http://news.yahoo.com/court-judges-cannot-involved-church-dispute-152559467.html
QuoteIn a groundbreaking case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held for the first time that religious employees of a church cannot sue for employment discrimination.
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.
It was, nevertheless, the first time the high court has acknowledged the existence of a "ministerial exception" to anti-discrimination laws — a doctrine developed in lower court rulings. This doctrine says the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of such protective laws when the issue involves employees of these institutions.
The case came before the court because the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford, Mich., on behalf of employee Cheryl Perich, over her firing, which happened after she complained of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Writing the court's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said allowing anti-discrimination lawsuits against religious organizations could end up forcing churches to take religious leaders they no longer want.
"Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs," Roberts said. "By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group's right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments."
The court's decision will make it virtually impossible for ministers to take on their employers for being fired for complaining about issues like sexual harassment, said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.
"Clergy who are fired for reasons unrelated to matters of theology — no matter how capricious or venal those reasons may be — have just had the courthouse door slammed in their faces," Lynn said.
But Douglass Laycock, who argued the case for Hosanna-Tabor, called it a "huge win for religious liberty."
"The court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders," he said.
But since this was the first time the high court has ever considered the "ministerial exception," it would not set hard and fast rules on who can be considered a religious employee of a religious organization, Roberts said.
"We are reluctant ... to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister," he said. "It is enough for us to conclude, in this, our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment."
Perich was promoted from a temporary lay teacher to a "called" teacher in 2000 by a vote of the church's congregation and was hired as a commissioned minister. She taught secular classes as well as a religious class four days a week. She also occasionally led chapel service.
She got sick in 2004 but tried to return to work from disability leave despite being diagnosed with narcolepsy. The school said she couldn't return because they had hired a substitute for that year. They fired her and removed her from the church ministry after she showed up at the school and threatened to sue to get her job back.
Perich complained to the EEOC, which sued the church for violations of the disabilities act.
A federal judge threw out the lawsuit on grounds that Perich fell under the ADA's ministerial exception, which keeps the government from interfering with church affairs. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated her lawsuit, saying Perich's "primary function was teaching secular subjects" so the ministerial exception didn't apply.
The federal appeals court's reasoning was wrong, Roberts said. He said that Perich had been ordained as a minister and the lower court put too much weight on the fact that regular teachers also performed the same religious duties as she did.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also placed too much emphasis on the fact that Perich's religious duties only took up 45 minutes of her workday, while secular duties consumed the rest, Roberts said.
"The issue before us ... is not one that can be resolved by a stopwatch," he said.
The court's decision was a narrow one, with Roberts refusing to extend the ministerial exception to other types of lawsuits that religious employees might bring against their employers. "We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits, including actions by employees alleging breach of contract or tortious conduct by their religious employers," Roberts said.
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote a separate opinion, argued that the exception should be tailored for only an employee "who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith."
But "while a purely secular teacher would not qualify for the 'ministerial exception,' the constitutional protection of religious teachers is not somehow diminished when they take on secular functions in addition to their religious ones," Alito said.
I'm not sure how I feel about this judgment giving the particulars of the case (not a case where an atheist was fighting for employment in a church).
!!!! OMG SIRI LAW IN AMERICA !!!!
Fine with me. People who decide to leave the secular economy shouldn't benefit from the protections those who did toil fought for.
What's poor DGuller going to do when he finds out it was a unanimous decision? :weep:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 04:30:07 PM
What's poor DGuller going to do when he finds out it was a unanimous decision? :weep:
It was a 5-4 decision in a way. It's just that both 5 and 4 voted the same way, likely due to some sort of miscommunication.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2012, 05:10:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2012, 05:10:23 PM
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.
I believe that Garbon expressed the same reservations. I rather feel that way as well.
Seems like a reasonable accommodation.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 11, 2012, 05:20:03 PM
Seems like a reasonable accommodation.
