Source: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/EEOC_v_HosannaTabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church__Sch_597_F3d_769_?1586474694
Timestamp: 2020-04-09 23:24:57
Document Index: 610418373

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12117', '§ 12111', '§ 12112', '§ 12203', '§ 12113', '§ 12113']

EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch., 597 F.3d 769, 22 AD Cases 1697 (6th Cir. 2010), Court Opinion
X1CQBV4003
EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
2010 BL 49772
2010 BL 49774
597 F.3d 769
bna 22 adcases 1697
bna a0c2g0m0h4
wkf6case:23500786
22 AD Cases 1697
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant (09-1134), Cheryl Perich, Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant (09-1135), v. HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL, Defendant-Appellee.
[1] Ministerial exception ►106.0412 ►108.736 ►305.07 ►396.66 [Show Topic Path]
Ministerial exception does not bar discharged religious elementary school teacher's ADA claim, despite her status as “called” teacher with title of commissioned minister, where she spent all but 45 minutes of her seven-hour school day teaching secular subjects, teachers need not be of same religion to lead religious activities that she led, she introduced topic of religion into secular discussions only twice in her career, there was no evidence that she was primary means of indoctrinating theology, extension of exception would exempt all sectarian school teachers from ADA coverage, and trial on merits would not require interpretation of church doctrine.
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] [*771]
ARGUED: Dori K. Bernstein, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., James E. Roach, Vercruysse Murray & Calzone PC, Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellants. Deano C. Ware, Deano C. Ware, P.C., Redford, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Dori K. Bernstein, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., James E. Roach, Vercruysse Murray & Calzone PC, Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellants. Deano C. Ware, Deano C. Ware, P.C., Redford, Michigan, for Appellee.
Plaintiffs, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and Cheryl Perich, appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School ("Hosanna-Tabor") in this action alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (the "ADA"). For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the district court's order and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [*772]
To be eligible for a "call," a teacher must complete the colloquy classes required by the LCMS, which focus on various aspects of the Christian faith. After completing the colloquy, a teacher receives a certificate of admission into the teaching ministry, and the Michigan District of the LCMS places [**2] the teacher's name on a list that can be accessed by schools that need teachers. Once selected by a congregation, a called teacher receives the title of "commissioned minister."
Hosanna-Tabor's website indicates that the school provides a "Christ-centered education" that helps parents by "reinforcing bible principals [sic] and standards." Hosanna-Tabor describes its staff members as "fine Christian role models who integrate [*773] faith into all subjects." Perich valued the freedom a sectarian school afforded to "bring God into every subject taught in the classroom." (Dist. Ct. R.E. 37 Ex. 1 ¶ 23). However, Perich taught secular subjects using secular textbooks commonly used in public schools, and she can only recall two instances in her career when she introduced religion into secular subjects.
At a church golf outing in June 2004, Perich suddenly became ill and was taken to the hospital. She underwent a series [**3] of medical tests to determine the cause. Perich's doctors had not reached a definitive diagnosis by August, and Hosanna-Tabor administrators suggested that Perich apply for a disability leave of absence for the 2004-2005 school year. The principal of Hosanna-Tabor, Stacy Hoeft, informed Perich that she would "still have a job with [Hosanna-Tabor]" when she regained her health. (Dist. Ct. R.E. 24 Ex. 6). Perich agreed to take a disability leave and did not return to work at the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year. Throughout her leave, Perich regularly provided Hoeft with updates about her condition and progress.
On January 27, 2005, Perich wrote to Hoeft that she would be able to return to work between February 14 and February 28, 2005. Hoeft responded with surprise, because Perich had indicated a few days before that she had been unable to complete her disability forms because of her condition. Hoeft expressed concern that Perich's condition would jeopardize the safety of the students in her care. Hoeft also indicated that Perich would not be teaching the third and fourth grades upon return, because the substitute teacher had a contract that ran through the end of the school year.[fn1] Furthermore, she indicated that the third and fourth grade students had already had two teachers that year [*774] and having a third would not provide a good learning environment for them.
Three days later, at the annual congregational "shareholder" meeting, Hoeft and the school board expressed their opinion that it was unlikely that Perich would be physically capable of returning to work that school year or the next. Consequently, the congregation adopted the Board's proposal to request that Perich accept a peaceful release agreement wherein Perich would resign her call in exchange for the congregation paying for a portion of her health insurance premiums through December 2005. On February 7, 2005, the Board selected Chairman Scott Salo to discuss this proposal [**4] with Perich.
