Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Jeffrey Campolongo. Jeffrey Campolongo.

In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has sent a clear message when it comes to religious freedom. Whether it comes to a cake baker’s decision to deny service to a gay couple (see Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. __ , 138 S. Ct. 1719, 201 L. Ed. 2d 35) (2018)), exemptions for employers with religious or moral objections to birth control for workers (see Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)), and now giving faith-based institutions wide leeway to hire and fire employees whose jobs are tinged with religious duties (see Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru 591 U.S. ___ (2020)). In each of these instances the high court has sided with religious liberty over perceived or alleged discrimination. Given that the free exercise clause appears in the very first amendment to the Bill of Rights, it should come as no surprise that anti-discrimination laws would give way to religious liberty.

In 2012, the Supreme Court issued its first decision on a judicial doctrine known as the “ministerial exception,” which essentially prohibited ministers from suing faith-based organizations, including schools and churches for employment discrimination. See Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 U. S. 171 (2012). At issue in that case was an employment discrimination claim brought by an elementary school teacher, Cheryl Perich, against the religious school where she taught. Adopting the so-called “ministerial exception” to laws governing the employment relationship between a religious institution and certain key employees, the Supreme Court found relevant Perich’s title as a “minister of religion, commissioned,” her educational training, and her responsibility to teach religion and participate with students in religious activities.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.