Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-267_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL v. 
MORRISSEY-BERRU 
Opinion of the Court 

“consider the ministry to consist of all or a very large per-
centage  of  their  members.”  Ibid.  The  opinion  concluded
that the “ ‘ministerial’ exception” “should apply to any ‘em-
ployee’  who  leads  a  religious  organization,  conducts  wor-
ship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, 
or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.”  Id., at 199. 

D 
1 
In determining whether a particular position falls within
the Hosanna-Tabor exception, a variety of factors may be
important.10  The circumstances that informed our decision 
in Hosanna-Tabor were relevant because of their relation-
ship  to  Perich’s  “role  in  conveying  the  Church’s  message
and  carrying  out  its  mission,”  id.,  at  192,  but  the  other 
noted circumstances also shed light on that connection.  In 
a  denomination  that  uses  the  term  “minister,”  conferring
that  title  naturally  suggests  that  the  recipient  has  been
given an important position of trust.  In Perich’s case, the 
title that she was awarded and used demanded satisfaction 
of  significant  academic  requirements  and  was  conferred
only after a formal approval process, id., at 191, and those 
circumstances  also  evidenced  the  importance  attached  to
her  role,  ibid.    But  our  recognition  of  the  significance  of
those factors in Perich’s case did not mean that they must 
—————— 

10 In considering the circumstances of any given case, courts must take 
care to avoid “resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.” 
Presbyterian Church in U. S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Pres-
byterian Church, 393 U. S. 440, 449 (1969); ibid. (“First Amendment val-
ues  are  plainly  jeopardized  when  . . .  litigation  is  made  to  turn  on  the 
resolution  by  civil  courts  of  controversies  over  religious  doctrine  and 
practice”); see also Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States 
and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696, 715, n. 8 (1976) (“ ‘It is not to 
be supposed that the judges of the civil courts can be as competent in the 
ecclesiastical law and religious faith of all these bodies as the ablest men 
in each are in reference to their own’ ” (quoting Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 
679, 729 (1872))); cf. Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Security 
Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714–716 (1981).