1111 EEOC Not Religious Worker’ Shepherd
In February of 2005, Cheryl Perich found herself jobless under very unique circumstances. She had been a fourth-grade teacher at a small church-run elementary school, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan since the 1999-2000 school year. During the 2004 summer break, Perich became so ill that she took a leave of absence. By December of that year, she had been diagnosed with narcolepsy, sudden and unpredictable lapses into deep sleep, but planned to return to work within two to three more months.
During Perich’s absence, Hosanna-Tabor had first juggled schedules and then hired a substitute teacher to cover the vacancy. Eventually, after several more interactions, Perich, who was a “called” (commissioned) minister in the church, was terminated out of fear by the school board for student safety, because she would not accept a “peaceful release” and because she went to civil authorities in defiance of the church’s internal religious dispute resolution process.
This case began its journey through the court system on May 17, 2005 when Perich filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) based on standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits employers from retaliation against employees based on conditions of disability. On October 5th, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard arguments in the case.
According to an analysis by the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University Law School, the fundamental question before SCOTUS involves the extent of what is known as the ministerial exception to the ADA. In other words, would the EEOC’s enforcement of the ADA in this case violate the First Amendment’s religious protections against government regulation of churches and church-run organizations, especially when it comes to hiring practices.
It should be emphasized that this case does not involve violations of civil rights or criminal statutes. Both sides in the case acknowledge that SCOTUS has recognized the fundamental function of the ministerial exception in Bishop v. Amos (1987) as well as the requirement of religious organizations to uphold valid laws in Employment Division v. Smith (1990).
Such a case as this has never been heard by SCOTUS before and the stakes are high for religious freedom. If the court hands down a broad ruling in favor of Hosanna-Tabor which extends the ministerial exception to ministerially recognized teachers such as Perich, lower courts will likely continue deferring to church processes as they mostly have thus far. If the court decides broadly in favor of the EEOC and Perich, it could provide a foundation for the beginning of challenges to church staffing by employees or employment seekers who fail to represent a particular church’s or denomination’s beliefs. Radiating from EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor are also questions about the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause and freedom of association.
Hosanna-Tabor is a perfect illustration of the spiritual and civil confusion which exists in America. Somehow, even within conservative Christianity, we are gradually accepting the lie that government, in this case the EEOC, is our ultimate shepherd. It is not. As James Madison and virtually all the founding fathers recognized, there is a vast difference between government in religion and religion in government. They documented their understanding that government-regulated religion was one of the most lethal oppressions of a people. At the same time, they foresaw that our government could not survive without respecting religious principles. Let’s pray that the Supreme Court gets this one right.