On March 19, 2005, Salo sent Perich a follow-up letter stating that, based on Perich's insubordination and disruptive behavior on February 22, 2005, the Board would request rescinding Perich's call at the next voter's meeting on April 10, 2005. The letter also stated that Perich had "damaged, beyond repair" her working relationship with Hosanna-Tabor by "threatening to take legal action," and it laid out the voting procedure by which the congregation could depose a called minister. (Dist. Ct. R.E. 24 Ex. 1). Finally, the letter again proposed the peaceful release offer and gave Perich until April 8, 2005 to accept the offer. [*775]
On March 21, 2005, Perich's lawyer sent a letter to Hosanna-Tabor's lawyer stating that Hosanna-Tabor's actions amounted [**5] to unlawful discrimination. The letter asked Hosanna-Tabor to respond seeking an amicable resolution to the matter, or else Perich would be forced to bring a lawsuit or file a complaint with the EEOC. On April 10, 2005, the congregation voted to rescind Perich's call. The next day, Salo informed Perich of her termination.
This Court reviews de novo a district court's order of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Hollins v. Methodist Healthcare, Inc., 474 F.3d 223, 225 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Moir v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth., 895 F.2d 266, 269 (6th Cir. 1990)). Although the district court issued its decision in the context of a summary judgment motion, the court dismissed Perich's claim based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and did not reach the merits of the claim. In addition, this Circuit has treated the "ministerial exception" as jurisdictional in nature and an appropriate ground for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). See id. See also Rweyemamu v. Cote, 520 F.3d 198, 206 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that the circuits have taken different approaches in applying the ministerial exception, with the Third, Tenth, Ninth, and First Circuits treating the exception as an affirmative defense under Rule 12(b)(6), [fn2] the Sixth and Seventh Circuits interpreting the exception as jurisdictional under Rule 12(b)(1), [fn3] and the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits treating it as a mandate to interpret the discrimination laws not to apply to claims between ministers and their churches[fn4]). Accordingly, this Court should review the claim using the same analysis as it does for [*776] an order entered pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
In response to a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction. Hollins, 474 F.3d at 225. Furthermore, "unlike Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, under which the existence of genuine issues of material fact warrants denial of the motion to dismiss, `the court is empowered to resolve factual [**6] disputes when subject matter jurisdiction is challenged.'" Id. (quoting Moir, 895 F.2d at 269). If the district court makes its jurisdictional ruling based on the resolution of both legal and factual disputes, this Court reviews the legal findings under a de novo standard and the factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. See Golden v. Gorno Bros., Inc., 410 F.3d 879, 881 (6th Cir. 2005); RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1135 (6th Cir. 1996).
The ADA generally prohibits an employer with fifteen or more employees from discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability on the basis of that disability in regard to all conditions of employment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), § 12112(a). The retaliation provision of the ADA prohibits employers from "discriminat[ing] against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by [the ADA] or because such individual made a charge . . . under [the ADA]." 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a).[fn5] Title I of the ADA includes an exception — known as the "ministerial exception" — which allows religious entities to give "preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion" and to "require that all applicants and employees conform [*777] to the religious tenants of such organization." 42 U.S.C. § 12113(d).
[A]ssume that a Mormon organization wishes to hire only Mormons to perform certain jobs. If a person with a disability applies for the job, but is not a Mormon, the [**7] organization can refuse to hire him or her. However, if two Mormons apply for a job, one with a disability and one without a disability, the organization cannot discriminate against the applicant with the disability because of that person's disability.
As applied by this Circuit, the doctrine "precludes subject matter jurisdiction over claims involving the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministerial employees, based on the institution's constitutional right to be free from judicial interference in the selection of those employees." Id. See generally Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese for the United States & Can. v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976); Lewis v. Seventh Day Adventists Lake Region Conference, 978 F.2d 940 (6th Cir. 1992).
While the ministerial exception was first applied in the context of suits brought against religious employers under Title VII, see McClure, 460 F.2d at 560, the exception has been extended to suits brought against religious employers under the ADA.[fn6] See, e.g., Hollins, [*778] 474 F.3d at 225; Werft v. Desert Sw. Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 377 F.3d 1099, 1100 (9th Cir. 2004); Starkman, 198 F.3d at 175.
To qualify as a religious institution under the first prong, the employer need not be a traditional religious organization, such as a church, diocese, [**8] or synagogue, nor must it be an entity operated by a traditional religious organization. Id. Rather, a religiously affiliated entity is considered a religious institution if its "mission is marked by clear or obvious religious characteristics." Id. at 226 (citing Shaliehsabou v. Hebrew Home of Greater Wash., Inc., 363 F.3d 299, 310 (4th Cir. 2004)). This Circuit has applied the ministerial exception to a religiously affiliated hospital, and it has explicitly approved of applying the doctrine to religiously affiliated schools and corporations. Id. at 225.