Its avoiding having to make a decision regarding what might be a reasonable accomodation isnt it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 05:18:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2012, 05:10:23 PM
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.
Why is that untenable? Courts judge stuff like that all the time.
Same dealy with determining, say, whether Sikhs really need to wear Turbans all the time on the job. Courts don't simply accept someone's say-so that "I'm a Baptist, I gotta wear my Budwiser Ball Cap. At all times.".
Make the church provide some evidence that this is really 'about' ministerial unsuitability; if the evidence shows it is, then so be it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 05:18:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2012, 05:10:23 PM
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.
According to what's quoted in the OP, though, the church didn't even claim that the plaintiff was unsuitable for theological/religious reasons.
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2012, 05:23:48 PM
Why is that untenable? Courts judge stuff like that all the time.
Same dealy with determining, say, whether Sikhs really need to wear Turbans all the time on the job. Courts don't simply accept someone's say-so that "I'm a Baptist, I gotta wear my Budwiser Ball Cap. At all times.".
Make the church provide some evidence that this is really 'about' ministerial unsuitability; if the evidence shows it is, then so be it.
Indeed. I imagine the courts would generally defer to the Church on that as well. If they showed any proof of theological unsuitablity it would be fine.
Edit: Also doesn't this just involve the courts in deciding who is and isn't a minister. They seem to have interpreted that very broadly here.
This seems like a serious overreaction. A blanket ban on anti-discrimination claims for ministers or religious teachers seems far too strong. From what I can tell this was about a disability discrimination claim :mellow:
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?
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2012, 05:24:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 06:01:16 PM
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2012, 05:24:14 PM
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?
complaining != threats of legal action
Quote from: Maximus on January 11, 2012, 06:36:17 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2012, 06:55:37 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Viking on January 11, 2012, 05:48:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 06:01:16 PM
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2012, 05:24:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 11, 2012, 07:58:38 PM
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.
Ah okay. Thank you dps. As you can imagine, I don't know much about employment law. :lol:
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).
QuoteBut 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.
Just for comparison's sake, this exception is addressed like this in the EU (this is wording taken from the employment equality directive):
Quote"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.
A narcoleptic minister,that would be some funny shit.
Down right dangerous in some professions :lmfao:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oCDcTxFUkk&feature=related
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2012, 06:27:08 AM
Just for comparison's sake, this exception is addressed like this in the EU (this is wording taken from the employment equality directive):
Quote"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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2012, 11:26:00 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2012, 11:41:04 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 11:53:12 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2012, 11:54:23 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 11:53:12 AM
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".
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 11:53:12 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2012, 12:20:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 11:53:12 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2012, 12:20:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 11:53:12 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 05:18:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2012, 05:10:23 PM
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?
Quote from: viper37 on January 12, 2012, 01:16:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 05:18:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 11, 2012, 05:10:23 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 01:04:37 PM
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).
QuoteIf 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?
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2012, 02:22:01 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 12, 2012, 03:24:43 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 12, 2012, 03:24:43 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 03:41:43 PM
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.
Exactly: the case had no "bright line" as a medical determination of eligibility to return to work would require. She was eligible for disability, and took it for a while. She was not ineligible for work, and decided after a while to return.
Quotefyi, 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.
FYI, eligibility for disability isn't mutually exclusive with the ability to perform some work. Disability pay is stopped if one returns to work (either full-time or, in case of part-time work, if income exceeds a specified level, which I believe varies by state).
The issue is whether the church had to take her back even when they had already hired a replacement because she went on disability.
That case would presumably have been litigated if she was not a cleric.
I see we are heading down the rabbit hole of Grumbleresque semantics.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2012, 09:00:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2012, 03:41:43 PM
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.
Exactly: the case had no "bright line" as a medical determination of eligibility to return to work would require. She was eligible for disability, and took it for a while. She was not ineligible for work, and decided after a while to return.
Quotefyi, 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.
