DOJ: Feds Can Tell Church Who Its Ministers Will Be

[applepansy]

DOJ: Feds Can Tell Church Who Its Ministers Will Be | CNSnews.com

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, and the American Center for Law and Justice are among those who have filed briefs supporting the Lutherans.

All I can do is shake my head and wonder if there will be a free nation on this earth when this gets done.

Edited October 12, 2011 by estradling75
No Political Candidates

[dahlia]

2012 cannot come fast enough.

[Spartan117]

If I pointed out that it's unconstitutional for an office within the government to appoint clergy to a church, would it make a difference?

[RMGuy]

On the other hand, we ARE talking about a paid employee, that is entitled to protections under law with redress available through the EEOC. What many churches deem ministerial is, in my view, a bit like the Vegas casinos that classify waiters and waitresses as models that serve in order to get around the EEO legislation.

ON EDIT: The title of the cited article I believe shows its bias. I think we should remember a few important points here:

1. The church originally hired this individual

2. The church then reappointed this individual

3. The individual became ill

4. The individual then was on a leave of absence

5. The church then hired someone to fill her slot

6. The church then refused to return her to work (based on the facts not in evidence (i.e. FMLA eligibility, actual time off, etc.) this could have been an illegal act.

7. She then filed suit through the EEOC, who agreed to back her case.

8. She was fired from her job, until she threatened to pursue her rights under the law, which is the classif definition of retaliatory action, and probably the reason why the EEOC is backing the claim.

I'm not a big fan of the government's involvment in employment situations generally, but I also am not big on retaliatory actions on the part of employers either. No where in this story does it talk about the justice department deciding to stick a congregation with someone off the street.

Personally, I'm divided on this one. From all I've read neither side seems to be "right" in this particular instance.

-RM

Edited October 12, 2011 by RMGuy

[Guest]

I am getting sadder and sadder at the state of my country.

[estradling75]

The article said she started off as a Lay teacher only later did she get 'Called' as a Minister.

Two different things combined together and confusing the issue.

The 'Calling' should be exclusively the domain of the church.

The Lay teacher job should be subject to the EEO

[Jenamarie]

The title is misleading. The DOJ is not saying "All your ministers are belong to us", and churches no longer have any say in who can and cannot be a minister. What's happening, as a previous poster pointed out, is a labor dispute. A PAID employee is suing an organization for unlawful termination. The employee happens to be a minister and the organization happens to be a church.

ETA: Of course adding the religious element muddies the waters a bit, and I don't think this lady is an angel, but neither do I believe that my religious freedoms are necessarily threatened by this suit.

[Dravin]

If I pointed out that it's unconstitutional for an office within the government to appoint clergy to a church, would it make a difference?

Considering you are not any of the following parties:

1) Lawyers arguing for plaintiff.

2) Lawyers arguing for defendant.

3) The court hearing the arguments.

No it wouldn't.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest mormonmusic]

See, I see this as a labor issues, not a freedom issue. The feds aren't appointing this woman to a religious office -- she was given that office by her Church as a paid employment contract. I also think it was a bit unusual that the Lutheran Church only told her about her job after she called and said she could come back to work. When were they planning on tell her?

See, I don't think the fact they are a Church absolves them from obeying the laws of the land when it comes to employment, and to then firing her (rescinding her call) because she decided to exercise her rights under the laws of the land. There are times I think that religious organizations think they have a license to do anything they please, without accountability.

[Guest gopecon]

Jenamarie is right - this isn't a clear case of the government forcing it's views on a church. If the teacher were employed at a non-religious private school, could she have been let go in this manner? To me it seems that the church needs to make the case that either/both a) they had every right to replace her for secularly accepted reasons, or b) her duties were sufficiently ministerial that the employment relationship could be severed at any time due to freedom of religion.

Clearly churches should have discretion in who they hire - I believe that LDS Church employees must be temple worthy, but at some point employees of a church should maintain some level of legal protection that other workers in this country enjoy. I understand that we (LDS Church) has filed a brief in favor of the Lutheran church's right to terminate the relationship, so I hope that this woman was justifiably let go.

