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

[cbayer]

Tricky area here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/supreme-court-ruling-on-church-discrimination-leaves-educators-at-religious-schools-in-limbo/2012/01/20/gIQA7u4vCQ_story.html


By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, January 20, 12:42 AM

DETROIT — 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.

more at link

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. The Supreme Court's message was: You must have faith in your employers

if they, and you, are in the business of faith. If part of what you teach is a religion, then you do indeed leave your secular rights at the door of the building, and they can treat you however their conscience allows them. "Ye shall know them by their fruits", for Christians; I'm sure most other religions will have appropriate sayings. I think the most worried would be those employed by megachurches that preach the 'gospel of prosperity'; for them, screwing their employees would be profitable, and thus good business, and also moral, practice. They may as well be Mitt Romney, for the compassion they're likely to show while making a buck.

[cbayer]

4. But they didn't define "religious workers", so does it include those that teach religion?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. those who "teach their faith"

Roberts' majority opinion:

"The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission"

Thomas went further (what a surprise):

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the Court should have gone further, granting to religious organizations the sole and final authority to determine who is and is not covered by the ministerial exemption. Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan wrote a second concurring opinion, arguing that the issue of ordination should not be the determining issue, since ordination practices, titles, and other designations of ministers differ by church, denomination, and religious group.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/01/12/the-supreme-court-speaks-a-major-victory-for-religious-liberty/

(Apologies for linking to him, but he's so cock-a-hoop at the verdict that he quotes more than most).

'Jewish Studies' might just possibly be said to be 'ethnic studies', not 'faith', but I suspect part of it will be faith.

[cbayer]

9. So, if you are teaching about a religion in a religious school but don't actually

identify yourself as being a member of that religion, you are safe?

cock-a-hoop? lol!

[pinto]

2. I would think that anyone who's paid to do a job, has taxes withheld, etc.

would qualify under federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission oversight.

[cbayer]

3. You would think, but the Supreme Court sees it differently.

It's one of the separation issues that is really sticky. The fact that they did not define "religious worker" makes this particularly complex.

[pinto]

5. Yeah. Odd turn of phrase in a way. Likely intended to be vague. In this case I see the

employee was also a commissioned minister (in the same church I guess). Maybe that played into the Supreme's decision.

[Thats my opinion]

6. In many Universities there are departments of religious studies.

Very often these courses and departments are staffed not by religious people but by historians, linguists, archeologists. These are academic disciplines far removed from religious feelings or motivation. I wonder how the court decision now defines these academicians.

[tama]

7. A noob question

Does this mean separation of religious workers from state?