To determine whether an employee is ministerial under the second prong, this Circuit has instructed courts to look at the function, or "primary duties" of the employee.[fn7] Id. at 226 (applying the exception to a resident in a Methodist Hospital's clinical pastoral education program). As a general rule, an employee is considered a minister if "the employee's primary duties consist of teaching, spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or participation in religious ritual and worship." Id. (quoting Bruce N. Bagni, Discrimination in the Name of the Lord: A Critical Evaluation of Discrimination by Religious Organizations, 79 COLUM. L. REV. 1514 , 1545 (1979)). See also Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1169. In extending the ministerial exception beyond ordained ministers, this Circuit has instructed courts to look at the function of the plaintiff's employment position rather than the fact of ordination. Hollins, 474 F.3d at 226. Other circuits have further instructed that courts must "determine whether a position is important to the spiritual and pastoral mission of the church." See, e.g., Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1169.
The question of whether a teacher at a sectarian school classifies as a ministerial employee is one of first impression for this Court. However, the overwhelming majority of courts that have considered the issue have held that parochial school teachers such as Perich, who teach primarily secular subjects, do not classify as ministerial employees for purposes of the exception. See, e.g., Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 440 F.Supp.2d 211, 221-222 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (holding that a teacher at a Seventh Day Adventist elementary school does not classify as a ministerial employee because her teaching [*779] duties were primarily secular and her daily religious duties "were limited to only one hour of Bible instruction per day"); Guinan v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, 42 F.Supp.2d 849, 854 (S.D.Ind. 1998) (holding that a fifth grade teacher who taught at least one class in religion per term and organized Mass once a month at a religious elementary school was not a ministerial employee); DeMarco v. Holy Cross High Sch., 4 F.3d 166, 172 (2d Cir. 1993) (holding that applying the ADEA to a math teacher at a religious high school would not result in excessive entanglement under the Establishment Clause); Dole v. [**9] Shenandoah Baptist Church, 899 F.2d 1389, 1392, 1397 (4th Cir. 1990) (holding that teachers at a religious school who integrated biblical material into traditional academic subjects should be considered lay teachers for purposes of the ministerial exception); EEOC v. Fremont Christian Sch., 781 F.2d 1362, 1370 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that teachers at a church owned and operated school do not fulfill the function of a ministerial employee). But see Clapper v. Chesapeake Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, No. 97 CV 2648 , [166 F.3D 1208], 1998 WL 904528, at *1, 7 (Dec. 29, 1998) (holding that a former elementary school teacher at a school whose primary purpose was the salvation of each student's soul through indoctrination into Seventh Day Adventist theological beliefs classified as a ministerial employee).
[1] However, given these factual findings relating to Perich's primary duties, [*780] the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying Perich as a ministerial [**10] employee. Perich spent approximately six hours and fifteen minutes of her seven hour day teaching secular subjects, using secular textbooks, without incorporating religion into the secular material. Cf. Clapper, [166 F.3D 1208], 1998 WL 904528, at *2 (finding that an elementary school teacher's primary duties were religious where he taught the Bible's story of creation in science class and the influence of religion on the events of history in social studies class). Thus, it is clear that Perich's primary function was teaching secular subjects, not "spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or participation in religious ritual and worship." Hollins, 474 F.3d at 226. (internal citation omitted) See also EEOC v. Miss. Coll., 626 F.2d 477, 485 (5th Cir. 1980) ("The College's faculty and staff do not function as ministers. The faculty members are not intermediaries between a church and its congregation. They neither attend to the religious needs of the faithful nor instruct students in the whole of religious doctrine.").
In addition, that Hosanna-Tabor has a generally religious character — as do all religious schools by definition — and characterizes its staff members as "fine Christian role models" does not transform Perich's primary responsibilities in the classroom into religious activities. See Miss. Coll., 626 F.2d at 485 ("That faculty members are expected to serve as exemplars of practicing Christians does not serve to make the terms and conditions of their employment matters of church administration and thus purely of ecclesiastical concern."). This is underscored by the fact that Perich can only recall twice in her career when she introduced the topic of religion during secular discussions.[fn8] Cf. Clapper, [166 F.3D 1208], 1998 WL 904528, at *7 (finding that an elementary school teacher's primary duties were religious where the academic curriculum in traditionally secular subjects "incorporate[d] the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church whenever possible"). Similarly, Perich's extra religious training as a result of completing her colloquy did not affect the duties she performed in the classroom on a daily basis. See Guinan, 42 F.Supp.2d at 850 (finding that a teacher whose training as a Catechist permitted her to teach religion classes was not a ministerial employee).
