ChoralNet

The professional networking site for the global online choral community.

You are here: Home / Others / “Ministers” no longer subject to anti-discrimination laws

“Ministers” no longer subject to anti-discrimination laws

by Leave a Comment


Obviously churches can choose their pastors without government oversight. But other employees of churches have, until now, been subject to employment laws, including those which bar discrimination. But in the case of Cheryl Perich, a teacher at a Lutheran (LCMS) school, who sued under the ADA alleging that her firing was due to her medical condition, the court upheld the school:
"The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important," Chief Justice John Roberts said in a unanimous opinion. "But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission."
The majority opinion intentionally left it a little vague exactly who falls under this "ministerial exception," but it seems pretty likely that Minsters of Music would be included, if schoolteachers are. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote separate concurring opinions expressing different views on how to determine the extent of the ruling: Thomas would let churches make such determinations on their own, while Alito would only apply it to employees with religious leadership roles. Perich, while primarily a teacher of secular subjects, occasionally taught religion classes and led chapel services.
 
I'm not sure exactly why churches consider it essential to their ministry to be able to discriminate against the disabled, but maybe it was just an excuse.
 
P.S. I've been asked why we didn't participate in the Internet "blackout" yesterday to protest proposed copyright-enforcement legislation pending in Congress. The answer is that it seemed too remote from choral music. Obviously any guilty-upon-accusation laws are a threat to any website, and I agree that SOPA and PIPA are horrible proposals whose side-effects are far worse than the problem they're trying to solve, but it didn't seem close enough to our core mission to involve our entire site in a political matter. We'll continue to confine our opinions on such matters to ChoralBlog.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  2. Pity you took this stance. Perhaps you missed the point- we’re ALL in it together. That’s what solidarity is.
     
    You admit the problem is “a threat to any website” If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Head-in-the-sand is not a reasonable option; it is a cop-out.
     
    NEXT time… PLEASE!!!

  3. While I am the Artistic Director of a community concert choir, I am also an employment attorney representing employers and have been so for over 25 years.  Your statement above (other than pastors, all employees have been covered by the nations’ employment discrimination laws) is not accurate.
     
     
    The recent decision by the Supreme Court did not alter the existing legal landscape significantly.  Essentially all federal Court of Appeals (the level of courts immediately below the U.S. Supreme Court) has had the “ministerial exception” to the employment discrimination laws for decades … and for good reason.
     
     
    In Perich v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed an opinion by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appellate court for Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee).  In its opinion, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the existence of the ministerial exception, but believed the teacher’s duties did not justify the coverage by the exception.  Thus, it is important to look at the facts of the case.
     
     
    In Perich v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, the U.S. Supreme Court held Perich was covered by the exception because:
     
    • Perich was “called.”  “Called” teachers at Hosanna-Tabor are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God.  To be eligible to be considered “called”, a teacher must complete certain academic requirements, including a course of theological study.  Once called, a teacher receives the formal title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.”
     
    • Perich formally accepted the call, indicating she perceived herself as a minister.
     
    • In addition to teaching secular subjects, Perich taught a religion class, led her students in daily prayer and devotional exercises, and took her students to a weekly school-wide chapel service.  Perich led the chapel service herself about twice a year.
     
    If this position were not covered by the ministerial exception, Hosanna-Tabor would not have been able to discriminate against a Jew or Muslim who applied for a “called” position.  The ban against religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 would prevent Hosanna-Tabor from such discrimination.  Hence, the virtually unheard-of unanimous decision by this currently highly fractured U.S. Supreme Court.
     
     
    Yes, virtually all Ministers of Music (and Directors of Music, Organist/Choir Directors, etc.) are covered by the ministerial exception and have been for decades.  Church secretaries generally are not.  Church maintenance employees are clearly not covered by the exception.  High school science teachers in most religious schools are likely not.
     
     
    The lesson of Perich v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School is that it all depends upon the duties that the employee performs on a regular basis ~ nothing more.
     
     
    David Spitko
     

Leave a Reply

© 2025 American Choral Directors Association. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy