I cannot imagine working for an organization that allows disability discrimination towards an employee and then retaliates against the employee when they threaten to go through the legal system. That is exactly what happened when Cheryl Perich told the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School that she was going to pursue legal action. Ms. Perich had to take several months of leave due to a narcolepsy disability. Once her doctor released Ms. Perich back to work, her employer, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School, told her that they did not feel she was fit to come back to work and instead wanted the temporary teacher (hired to replace Ms. Perich) to stay on permanently. Ms. Perich refused to sign any sort of resignation letter and as a result, the school stated she was being insubordinate and acting in a manner that was a direct violation of the church's teachings about resolving issues within the institution rather than going through the legal system. Ms. Perich was fired the following month.
This may seem like an open and shut case of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, in this case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School is protected from their actions by something called ministerial exception. For the last 40 years, ministerial exception allows religious institutions exemption from employment protections laws. Ministerial exemption is a rule that prohibits courts from ruling on employment disputes involving ministers. Courts dismiss cases involving ministerial employment issues based because the First Amendment does not allow them invade upon religion. The ministerial exemption has been the reason that several cases in the past have been dismissed and not heard by the courts. Such cases have included a lawsuit in 2004 by a woman stating she was being pressured to resign due to gender discrimination (which included her attempt to report the president’s actions in covering up sexual offenses) and in another case were an elementary teacher, Madeline Weishuhn, working at St. Mary Catholic School, was fired because she went to police instead of the president about student allegations of sexual abuse.
For many, the hope is that the current case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is scheduled to be heard on October 5, 2011, will finally get the attention of the Supreme Court and perhaps change the interpretation of the First Amendment in regards to protecting religious freedom and employment laws. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School is claiming that Ms. Perich was serving the school as a commissioned minister, which many argue is a stretch since her primary role at the school was as a school teacher. The Obama administration has provided a brief siding with Ms. Perich, the ACLU has also provided arguments on behalf of Ms. Perich, and so has a group of 60 plus professors of law and religion. The professors are not only siding with MS. Perich, they are also arguing that the Supreme Court should do away with ministerial exception (attempted several times already in cases of gender discrimination) because they do not believe that the laws protecting religious organizations require such exemption from neutral laws like the disabilities act and other employment laws. Those who side with Hosanna-Tabor argue that religious institutions, under the First Amendment (religious freedom), should be exempt from federal, state, and local laws and that ministerial exemption was put into place to provide such exemptions.
I believe that ministerial exemption allows religious institutions more freedom than any organization should be allowed. As Wendy Kaminer points out points out in the Atlantic, most of these religious institutions are receiving public funds and tax dollars to help support their institutions. How can they receive these funds, yet be exempt from discrimination and other employment laws (including protections under ADA)? The ministerial exemption allows religious institutions to create a lawless zone that essentially exempts employees, including teachers, any protection from their employer. Perhaps if religious institutions were actually acting in the best interest of their employees, like not firing them for reporting allegations of sexual abuse, then there would be no issue to argue. If they were actually acting in manner that upheld the teachings of the church, there would be no need for a reevaluation of the ministerial exemption. However, that is not the case. I hope the current case does make changes to the ministerial exemption. Religious institutions should be accountable for their actions and should not be allowed to discriminate against their employees.
Lori,
ReplyDeleteWell, I have often said it to friends and family, "One of the greatest weapons ever forged against Christianity is Christians." (Though I believe it was C.S. Lewis who made the analysis upon which I base this statement - maybe Screwtape Letters?)
When I was growing up one of the key lessons we learned about living a Godly life was to not only talk the talk but to walk the walk. I am speaking, of course, from my religious background now but we see the same in many ideological sub-cultures and communities - people talk a really great line but it's much harder for them to hold themselves to the standards they advocate for everyone else. There is, as yet, no law against hypocrisy - well, not expressly, and it is doubtful there ever will be because too many politicians (on both sides of the aisle), CEOs and idealists would be prosecuted under such a law (not to mention just about three forths of the general populace if my experience says anything).
