果冻传媒app官方

HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al.

Supreme Court Cases

132 S. Ct. 694 (2012)

Search all Supreme Court Cases

Case Overview

Action

Reversed. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

Petitioner Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School is a member congregation of the Lutheran Church鈥揗issouri Synod. The Synod classifies its school teachers into two categories: 鈥渃alled鈥 and 鈥渓ay.鈥 鈥淐alled鈥 teachers are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God. To be eligible to be considered 鈥渃alled,鈥 a teacher must complete certain academic requirements, including a course of theological study. Once called, a teacher receives the formal title 鈥淢inister of Religion, Commissioned.鈥 鈥淟ay鈥 teachers, by contrast, are not required to be trained by the Synod or even to be Lutheran. Although lay and called teachers at Hosanna-Tabor generally performed the same duties, lay teachers were hired only when called teachers were unavailable.

After respondent Cheryl Perich completed the required training, Hosanna-Tabor asked her to become a called teacher. Perich accepted the call and was designated a commissioned minister. In addition to teaching secular subjects, Perich taught a religion class, led her students in daily prayer and devotional exercises, and took her students to a weekly school-wide chapel service. Perich led the chapel service herself about twice a year.

Perich developed narcolepsy and began the 2004鈥2005 school year on disability leave. In January 2005, she notified the school principal that she would be able to report to work in February. The principal responded that the school had already contracted with a lay teacher to fill Perich鈥檚 position for the remainder of the school year. The principal also expressed concern that Perich was not yet ready to return to the classroom. The congregation subsequently offered to pay a portion of Perich鈥檚 health insurance premiums in exchange for her resignation as a called teacher. Perich refused to resign. In February, Perich presented herself at the school and refused to leave until she received written documentation that she had reported to work. The principal later called Perich and told her that she would likely be fired. Perich responded that she had spoken with an attorney and intended to assert her legal rights. In a subsequent letter, the chairman of the school board advised Perich that the congregation would consider whether to rescind her call at its next meeting. As grounds for termination, the letter cited Perich鈥檚 鈥渋nsubordination and disruptive behavior,鈥 as well as the damage she had done to her 鈥渨orking relationship鈥 with the school by 鈥渢hreatening to take legal action.鈥 The congregation voted to rescind Perich鈥檚 call, and Hosanna-Tabor sent her a letter of termination.

Perich filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that her employment had been terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC brought suit against Hosanna-Tabor, alleging that Perich had been fired in retaliation for threatening to file an ADA lawsuit. Perich intervened in the litigation. Invoking what is known as the 鈥渕inisterial exception,鈥 Hosanna-Tabor argued that the suit was barred by the First Amendment because the claims concerned the employment relationship between a religious institution and one of its ministers. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment in Hosanna-Tabor鈥檚 favor. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded. It recognized the existence of a ministerial exception rooted in the First Amendment, but concluded that Perich did not qualify as a 鈥渕inister鈥 under the exception.

Cite this page

Share