Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-267_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 43.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

prayer three times a day.”  Id., at 192 (internal quotation
marks omitted).  About twice a year, Perich led the school-
wide chapel service by “choosing the liturgy, selecting the 
hymns,  and  delivering  a  short  message  based  on  verses
from the Bible.”  Ibid.  Perich also “led” her students “in a 
brief devotional exercise each morning.”  Ibid.  The Court 
thus  observed  that,  “[a]s  a  source  of  religious  instruction,
Perich performed an important role in transmitting the Lu-
theran faith to the next generation.”  Ibid. 

Because this inquiry is holistic, the Court warned that it 
is “wrong” to “say that an employee’s title does not matter.” 
Id., at 193.  The Court was careful not to give religious func-
tions undue weight in identifying church leaders.  And the 
“amount  of time  an  employee  spends  on  particular  activi-
ties,”  the  Court  added,  “is  relevant  in  assessing  that  em-
ployee’s status” when measured against “the nature of the 
religious  functions  performed  and  the  other  considera-
tions,” like titles, training, and how the employee held her-
self out to the public.  Id., at 194. 

Hosanna-Tabor’s well-rounded approach ensured that a
church could not categorically disregard generally applica-
ble  antidiscrimination  laws  for  nonreligious  reasons.  By
analyzing objective and easily discernable markers like ti-
tles,  training,  and  public-facing  conduct,  Hosanna-Tabor 
charted  a  way  to  separate  leaders  who  “personify”  a 
church’s “beliefs” or who “minister to the faithful” from in-
dividuals  who  may  simply  relay  religious  tenets.    Id.,  at 
188,  195.2    This  balanced  First  Amendment  concerns  of 
—————— 

2 Today’s  Court  resists  this  commonsense  approach,  warning  that  it 
might  mean  that  “a  member  of  the  Christian  clergy  or  a  rabbi”  who 
“spends almost all of his or her time studying Scripture or theology and 
writing”  would  not  fall  within  the  ministerial  exception.    Ante,  at  23, 
n. 26.  Those examples betray the Court’s holding: As the Court intuits 
(but does not recognize), the examples likely fall within the ministerial 
exception not just because of the functions involved but also because of