The simple fact, though, is that - even if some of us would find offensive some of the behaviors of certain organizations to which we have some by-proxy affiliation, this is a matter of separation of church and state and, well, this is a critical issue older than our nation. It was the marginalization and oppression of religion by the monarchy through force of law which started this whole great experiment we call America. Even if one is a reformist historian one cannot argue that the church and freedom of religion from governmental influence have always been central to American values. The "wall between church and state" was originally erected to prevent the government from interfering in the affairs of the church not - as the modern interpretation goes - to keep the church out of politics and the affairs of the state. (Nor, certainly, out of the public discourse - though we find some acting as though this were the case on an upsettingly frequent basis.) But when human rights come into play there have been some cases of the government interjecting itself into the stream of events in the religious sector. They are few and far between though and rightly so.
What we, essentially, have here is a matter of "what human/civil right is more important?" The right of disabled Americans to non-discriminatory treatment, OR the right of religious Americans to practice their religious ways without the interference of government (so long as no direct physical harm of innocents is being caused)? Now, should the church have made this choice? I would vehemently disagree with anyone who argues in favor of it -- afterall -- WWJD? But the courts have the responsibility of balancing our very long (and oft taken for granted) list of "Rights." The treatment of those with disabilities has for many years, now, been codified into the practices of our country. There seems to be a line somewhere between killing innocent people and tax evasion where the government occasionally interjects into the affairs of the church. But doing so is always dangerous because it risks violating the religous freedom of others and this is something the Supreme Court simply cannot allow a precedent for. In a way, perhaps ministerial exemption exists to make it easier for the Court to avoid making so risk a decision - a lifeline for the Court whenever the line between balancing our rights gets too blurry.
I do agree with your point though, that the ministerial exemption should not come up as often as it does if those specific individuals and, occasionally organizations, would live "above even the appearance of reproach" - as my mother has always admonished me to do.
Troubling scenario - thanks for bringing this into the discourse.
David Dorr
Lori, thanks for post. I resonate with the same frustration and anger you are feeling about this situation. I, like David would like to quote one of my favorite Christian authors: Philip Yancey once wrote "I have spent my adult life in recovery from the church." I hear ya' Philip!
ReplyDeleteMy faith has always been important to me. I grew up in a conservative church and for a few years of my career worked at a private liberal arts college affiliated with the Evangelical Church of America. I have to say though, the church did more harm than good in many aspects of my life.
I find way more often than not, that the church, which should be a place people can heal, is the place that often does the most damage. Not only are people human and flawed, but when they hurt someone else they invoke the pain they cause as God's will. Then they make it worse by throwing scripture verses around.
I think that the church should definitely be held to the same standards as everyone else. In my idealistic naivete, I think that the church should actually step up and go BEYOND what the laws say. This woman deserves some grace and support, and if the church doesn't provide that because they are hiding behind a lame exception, shame on them.
Thank you Lori. This post really struck a note with me. I am a HUGE believer in the separation of church and state. As a recovering Catholic, I grew tired of the hypocrisy and hate within the church. With the current political climate, and religion weaseling its way into politics, I now tend to recoil whenever I hear the term "Christian values".
ReplyDeleteIf this school is supported in any way by public funds, then by all means, they should be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws that the rest of the country is held to. However, if they are completely privately funded, I believe they can do their own thing and make their own rules. Students have a choice of where to spend their dollars, and if they choose to attend a religious school that actively promotes discrimination, then that is their choice.
Equally as repugnant is religion's forays into politics. Churches regularly fund politicians and initiatives that push their discriminatory views...and they get to do so tax-free. It pisses me off that churches do not have to pay taxes, but can have such a large influence in the political makeup of this country...a place where they do not belong. Again, that whole separation thing.
The anti-discrimination argument can be furthered when talking about the "institution of marriage". As a gay man, it is not legal for me to get married in most of the country. One of the most vocal opponents of gay marriage are religious institutions. That's fine. Let them have their marriages. Let them continue to practice discrimination in their institutions. I want no part of it. However, what I do want are the over 1300 rights that straight couples have when they are in a committed relationship that I do not get with my partner.