Article Summary
High Court Backs Church in Teacher Case
There was a decision made by the United States Supreme Court regarding the issue of employment discrimination in churches. In this case, the constitution was against ministers holding implications for religious schools (Walsh, 2012). The high court made a decision that a teacher in Michigan was a minister; therefore, he was not capable of suing her church manager for discrimination. John G. Roberts, the chief justice, wrote that the members of a religious set believed their ministers so much that they would accept unwanted ministers. Her continued to write that such ministers would impede the internal control of the church.
Religious Freedom
For case number 10-553, which involved equal employment opportunity, was a shock because there was a serious discrepancy amongst the groups that filed briefs. The decision ignited contradictory responses. Douglas Laycock who is a religion and law professor said that the churches ought to control how it selects ministers and their church leaders. This was one of the core sections of the amendment (Walsh 2012). Another professor of law, Christopher Lund, mentioned that the two sides of the disagreement gave various approaches to the state and the church, and the court adapted to religious freedom. The manager of Americans United for separation of state and church, Rev. Barry Lynn, said that the verdict gives room for the church to hire and fire the ministers or treat them for any reason, whether religious or not. Another constitutional law professor, Leslie Griffin, said that it was critical for the court not to argue that religious employers can treat their employees as they wish.
“Called” teacher
This disagreement involved Cheryl Perich who is a Hosanna-Tabor teacher in Redford, Mich. She had taken a leave from 2004 to 2005 since she had been suffering from narcolepsy. The church was against this, and when he filed a lawsuit to the EEOC, she was dismissed. However, the EEOC took her case (Walsh, 2012). The church dismissed her lawsuit because of the “ministerial exception”. Only the federal law courts recognized this, but the Supreme Court never did. Therefore, the church was triumphant in the federal courts but failed in the Supreme Courts.
No, “Stopwatch” Test
Chief Justice Roberts argued that if an unwanted church minister is imposed, the state would defy the guarantee of the Amendment for a liberated religion exercise. This amendment protects the rights of the religious groups in shaping its own mission and faith while it makes its appointments. Roberts argued that Ms. Perich had religious training, taught and took her students to services in the chapel (Walsh, 2012). For these reasons, he argues that Perich was a qualified minister. He said that Perich’s issue could be resolved by a stopwatch. He argued that the purpose of ministerial exemption was not to defend employment in the church. He was also against the EEOC, which argued that ministerial exemption was only for those who practiced restricted religious duties.
Concurring opinion
Justice Clarence argued that courts ought to adjourn the organization of who qualifies to be a minister. Justice Samuel Alito argued that ministerial exemption was not only covering employees of the church with formal training (Walsh 2012). Anthony R. Picarello argued that after the Supreme Court decides, lower courts continue to view the nature of the job. A professor of law at the University of Houston, Ms. Griffin, argued that some law courts already identified that ministerial exemption to apply to provincial teachers and school principles with different involvement levels in religion.
Analysis/Opinion
With regards to Perich’s case, I believe that the church was wrong when it rejected his exemption from work because of her illness. Perich was suffering from narcolepsy and would not work because of this disease. The human resource department should take this issue into consideration. The human resource department ought to offer leaves with allowance for employees in case of illness.
References
Walsh, M. (2012). High Court Backs Church in Teacher Case. Ebscohost, 31 (17):14-21.
Retrieved 18 February 2012, from
< http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&sid=8ad096fc-638f-441f-9e21-
1032c2b47be4@sessionmgr111&hid=125&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#db
=aph&AN=70550442>