FYI, eligibility for disability isn't mutually exclusive with the ability to perform some work. Disability pay is stopped if one returns to work (either full-time or, in case of part-time work, if income exceeds a specified level, which I believe varies by state).
The issue is whether the church had to take her back even when they had already hired a replacement because she went on disability. That case would presumably have been litigated if she was not a cleric.
Even though the article says that she went on "disability leave" I suspect that she actually went on leave under the FMLA, not on disability. If that's the case, she would have had to have been certified by a doctor as need to go on FMLA leave, and a doctor would have to certify that she was ready to come back off of leave in order for her to return to work.
Being disabled and being on medical leave are NOT the same thing. With most employers, there would be no such thing as "disability leave"--you're either an employee who's on FMLA leave, an employee who has a disability which the employer can make reasonable accomodation for (and if the employer could make such accomodation, you'd not be on leave, you'd still be working), or you're on disablilty--which generally is used to mean that you have been ruled to be disabled by a court of some sort (usually an administrative court, not a regular civil court) and are drawing some sort of disability income, in which case you're no longer an employee (though it gets more complicated in some jurisdictions where you can be legally considered "partially disabled").
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2012, 11:09:23 PM
Being disabled and being on medical leave are NOT the same thing. With most employers, there would be no such thing as "disability leave"--you're either an employee who's on FMLA leave, an employee who has a disability which the employer can make reasonable accomodation for (and if the employer could make such accomodation, you'd not be on leave, you'd still be working), or you're on disablilty--which generally is used to mean that you have been ruled to be disabled by a court of some sort (usually an administrative court, not a regular civil court) and are drawing some sort of disability income, in which case you're no longer an employee (though it gets more complicated in some jurisdictions where you can be legally considered "partially disabled").
Yeah, we have similar distinctions here. I agree that "disability leave" was an inelegant description. It is a term that is also frequently used here when what is actually occurring is that the employer is accomodating the employees absence from work while the employee draws some form of benefit either through a disability insurer or a government program.
What strikes me as odd in this case is that you would think that the public policy argument that we want employees to return to work as quickly as possible so as to reduce cost to insurers or government would win out.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 10:15:20 AM
What strikes me as odd in this case is that you would think that the public policy argument that we want employees to return to work as quickly as possible so as to reduce cost to insurers or government would win out.
Huh? Where did I say that?
Quote from: dps on January 13, 2012, 02:02:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 10:15:20 AM
What strikes me as odd in this case is that you would think that the public policy argument that we want employees to return to work as quickly as possible so as to reduce cost to insurers or government would win out.
Huh? Where did I say that?
You didnt. That is an implication that comes from the decision we are discussing.
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2012, 11:09:23 PM
Even though the article says that she went on "disability leave" I suspect that she actually went on leave under the FMLA, not on disability. If that's the case, she would have had to have been certified by a doctor as need to go on FMLA leave, and a doctor would have to certify that she was ready to come back off of leave in order for her to return to work.
Why would you suspect that she went on FMLA? That doesn't fit the facts. First, the church school doesn't employ more than 50 people, so doesn't come under FMLA. Second, the school wouldn't have hired a teacher for the year if Perich was only taking the max 12 weeks of FMLA. Third, if Perich was coming back, per FMLA, due to her condition no longer being disabling, she couldn't sue under ADA - she wan't disabled any more.
QuoteBeing disabled and being on medical leave are NOT the same thing. With most employers, there would be no such thing as "disability leave"--you're either an employee who's on FMLA leave, an employee who has a disability which the employer can make reasonable accomodation for (and if the employer could make such accomodation, you'd not be on leave, you'd still be working), or you're on disablilty--which generally is used to mean that you have been ruled to be disabled by a court of some sort (usually an administrative court, not a regular civil court) and are drawing some sort of disability income, in which case you're no longer an employee (though it gets more complicated in some jurisdictions where you can be legally considered "partially disabled").
