In the USA, the "ministerial exception" has been extended to apply to teachers.
In a 7-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court extended the “ministerial exception” that excludes religious organisations from some employment laws. The Supreme Court said two teachers at parochial schools who wanted to dispute their dismissal fell within the category of employees who were covered by the exception. They were therefore unable to bring their claims.
Background to the Morrissey-Berru case
The case, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, involved two teachers employed in Catholic elementary schools in California.
Like most elementary school teachers, they taught a broad range of subjects. Most of their time involved teaching core (and non-religious) topics such as arithmetic or grammar. However, both women did also spend some time teaching their pupils about the Catholic faith.
Their contracts were not renewed, allegedly because of their disability and age. The schools argued that they were exempt from disability and age discrimination laws because of a principle of “ministerial exception”.
Ministerial exception
The key question for the Supreme Court was what constituted a “minister.” In the 2012 Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC decision, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld ministerial exception in the case of a teacher at a Lutheran school who was commissioned and given the title of “minister.” In the most recent ruling, the majority of the Supreme Court determined that “ministerial exception” also applied to these Catholic school teachers. The Supreme Court said that, even though the teachers were not given the formal title of “minister” (or similar formal training), their job was essentially the same as in the Hosanna-Tabor case. their job was to transmit the faith to students.
Impact of the Morrissey-Berru case
Many if not all teachers working in religious schools no longer benefit from protection against age discrimination. Any teacher that provides religious instruction will now likely fall within the classification of “ministers”.
The position of other employers ar religious schools is unclear. Writing for the dissenting minority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that “the rights of countless coaches, camp counselors, nurses, social-service workers, in-house lawyers, media-relations personnel, and many others who work for religious institutions” are now uncertain. The majority opinion is vague on this area.
“The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission”
“It gives an employer free rein to discriminate because of race, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, or other traits protected by law when selecting or firing their ‘ministers,’ even when the discrimination is wholly unrelated to the employer’s religious beliefs or practices. That is, an employer need not cite or possess a religious reason at all; the ministerial exception even condones animus.”