[Vort]

On the other hand, we ARE talking about a paid employee, that is entitled to protections under law with redress available through the EEOC. What many churches deem ministerial is, in my view, a bit like the Vegas casinos that classify waiters and waitresses as models that serve in order to get around the EEO legislation.

ON EDIT: The title of the cited article I believe shows its bias. I think we should remember a few important points here:

1. The church originally hired this individual

2. The church then reappointed this individual

3. The individual became ill

4. The individual then was on a leave of absence

5. The church then hired someone to fill her slot

6. The church then refused to return her to work (based on the facts not in evidence (i.e. FMLA eligibility, actual time off, etc.) this could have been an illegal act.

7. She then filed suit through the EEOC, who agreed to back her case.

8. She was fired from her job, until she threatened to pursue her rights under the law, which is the classif definition of retaliatory action, and probably the reason why the EEOC is backing the claim.

I'm not a big fan of the government's involvment in employment situations generally, but I also am not big on retaliatory actions on the part of employers either. No where in this story does it talk about the justice department deciding to stick a congregation with someone off the street.

Personally, I'm divided on this one. From all I've read neither side seems to be "right" in this particular instance.

My sympathy for the plaintiff evaporated as it became clear that she knew exactly what she was getting into in taking the job. If the setup was not clear, she might have retained my sympathies, because she seems a sympathetic character based on the description provided. But assuming that she should have understood the nature of her "employment" contract -- and it seems fairly cut and dried, based on the article's description -- I do not believe she has any moral standing to dispute what happened.

I am sorry for her, and I think the local Lutheran Church Synod's policies in this case kind of suck. But that was the acknowledged agreement in the contract, and throwing a tantrum about it is not the correct way to settle the matter.

I could see this having a direct bearing on the Church. A man gets hired to do, say, custodial work in the temple, where he has to have a current temple recommend. He loses the recommend, and thus his job. When he regains his temple recommend, he demands "his" job back. In such a case, my sympathies stay with the employer. I think the above situation is somewhat similar.

[RMGuy]

My sympathy for the plaintiff evaporated as it became clear that she knew exactly what she was getting into in taking the job. If the setup was not clear, she might have retained my sympathies, because she seems a sympathetic character based on the description provided. But assuming that she should have understood the nature of her "employment" contract -- and it seems fairly cut and dried, based on the article's description -- I do not believe she has any moral standing to dispute what happened.

I am sorry for her, and I think the local Lutheran Church Synod's policies in this case kind of suck. But that was the acknowledged agreement in the contract, and throwing a tantrum about it is not the correct way to settle the matter.

I could see this having a direct bearing on the Church. A man gets hired to do, say, custodial work in the temple, where he has to have a current temple recommend. He loses the recommend, and thus his job. When he regains his temple recommend, he demands "his" job back. In such a case, my sympathies stay with the employer. I think the above situation is somewhat similar.

With all due respect Vort, I believe you are reading this wrong. The EEOC is NOT stepping in because she was fired. The EEOC is stepping in because she is claiming she was fired in retaliation for threatening to sue. It is the retaliation that interests the government.

In reading this article they had filled her job when she did not return in the Spring semester. What notification to her did they provide? When she presented herself as fit to return to work, they offered her other options. It was only AFTER she threatened to sue that the church voted to remove her from her position. Up until that point she was an employee on the books. There is enough there for the EEOC to believe they have a case for retaliation.

-RM

[Spartan117]

Considering you are not any of the following parties:

1) Lawyers arguing for plaintiff.

2) Lawyers arguing for defendant.

3) The court hearing the arguments.

No it wouldn't.

Sad face

[Guest gopecon]

A big problem here is that even if the church was right to end her employment initially, with all that has gone on now they really don't want her back - yet that is what she is suing for. There must be a line where employee rights are protected, yet a church can avoid having people that they (now) clearly don't want on the payroll.

[RMGuy]

A big problem here is that even if the church was right to end her employment initially, with all that has gone on now they really don't want her back - yet that is what she is suing for. There must be a line where employee rights are protected, yet a church can avoid having people that they (now) clearly don't want on the payroll.

