Judges cannot get involved in church dispute

[crazy canuck]

According to what's quoted in the OP, though, the church didn't even claim that the plaintiff was unsuitable for theological/religious reasons.

I didn't read anything at all in the OP about the church's justification for the firing.   On the ride home though, NPR said the church has claimed that her threat to sue went against Lutheran doctrine.

Oh wonderful.  We can do whatever we want as a Church because complaining is against our religion - and the Court bought that?

[Maximus]

complaining != threats of legal action

[crazy canuck]

complaining != threats of legal action

It is the most effective form of complaining permitted under the law.

edit:  all may have the protection of the law, except those poor bastards who belong to a church.

[dps]

I wasn't aware that Lutheran doctrine said that one cannot turn to the civil courts for legal remedies.  That seems surprising to me.  Now if it were the Jehovah's Witnesses or a similar group, I wouldn't be at all surprised to here it.

[Maximus]

I wasn't aware that Lutheran doctrine said that one cannot turn to the civil courts for legal remedies.  That seems surprising to me.  Now if it were the Jehovah's Witnesses or a similar group, I wouldn't be at all surprised to here it.

I agree that I find it surprising for a Lutheran group, but there are groups for which bellicose actions like a lawsuit are antithetical to their beliefs.

Now I'm not sure where I stand on this. On one hand it seems ridiculous that a church would be forced to let someone use their pulpit who is against their beliefs. The same principle seems to apply to any ideological organization, however, and I'm not sure where it ends.

[Razgovory]

Serious question:  Do they have to keep you on staff if you develop serious medical issues?  For instance your arms fall off and you are a construction worker?

[grumbler]

Just to clarify this

1 - she gets promoted to be a called teacher/non-human
2 - she gets sick and is diagnosed with narcolepsy (thats falling asleep alot not stealing drugs iirc)
3 - she gets fired just after said diagnosis and related sick-leave
4 - her dickwad boss says since she got promoted to non-human in step one she can get fired for getting sick
5 - court agrees with dickwad boss

is this a correct understanding of the issues involved?

No.

[Viking]

According to what's quoted in the OP, though, the church didn't even claim that the plaintiff was unsuitable for theological/religious reasons.

I didn't read anything at all in the OP about the church's justification for the firing.   On the ride home though, NPR said the church has claimed that her threat to sue went against Lutheran doctrine.

Which I find very strange since one of the true main tenents of lutheranism is obsequious submission to government authority on all issues. However, that might just be the scandaweenie in me venting.

[dps]

Serious question:  Do they have to keep you on staff if you develop serious medical issues?  For instance your arms fall off and you are a construction worker?

Well, there are 2 main laws on the matter.  The first is the Americans with Disabilities Act, which says that you can't be discriminated against in employment on the basis of a disablility unless the disability means you can't perform the essential tasks of your job with sufficient accomodation by your employer.  What constitutes the essential tasks of a given job, and what degree of accomodation is reasonable can get a bit dicey in some cases, but I don't think that any degree of accomodation that could be considered reasonable would allow an armless construction worker to perform the essential tasks of the job, so they could fire you from a job as a constrution worker if you lost your arms.  On the other hand, if you were a voice actor, the loss of your arms wouldn't keep you from performing the essential tasks fo the job, so you couldn't be fired from that position due to the loss of your arms.

The other main law that deals with the issue is the Family and Medical Leave Act.  Essentially, after you've been with an employer for  a year, you are allowed to take up to 12 weeks of medical leave due to a serious health problem (and some other situations) and your employer must hold your position or an equivalent position for you, though there is an exception that if you're a key employee, they don't have to hold the position.

[Razgovory]

Ah okay.  Thank you dps.  As you can imagine, I don't know much about employment law.

[Martinus]

I may be misunderstanding something, but it seems to me from the article the ruling has it backwards - they are allowing for discrimination in a non-ministerial job because the employed person is also a minister, (rather than allowing the church to discriminate in how it chooses its ministers).

[CountDeMoney]

But the court's unanimous decision in a case from Michigan did not specify the distinction between a secular employee, who can take advantage of the government's protection from discrimination and retaliation, and a religious employee, who can't.

That's easy to determine. 501(c)3.

[Martinus]

Just for comparison's sake, this exception is addressed like this in the EU (this is wording taken from the employment equality directive):

"2. Member States may maintain national legislation in force at the date of adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation incorporating national practices existing at the date
of adoption of this Directive pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or
belief, a difference of treatment based on a person's religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person's religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation's ethos. This difference of treatment shall be implemented taking account of Member States' constitutional provisions and principles, as well as the general principles of Community law, and should not justify discrimination on another ground.

Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with, this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is
based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation's ethos."

So there is a lot for a court to decide, and also this is not limited to religions.

[11B4V]

A narcoleptic minister,that would be some funny shit.

Down right dangerous in some professions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oCDcTxFUkk&feature=related

[dps]

Just for comparison's sake, this exception is addressed like this in the EU (this is wording taken from the employment equality directive):

"2. Member States may maintain national legislation in force at the date of adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation incorporating national practices existing at the date
of adoption of this Directive pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or
belief, a difference of treatment based on a person's religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person's religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation's ethos. This difference of treatment shall be implemented taking account of Member States' constitutional provisions and principles, as well as the general principles of Community law, and should not justify discrimination on another ground.

Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with, this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is
based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation's ethos."

So there is a lot for a court to decide, and also this is not limited to religions.

That's not much different from US law on the matter--discrimination is allowed when there it's due to something that directly impacts legit job requirements.  The exact wording is a bit different, but the gist of it is the same. 

In this particular case, the problem isn't that the church is refusing to hire, say, a Wiccan as their minister.  Nobody would dispute that under the law, the church could refuse to do so.  What's happening here is that the church appears to be firing the plaintiff for having a disability, but saying that it was for religious reasons.  So as I see it, there are 2 main issues here:

1)  Does threatening to sue violate Lutheran doctrine?  And do the courts have the authority to decide matters of religious doctrine?  I don't know the answer about Lutheran doctrine, but I think I would have to say that it's probably best if the courts don't get involved in doctrinal questions at all if there's any way to avoid it, so on that point, I have to agree with the Supreme Court, as I understand the ruling--doing otherwise would allow the courts, in affect, to impose doctrine on religious organizations.  (At this point, I should probably acknowledge that I haven't read the actual ruling, or anything about the case except what's in this thread.)

2)  Did the church in fact fire her because she went against Lutheran doctrine by threatening to sue, or did they fire her for a reason unrelated to any religious qualifications to be a Lutheran minister?  And can the courts rule on whether or not her firing was for an unrelated reason?  Here's where I have a problem.  It seems to be from reading the OP that they may have actually fired her because of her illness, and it seems to me that the courts should be able to rule on whether or not that was the case.