SCOTUS: Churches Can Ignore Federal Employment Laws

[GeoBQn]

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that a religious institution can fire a minister at will, regardless of federal employment laws. This means that, as long as the employee is considered a "minister" (as defined by the religious organization), they are essentially no longer protected by the following:

Americans with Disabilities Act

Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Title VII

Pregnancy Discrimination Act

Equal Pay Act

Fair Labor Standards Act

Family and Medical Leave Act

Workers' Compensation laws

jezebel.com/5875600/why-the-supreme-courts-new-religion-decision-is-so-awful

(Note, this applies to all religious institutions. I wrote "churches" because "religious institutions" was too long for the title box.)

[meda]

Even more discouraging, it applies to any employee who is employed in furthering or teaching the mission of the religion, so religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, restaurants ( seventh day Adventist) will scramble to capitalize on this. Protections for workers in religiously affiliated businesses were weak enough before, this could really be detrimental to people who are true employees, not ordained clergy.

[lizzy]

Even more discouraging, it applies to any employee who is employed in furthering or teaching the mission of the religion, so religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, restaurants ( seventh day Adventist) will scramble to capitalize on this. Protections for workers in religiously affiliated businesses were weak enough before, this could really be detrimental to people who are true employees, not ordained clergy.

The caveat is that they must be teaching or promoting the religion. In other words, a person teaching only secular classes at a religious school, for example, can sue. A person teaching religion classes cannot.

The decision was 9-0 so it is not like the conservatives on the Court were making a power play.

[ilovetchotchkes]

Even more discouraging, it applies to any employee who is employed in furthering or teaching the mission of the religion, so religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, restaurants ( seventh day Adventist) will scramble to capitalize on this. Protections for workers in religiously affiliated businesses were weak enough before, this could really be detrimental to people who are true employees, not ordained clergy.

This worries me. :( my husband works for TWO religious hospitals. The one I don't think will give him trouble, but the other one? Oh they're jerks.

[Alecto]

In as much as I am both a disability advocate and very separation of church and state.. I agree with this ruling.

This woman specifically held the title of Minister. This ruling holds up the separation of church and state. This ruling does NOT apply to a general worker at a church, like a secretary or custodian, but a specific class of religious workers. While I think the church was scum for this, I do think that the court ruled rightly.

[emmiedahl]

A lot of court decisions look crazy as a sound byte but are quite rational when you read the actual decision and look at the case in depth. I am not familiar with this ruling, just thought I would throw it out there.

[meda]

The caveat is that they must be teaching or promoting the religion. In other words, a person teaching only secular classes at a religious school, for example, can sue. A person teaching religion classes cannot.

The decision was 9-0 so it is not like the conservatives on the Court were making a power play.

the litigation will now be over who is promoting religion. Based on previous rulings about what constitutes "core mission" and promotion" for employees of religious institutions and affiliated businesses, Ithink this will be interpreted more broadly than people realize.