Judges cannot get involved in church dispute

[Admiral Yi]

They asked her to resign because of her illness, then fired her when she threatened to sue.

A very lawyerly and weasely distinction, but there it is.

[grumbler]

They asked her to resign because of her illness, then fired her when she threatened to sue.

A very lawyerly and weasely distinction, but there it is.

Actually, as I understand it, they told her she could not come back from disability during the school year, because they had already contracted (and had to pay) her substitute for that year.  She could have returned the following school year, but chose instead to show up at the school for work and threaten to sue if they didn't restore her position and pay immediately.  It was the latter set of acts that caused her to get fired.

Whether the church has to hire a substitute on a day-to-day basis in a non-religious case of disability I don't know.  If people can move on and off the disability rolls at will when diagnosed with a disability, then that would seem to be the requirement.

[crazy canuck]

Whether the church has to hire a substitute on a day-to-day basis in a non-religious case of disability I don't know.  If people can move on and off the disability rolls at will when diagnosed with a disability, then that would seem to be the requirement.

Normally the requirement is to allow the person to return to work when they are medically able to.  It is normally not an issue of whether the timing of the return to work is inconvenient to the employer. The exception to that is if the employer can demonstrate undue hardship in having the employee return.  Normally when an employer fills the spot being vacated by the disabled employee it is on short renewable terms or expressly on condition that when the disabled employee returns to work the temporary position will be terminated.

People cannot move on and off the disability rolls "at will".  It is always a question of whether and when they are medically able to return to work.

[garbon]

People cannot move on and off the disability rolls "at will".  It is always a question of whether and when they are medically able to return to work.

That can be pretty subjective though.

[crazy canuck]

People cannot move on and off the disability rolls "at will".  It is always a question of whether and when they are medically able to return to work.

That can be pretty subjective though.

I agree, there can be litigation over that issue.  But that is the issue - whether in fact they are medically able to return.  It has nothing to do with being able to do so "at will".

[grumbler]

People cannot move on and off the disability rolls "at will".  It is always a question of whether and when they are medically able to return to work.

But the question becomes "who determines whether or when" a person can return to work, in cases like narcolepsy?  Narcolepsy never makes someone unable to work; it simply makes them vulnerable to falling asleep while on the job.  In this case, it was the minister who decided she could come off of disability at will, and I don't see how there was anyone else who could make that determination, medically-speaking.

[Martinus]

People cannot move on and off the disability rolls "at will".  It is always a question of whether and when they are medically able to return to work.

But the question becomes "who determines whether or when" a person can return to work, in cases like narcolepsy?  Narcolepsy never makes someone unable to work; it simply makes them vulnerable to falling asleep while on the job.  In this case, it was the minister who decided she could come off of disability at will, and I don't see how there was anyone else who could make that determination, medically-speaking.

Usually a medical expert, either appointed by the court or, in case with public health care system, the one who examined the disabled person.

In Poland it's, essentially, the doctor you go to. If either you or your employer wants to challenge that, they can appeal to a committee within the national health insurance organization. From that you can appeal to the court.

[crazy canuck]

People cannot move on and off the disability rolls "at will".  It is always a question of whether and when they are medically able to return to work.

But the question becomes "who determines whether or when" a person can return to work, in cases like narcolepsy?  Narcolepsy never makes someone unable to work; it simply makes them vulnerable to falling asleep while on the job.  In this case, it was the minister who decided she could come off of disability at will, and I don't see how there was anyone else who could make that determination, medically-speaking.

In the first instance the "who" is a combinatination of the employee's doctor and the employer.  Typically the employer will provide the employee's doctor with a description of the employee's duties and using that description the doctor will use their medical judgment as to whether their patient is medically fit to return to that job.

In this case I am not sure why you think a doctor cannot consider the severity of the narcolepsy and the effectiveness of whatever treatment is being given and provide a medical opinion as to whether the employee is fit to return.  That is exactly what would be done in the normal case.

If you are correct and in this case the employee simply annouced her return without medical clearance to return, then the employer could have simply required her to provide that medical clearance from her treating physician before allowing her to return.

[viper37]

Though I haven't read the case, it seems an overreach.

If the purpose of the protection is to avoid foisting someone with a religiously-unacceptable identity (like making a Catholic Church hire a woman priest, or a Protestant one), that purpose is not advanced by allowing churches to discriminate against people with totally unrelated-to-any-religious-requirement disabilities.

If you allow suits to be brought, that puts courts in the untenable position of judging the validity of a church's claim about ministerial unsuitability.

prior to this judgement, could a Catholic school be forced to employ an Anglican as a religious teacher?

[HVC]

Though I haven't read the case, it seems an overreach.

If the purpose of the protection is to avoid foisting someone with a religiously-unacceptable identity (like making a Catholic Church hire a woman priest, or a Protestant one), that purpose is not advanced by allowing churches to discriminate against people with totally unrelated-to-any-religious-requirement disabilities.

If you allow suits to be brought, that puts courts in the untenable position of judging the validity of a church's claim about ministerial unsuitability.

prior to this judgement, could a Catholic school be forced to employ an Anglican as a religious teacher?