She was on "disability leave." The church had voluntarily given her full pay and benefits through Dec 2004. After that, she was (apparently) on state disability pay. In January, 2005, her doctor said that she could probably return to work in March or April, but when she passed this news on to the church, they said they had hired a replacement through the end of the school year (June), and that she couldn't return before then, because they couldn't afford to pay her and they had a contract with her replacement. At that point (Jan 2005), she returned to the school and announced that, unless they resumed her pay and allowed her to resume her duties, she would sue under ADA. Things got ugly after than, and in April the congregation revoked the "called" status that qualified her for the job. The lawsuits ensued.
It is possible that she never applied for state disability pay - none of the summaries are clear on that. It is clear, though, that she would have qualified, since her doctor said he would clear her for work some months down the road - meaning she wasn't cleared for work in January, 2005.
In Michigan, no court determination of disability is needed. You merely apply to the state and a consultant determines your eligibility.
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2012, 07:08:50 PM
Quote from: dps on January 12, 2012, 11:09:23 PM
Even though the article says that she went on "disability leave" I suspect that she actually went on leave under the FMLA, not on disability. If that's the case, she would have had to have been certified by a doctor as need to go on FMLA leave, and a doctor would have to certify that she was ready to come back off of leave in order for her to return to work.
Why would you suspect that she went on FMLA? That doesn't fit the facts. First, the church school doesn't employ more than 50 people, so doesn't come under FMLA. Second, the school wouldn't have hired a teacher for the year if Perich was only taking the max 12 weeks of FMLA. Third, if Perich was coming back, per FMLA, due to her condition no longer being disabling, she couldn't sue under ADA - she wan't disabled any more.
QuoteBeing disabled and being on medical leave are NOT the same thing. With most employers, there would be no such thing as "disability leave"--you're either an employee who's on FMLA leave, an employee who has a disability which the employer can make reasonable accomodation for (and if the employer could make such accomodation, you'd not be on leave, you'd still be working), or you're on disablilty--which generally is used to mean that you have been ruled to be disabled by a court of some sort (usually an administrative court, not a regular civil court) and are drawing some sort of disability income, in which case you're no longer an employee (though it gets more complicated in some jurisdictions where you can be legally considered "partially disabled").
She was on "disability leave." The church had voluntarily given her full pay and benefits through Dec 2004. After that, she was (apparently) on state disability pay. In January, 2005, her doctor said that she could probably return to work in March or April, but when she passed this news on to the church, they said they had hired a replacement through the end of the school year (June), and that she couldn't return before then, because they couldn't afford to pay her and they had a contract with her replacement. At that point (Jan 2005), she returned to the school and announced that, unless they resumed her pay and allowed her to resume her duties, she would sue under ADA. Things got ugly after than, and in April the congregation revoked the "called" status that qualified her for the job. The lawsuits ensued.
It is possible that she never applied for state disability pay - none of the summaries are clear on that. It is clear, though, that she would have qualified, since her doctor said he would clear her for work some months down the road - meaning she wasn't cleared for work in January, 2005.
In Michigan, no court determination of disability is needed. You merely apply to the state and a consultant determines your eligibility.
I think that I clearly stated that all I was going on was what was in the OP. Obviously, you have more information from somewhere else.
If your information is correct, though, I don't see where she has any case. If she wasn't on FMLA leave and the church voluntarily gave her paid leave through December, then the church had every right to separate her and hire a permanent replacement (granting that there might be some differences under Michigan law, but those wouldn't be an issue for the federal courts anyway). Since there doesn't seem to be any mention of refusal to make a reasonable accomodation for a disability, the ADA wouldn't apply either. In fact, it seems that they were going out of their way to accomodate her, as there seems to be an implication that they would have her return after the school year, when her replacement's contract was up. Apparantly, though, she just showed up and made herself obnoxious, and they didn't want to deal with that, so they just outright fired her. If that's the case, I don't see where there's any legit claim of discrimination.
There's got to be more to this case than what's been posted here, but while I'm interested enough to post in this thread, I'm not actually interested enough to do any other research on it. Not yet, anyway.