Once again, it is open season at the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the many interesting cases heard and just decided by the Supremes this term is an employment/school law case that places federal employment discrimination law and freedom of religion squarely at odds. The case is Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al. and it involves a former teacher at the church school who was fired after she went on disability leave due to narcolepsy, a sleep disorder that causes excessive sleepiness and frequent daytime sleep attacks.

The teacher (who was considered a “called” teacher and a minister at the church) filed a charge with the EEOC, claiming that she was fired in violation of the ADA.  Invoking what is known as the “ministerial exception,” the church argued that the suit was barred by the First Amendment because the claims concerned the employment relationship between a religious institution and one of its ministers.

The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in the church’s favor. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. It recognized the existence of a ministerial exception rooted in the First Amendment, but concluded that the teacher did not qualify as a “minister” under the exception.

The Supreme Court reversed. It found that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws. The lower court held that the teacher wasn’t really a minister, but the Supremes disagreed.

The church held her out as a minister, with a role distinct from that of most of its members. Her title (“Minister of Religion, Commissioned”) represented a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning.  The teacher also held herself out as a minister by, for example, accepting the formal call to religious service.  Her job duties reflected a role in conveying the church’s message and carrying out its mission. As a source of religious instruction, the Supreme Court found that the teacher played an important part in transmitting the Lutheran faith.

The Court's opinion specifically states that it expresses "no view" on whether the ministerial exception bars other types of suits against religious employers, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers.

The decision really isn’t that surprising given the Court’s generally pro-church rulings in land use, school law and other areas in which religion and state conflict. However, one can certainly question the consistency of the Court’s rulings, in light of the church voucher decisions and other rulings that have extended financial and other government-paid benefits to churches and other religious organizations.