IIRC unless it's changed recently, to be a catholic school teacher you need to go to church and have priest give what can best be described as is a "Priest's note" confirming you go to his church.

*edit* at least in the Hamilton Wentworth District Catholic School Board.

[grumbler]

In the first instance the "who" is a combinatination of the employee's doctor and the employer.  Typically the employer will provide the employee's doctor with a description of the employee's duties and using that description the doctor will use their medical judgment as to whether their patient is medically fit to return to that job.

Narcolepsy isn't a disorder which produces anything like a bright-line distinction between what a person can and cannot do, though, so any doctor would certify that a narcolepsy suffered could return to the job, except for the risk of falling asleep.

[/quote] In this case I am not sure why you think a doctor cannot consider the severity of the narcolepsy and the effectiveness of whatever treatment is being given and provide a medical opinion as to whether the employee is fit to return.  That is exactly what would be done in the normal case.[/quote]
Because the school will not be able to establish a bright-line distinction between an acceptable and unacceptable risk/frequency/duration of the teacher uncontrollably falling asleep during the day.  The teacher got a disability determination without any such thing (she had narcolepsy to the extent that she qualified for disability, but she also was capable of returning to school).

If you are correct and in this case the employee simply annouced her return without medical clearance to return, then the employer could have simply required her to provide that medical clearance from her treating physician before allowing her to return.

But the physician wouldn't be able to give any such clearance.  That would depend on the school.

Suppose a lawyer in your firm was diagnosed with narcolepsy.  Would he/she be required to take disability?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think a lot of deference should be given, almost unlimited deference even, for individual religious organizations to decide on hiring and firing matters for ministerial employees. I mean, let's say a Lutheran minister who had a doctrinal belief that was at odds with the Church leadership was fired. The Lutheran minister has a lot of evidence showing that his doctrinal position is the same as the doctrinal position of his predecessor in the position, and thus he is arguing that he was fired because he was black, not because of his doctrinal position.

I don't want courts really adjudicating that much at all. Courts are not good judges on what is and isn't doctrine form one church to another within the same denomination or across different denominations.

I do think the court should be willing and able to decide who is and isn't a ministerial employee. This case shows that even when there is good evidence the person was only marginally involved in ministerial tasks (I think it said less than 45 minutes out of a full work day), the church was able to treat her as a ministerial employee and the court has said it isn't willing to make determinations on who is and isn't a ministerial employee. I do see some concern about slippery slope, if the courts decided she wasn't a ministerial employee, how about a part time pastor? A youth pastor who rotates between two churches but is a full time businessman outside of Sundays? Basically there are lots of people who have very different work arrangements with their places of worship who also would, rightfully, be considered minister-types. I can see the concern about the courts making fine distinctions and causing problems.

However, I think the SCOTUS could have laid down a workable framework for deciding who is and isn't ministerial. I mean how hard would it be to have stipulated guidelines such as:

1) Under what terms were they hired? Was there any ministerial component to their job when they were hired?
2) If any ministerial tasks arose during employment, were those ministerial tasks formally added to the employee's job duties and responsibilities? -- I wouldn't want a secular employee at a Christian school reclassified as a ministerial employee just because she leads her class in morning prayer once a day, such a person doesn't "feel" ministerial to me.

[crazy canuck]

Narcolepsy isn't a disorder which produces anything like a bright-line distinction between what a person can and cannot do, though, so any doctor would certify that a narcolepsy suffered could return to the job, except for the risk of falling asleep.

Good thing what I am talking about doesnt require anything approaching a "bright line".  As Garbon already pointed out in some cases the medical judgment can be based on less than objective data.

fyi, there are many cases in which a doctors opinion as to fitness is questioned.  Those sorts of disputes are often resolved through arbitration in the unionized work force and litigation in the non unionized work force.

[crazy canuck]

I think a lot of deference should be given, almost unlimited deference even, for individual religious organizations to decide on hiring and firing matters for ministerial employees. I mean, let's say a Lutheran minister who had a doctrinal belief that was at odds with the Church leadership was fired. The Lutheran minister has a lot of evidence showing that his doctrinal position is the same as the doctrinal position of his predecessor in the position, and thus he is arguing that he was fired because he was black, not because of his doctrinal position.

Courts and tribunals are always being asked to decide whether the true motive for firing was contrary to a human rights code.

[Admiral Yi]

However, I think the SCOTUS could have laid down a workable framework for deciding who is and isn't ministerial. I mean how hard would it be to have stipulated guidelines such as:

1) Under what terms were they hired? Was there any ministerial component to their job when they were hired?
2) If any ministerial tasks arose during employment, were those ministerial tasks formally added to the employee's job duties and responsibilities? -- I wouldn't want a secular employee at a Christian school reclassified as a ministerial employee just because she leads her class in morning prayer once a day, such a person doesn't "feel" ministerial to me.

In his decision Roberts said there were a number of factors "which though not individually determinative" added up to her being a minster.  Stuff like the religious class she taught, the fact she got some kind of religious education, etc.