Question 1
Facts relevant to the case
The petitioner Hosanna Tabor evangelical Lutheran church and school, runs a small school offering Christian education. It has two categories of teachers in its ranks namely “called” teachers and “lay” teachers. Called teachers are considered called to the vocation by God.
The respondent Cheryl Perich is a called teacher. She teaches secular subjects but takes the students in a religious class in addition to leading them in prayers; devotional exercises attended a weekly chapel service and led the service twice a year. Perich fell ill with narcolepsy in June 2004 and, as a result began the 2004–2005 school year on disability leave. She notified the principle of the school in January 2005 that she would be able to attend school starting February of the same year.
The principle responded that the school had contracted a lay teacher to fill her position for the remainder of the school year later informing her that they had decided to offer her a peaceful release from her vocation.
She reported to work only to be required by the principle to leave which she declined to do until she received official documentation showing that she had reported to work. She was informed that she would probably just be dismissed to which she responded of her intent to instigate legal action
On April 4 the congregation voted to rescind Perich’s call and sent her a letter of dismissal grounds being “insubordination and disruptive behavior” and the harm she had done her working relationship with the church by threatening to pursue legal redress.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought a case against Hosanna Tabor, claiming that Perich’s dismissal was as a result of her threat to the school on taking legal action against them. Hosanna-Tabor fought for a summary judgment stating that the constitution offers the ministerial exemptions act as a redress against ministers taking legal action against their religious employers. The Trial Court agreed that the suit fit by the ministerial exemptions provisions and therefore granted summary judgment in Hosanna-Tabor’s favor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that Perich did not qualify as a minister under the act. The supreme court however found her to be a minister under the provisions of the act.
Question 2
The court is deciding several issues advanced by both the petitioner and the respondent. Such as follows.
- Whether Perich is a minister as per the definition in the ministerial exemption act
- Whether she was dismissed for religious religions as asserted by the employer
- Whether there was a need for a special ministerial exception required for religious institutions employees.
Question 3
The Supreme Court being the final court that handled the matter came to the conclusion that Perich was legally dismissed. The rationale behind their ruling was that the church had the freedom to choose those it deemed suitable to lead it on its way. They held that the ministerial exception act bars the filing of a suit on an employment dispute on behalf of a minister against their employer. The court found that requiring a church to retain an unwanted minister; you denied them the ability to choose those they felt were right to personify their beliefs.
Question 4
The court held that Perich was a minister as per the definition of the act, and that the church had the authority to terminate her services under the minister’s exemption act. The court held that the church, in aiding its independent propagation of its faith, reserved the right to choose the ministers serving in it.
Question 5
I agree with the ruling made by the judges. Religious institutions are allowed to choose their own clergy in aiding the propagation of their faith. Perich in accepting her role as “minister ordained” knew that she was engaged to the school as a religious minister/staff, which gave her preferential position to employment ahead of the lay teachers. She cannot therefore, be compared to the lay teachers as the church, in contracting her, laid importance on her religious training.
References
Levine, S. J. (2011). Hosanna-Tabor and Supreme Court Precedent: An Analysis of the Ministerial Exception in the Context of The Supreme Court’s Hands-Off Approach to Religious Doctrine.
