Mon, May 28, 2012, 7:17 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed for Memorial Day

Supreme Court ruling confuses religious workers

Supreme Court ruling on church discrimination leaves educators at religious schools in limbo

DETROIT (AP) -- Aleeza Adelman teaches Jewish studies at a Jewish school, yet she considers herself a teacher whose subject is religion, not a religious teacher. She's rethinking how to define her job after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling left her wondering what could happen if she ever needed to defend her right to keep it.

The high court ruled last week that religious workers can't sue for job discrimination, but didn't describe what constitutes a religious employee — putting many people employed by churches, synagogues or other religious organizations in limbo over their rights.

"I think of myself as a teacher who is just like any other teacher," said Adelman, who works at the New Orleans Jewish Day School. "Yes, my topic of teaching happens to be Jewish stuff, but if I were to just think in general about it, am I different from the teacher across the hall who is teaching secular studies?"

The justices denied government antidiscrimination protection to Cheryl Perich, a Detroit-area teacher and commissioned minister who complained to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that her firing was discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The commission sued the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School of Redford Township, Mich., over her firing.

Perich got sick in 2004 and tried to return work from disability leave despite a narcolepsy diagnosis. She was fired after she showed up at the school and threatened to sue to get her job back. A federal judge threw out the lawsuit on grounds that Perich fell under the so-called ministerial exception, which keeps the government from interfering with church affairs. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated her lawsuit, arguing that her primary function was teaching secular subjects so the ministerial exception didn't apply.

The high court disagreed, but didn't set rigid rules on who can be considered a religious worker of a religious organization. That appears to give wide leeway to churches and other religious organizations to decide who qualifies for the exception.

Rita Schwartz, president of Philadelphia-based National Association of Catholic School Teachers, said she's comforted by the fact that the justices didn't set a broad precedent. But she said it leaves employees of religious-based institutions in an unsettled position until or unless they are deemed a ministerial employee.

"I don't mind that title unless it is used to deny my rights as a citizen," said Schwartz, whose association was formed in 1978. "I don't give up my rights at the schoolhouse door. I should not have to do that."

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote a separate opinion, argued that the ministerial 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."

Schwartz also is concerned about how far the exception can go. She supported maintenance workers in a dispute several years ago in which she said Catholic officials argued that the workers were ministerial employees because "they polished the pews in the chapels and they repaired the crucifixes on the walls."

David Lopez said he sees both sides of the argument as an English instructor at both a Detroit-area Catholic high school and at a community college. At the college, he has the protections of collective bargaining, but at the high school he is an at-will employee with a year-to-year contract.

"I either accept that because I like the environment or I work at a public school where I have better protections," said Lopez, whose day job is at Gabriel Richard High School in suburban Riverview.

"I enjoy teaching students who are actually interested in what I'm trying to teach them," he said. "I lose the protection, but by the same token it's a pleasant environment. It's hard to put a price tag on something like that."

Adelman said she has the highest respect for administrators at the New Orleans Jewish school and believes she would be treated fairly if a problem arose. Still, she'd like to think that she wouldn't lose protections just because of what she teaches.

"If I felt discrimination in the workplace? Of course, I would definitely want to feel I have the right to speak up about any issue, and the fact that I'm a religious educator ... is not going to cause problems along the way," she said.

___

Follow Jeff Karoub on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jeffkaroub

 

7 comments

  • Shawn  •  Kansas City, Missouri  •  4 months ago
    She is teaching at a "Jewish" school - this makes her a "religous teacher" whether she considers herself as one or not. There's a difference between being confused and failing to acknowledge her choice to teach in a religous institution.
  • HannaH  •  4 months ago
    She is not like any teacher. If she didn't think she was teaching religion why is she at religious school. The state has no business. In religious institutions affairs. The worst enemies of Judaism are these liberals
    • David 4 months ago
      Liberals are the real enemy of just about everything, religion, captialism, liberalism is the practice of envy and entitlement, goverment run dictatorship that tells everyone what to think and do, and is the enemy of freedom.
    • A Yahoo! User 4 months ago
      yeah heaven forbid that we have true religious liberty.
  • U.S. Citizen  •  Birmingham, Alabama  •  4 months ago
    One's religion should not leverage them onto a slippery slope, so why should their vocation?
  • Mary  •  Sunnyvale, California  •  4 months ago
    When you work for a religious institution part of your responsibility is to minister to others. Not everyone ministers by preaching. If you are a teacher who teaches mathematics you are free to use religious references in your teaching, you are an example to your students.
  • Moonstone21  •  Elmwood Park, New Jersey  •  4 months ago
    That ruling was a discrace to the U.S. All workers need deserve to be protected under the law. This gives employers more optunities to mistreat thier workers. How could a group of educated people possibly think this was a good or moral idea? Hopefully, they realize what a mistake they made, come to thier senses, and change it. This law is an entire mass of problems just waiting to happen.
    • Rick 4 months ago
      This ruling is meant to protect religious groups from hiring people who adhere to a conflicting ideology. Suppose, for example, that a skinhead applies for a job as the rabbi at the nearest synagogue. According to this ruling, the synagogue can refuse to hire him without worrying about a lawsuit.

      The ruling is based on the premise that the government cannot mandate religious observation. Under the first amendment, the government cannot decide who a religious group must hire for a ministerial position.
    • Benny 4 months ago
      Lutheran church doctrne prohibits the faithful from suing each other and mandates that issues be settled by church council. Luthern church doctrine also ordains certain religious instructors into a teaching ministry. The teaching minister in this case violated her own church law when she threatened to sue the curch. Unless the Jewish religion has changed and added that anti-lawsuit rule and begun ordaining women as ministers, this Judaic studies teacher should have nothing to worry about.
    • Moonstone21 4 months ago
      Don't get me wrong. I am not a fan of lawsuits, but in many cases , it is the only way to get justice for people mistreating you. I think you could even just press charges. I don't think that only menas suing. Rick, you made a poor example. Hardly anyone would hire a gang member, and they would have every right not to. That is not descrimination. That is being practical. Anyway, I don't think most gang members settle problems through the ourts anyway. the usually take matters into thier own hands. The chances of someone in a gang filing a lawsuit over job descrimination are slim to none. You two fail to realize that this law has very dangerous implications. Employers could easily be taken advantage of or mistreated. Everyone deserves to be protected by the law.
  • Paul King  •  Studio City, California  •  4 months ago
    Religious workers are confused in the first place, else they would not be religious.
  • Doctor Martin Von Nostran ...  •  Parsippany, New Jersey  •  4 months ago
    Who cares about Jewish people? They're racist. They don't let black ethiopians in Israel because they're black.
    • dahozho 4 months ago
      Actually, Israel began a covert operation in the late '70s to bring the Ethiopian Jews to Israel. Open immigration began in the '80s and continues to this day. Sudanese (black) muslims risk their lives going through Egypt to get to Israel (Arab muslims refer to blacks, muslim or not, as "abeed" or slaves and Egypt does not accept these refugees.

      And so who is racist?
 
Recent Quotes
Symbol Price Change % Chg 
Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module.
You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes.
 
Sign-in to view quotes in your portfolios.

Trading Center

Yahoo! Finance on Facebook

  YAHOO! FINANCE ON TWITTER