Generally the result of the suit will be some form of settlement. She probably doesn't REALLY want to be back now either.

-RM

[Tyler90AZ]

Fascinating case! I wish the church would release a detailed statement when they back something. I think it would eliminate many questions the members(me) have.

Detailed Transcript:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-553.pdf

[MarginOfError]

Cheryl Perich case: The Supreme Court tries to figure out what it means to be a minister. - Slate Magazine

This was an interesting description of the case. I seem to recall the author trying to walk the line of the challenges this case brings for simultaneously protecting religion and protecting against discrimination.

I personally found the CNS article pretty spin-heavy and overly biased. But it certainly is a fascinating case.

[Tyler90AZ]

Must be arguing for seperation of church and state, but moreso they can't have something like this hapen to our church.

From my limited reading on the matter, I feel like the lady was in the right. It is a clear violation of employee rights laws. They even admitted they fired her for making the matter legal. However, I don't feel like she should have ever made it a legal situation.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Tyler90AZ

[HoosierGuy]

Take a look at the news source - every story comes from a right wing slant. It's very extreme right wing hate news.

[estradling75]

From my limited reading on the matter, I feel like the lady was in the right. It is a clear violation of employee rights laws. They even admitted they fired her for making the matter legal. However, I don't feel like she should have ever made it a legal situation.

Right but a tenet of the Lutheran faith is: that disputes are resolved in the church, not the courts.

We might not like it, we might not agree with it, but it was part of the Lutheran faith long before this happened. They acted as any other church has the right to act when one of its members breaks a tenet of faith.

Her threat to sue them broke the tenant of her faith. And the Church responded according to its long held beliefs and practices.

Some see that as a free exercise of religion. Others as illegal retaliation in a labor dispute

[Jennarator]

DOJ: Feds Can Tell Church Who Its Ministers Will Be | CNSnews.com

All I can do is shake my head and wonder if there will be a free nation on this earth when this gets done.

YIKES!

[HoosierGuy]

Right but a tenet of the Lutheran faith is: that disputes are resolved in the church, not the courts.

We might not like it, we might not agree with it, but it was part of the Lutheran faith long before this happened. They acted as any other church has the right to act when one of its members breaks a tenet of faith.

Her threat to sue them broke the tenant of her faith. And the Church responded according to its long held beliefs and practices.

When it comes to employment we have to have real legal laws, not religious laws. It's too easy to pray about it and say - "God told me to fire you, one day before you put your ten years in and earn a pension." And it would be too easy to say - "I prayed about it and God told me to advance my dumb (but pretty) friend and not advance you even though you are far more qualified."

There are still a good number of Catholic schools in the country and I don't hear them complaining.

[Guest gopecon]

Not suing is a tenant of their faith, but the question is was it a part of her employment agreement? Even if it was, from her point of view she was losing her job before the threat to sue was ever issued. They had already severed (or shown their intention to sever) the employment relationship. The threat to sue sped up the process, and probably cost her a chance to come back, but she was already not being permitted to return to her job (possibly a violation of FMLA or the ADA).

[RMGuy]

Right but a tenet of the Lutheran faith is: that disputes are resolved in the church, not the courts.

We might not like it, we might not agree with it, but it was part of the Lutheran faith long before this happened. They acted as any other church has the right to act when one of its members breaks a tenet of faith.

Her threat to sue them broke the tenant of her faith. And the Church responded according to its long held beliefs and practices.

Are you suggesting that anytime a Lutheran employeed by Lutheran church sues a member of the faith that they would/should be fired? I've got some money that precedent hasn't been followed.

-RM

[RMGuy]

Not suing is a tenant of their faith, but the question is was it a part of her employment agreement? Even if it was, from her point of view she was losing her job before the threat to sue was ever issued. They had already severed (or shown their intention to sever) the employment relationship. The threat to sue sped up the process, and probably cost her a chance to come back, but she was already not being permitted to return to her job (possibly a violation of FMLA or the ADA).

Additionally, you can have an employee sign anything that they want at the time of employment, in terms of the contract, but they cannot waive their rights under EEOC, NLRA, or ADA. Even if they sign something waiving those rights it is considered void.

-RM