behalf. The Supreme Court reversed this - they determined she in fact was a religious leader - a minister, and was therefore not protected under the ADA.
They refused to offer up a definition of minister. The crux of the case is that someone who taught secular subjects, but spent less than an hour a day dealing with religious matters was defined as a minister, and so subject to the minister exception. If you determine someone is a minister, but then refuse to explain how you make that determination, when that determination is the key to the case, then you haven't resolved anything, but left matters open. Which means future law cases as the legal community tries to figure out what criteria is used to determine who is a minister and who is not. Ambivalence is not about majority opinions here. Ambivalence is about what the heck they based that opinion on. What is a minister?
So the Supreme court is responsible for writing Job Descriptions?
Any precedence you have for that opinion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