In finding that Perich was a ministerial employee, the district court relied largely on the fact that Hosanna-Tabor gave Perich the [**11] title of commissioned minister and held her out to the world as a minister by bestowing this title upon her. However, the title of commissioned minister does not [*781] transform the primary duties of these called teachers from secular in nature to religious in nature. See Sw. Baptist, 651 F.2d at 285 (holding that certain employees, "though considered ministers by the Seminary, are not ministers" under the ministerial exception). The governing primary duties analysis requires a court to objectively examine an employee's actual job function, not her title, in determining whether she is properly classified as a minister. In this case, it is clear from the record that Perich's primary duties were secular, not only because she spent the overwhelming majority of her day teaching secular subjects using secular textbooks, but also because nothing in the record indicates that the Lutheran church relied on Perich as the primary means to indoctrinate its faithful into its theology. See Clapper, [166 F.3D 1208], 1998 WL 904528, at *7 (warning that courts should examine not only the relative quantity of time an employee spends on religious versus secular activities, but also "the degree of the church entity's reliance upon such employee to indoctrinate persons into its theology"). By contrast, in Clapper, the defendant schools envisioned their teachers as having a primarily religious role. The teachers were required to be "tithe paying members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and are expected to participate in church activities, programs, and finances." See Clapper, [166 F.3D 1208], 1998 WL 904528, at *2. The Fourth Circuit observed that "[t]he purpose of this requirement is obvious — the Chesapeake Conference desires to insure that the minds of its youth are shaped by model members of the Seventh-day Adventist faith." Id. at *7.
In addition to being motivated by the concern of government interference in church governance, the ministerial exception is also motivated by the concern "that secular authorities would be involved in evaluating or interpreting religious doctrine." Tomic, 442 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Combs v. Central[**12] Texas Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 173 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 1999)).
In the instant case, Hosanna-Tabor has attempted to reframe the underlying dispute from the question of whether Hosanna-Tabor fired Perich in violation of the ADA to the question of whether Perich violated church doctrine by not engaging in internal dispute resolution. However, contrary to Hosanna-Tabor's assertions, Perich's claim would not require the court to analyze any church doctrine; rather a trial would focus on issues such as whether Perich was disabled within the meaning of the ADA, whether Perich opposed a practice that was unlawful under the ADA, and [*782] whether Hosanna-Tabor violated the ADA in its treatment of Perich. As Plaintiff notes, the LCMS personnel manual, which includes EEOC policy, and the Governing Manual for Lutheran Schools clearly contemplate that teachers are protected by employment discrimination and contract laws. In addition, none of the letters that Hosanna-Tabor sent to Perich throughout her termination process reference church doctrine or the LCMS dispute resolution procedures.
[fn1] In November 2004, the Board of Directors began making plans to fill Perich's position. The Board first decided to combine three grades into one classroom with one teacher and one part time teaching assistant. In response to teacher and parent complaints concerning the stress of teaching three grades with one teacher, the Board hired a long-term substitute for Perich. Hoeft notified Perich of the Board's decision on January 10, 2005.
[fn2] See, e.g., Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302 (3d Cir. 2006); Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese, 289 F.3d 648, 654 (10th Cir. 2002); Bollard v. Cal. Province of the Soc'y of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 951 (9th Cir. 1999); Natal v. Christian & Missionary Alliance, 878 F.2d 1575, 1578 (1st Cir. 1989).
[fn3] See. e.g., Hollins, 474 F.3d at 225; Tomic v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria, 442 F.3d 1036, 1039 (7th Cir. 2006).
[fn4] See, e.g., Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 203 F.3d 1299, 1302-04 (11th Cir. 2000); McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553, 560 (5th Cir. 1972).
[fn5] Perich also brought a claim under the PDCRA, a Michigan law which essentially tracks the ADA. Resolution of a plaintiff's ADA claim would generally resolve her PDCRA claim as well. See Cassidy v. Detroit Edison Co., 138 F.3d 629, 634 n. 3 (6th Cir. 1998). In view of how closely the anti-retaliation provision of the PDCRA tracks the anti-retaliation provision of the ADA, resolving Perich's ADA claim also resolves her PDRCA claim.
[fn6] Courts have also extended the ministerial exception to suits brought under the ADEA, the common law, and state law. See Hollins, 474 F.3d at 225 (citing cases).
[fn7] At least one other circuit has found that this approach is too rigid, adopting a standard that considers both the employee's primary function and the nature of the dispute to determine whether analyzing the claim would entangle the court in religious doctrinal disputes. Rweyemamu, 520 F.3d at 208. However, this Circuit has adopted a standard that focuses on the primary duties of the employee to determine whether that employee should be classified as ministerial. See Hollins, 474 F.3d at 226.
[fn8] While Defendant cites a quote from Perich in which she says that the educational ministry is special "because the teacher can bring God into every subject," the record supports the district court's finding that only twice did Perich bring religion into otherwise secular subjects.
I agree that the ministerial exception[fn1] does not bar this ADA action. I write separately because I read the relevant cases as more evenly split than does the majority.
As the majority notes, whether a teacher at a sectarian school is properly characterized as a ministerial employee is an issue of first impression for this Court.[fn2] A [*783] number of courts have concluded that parochial school teachers are not ministerial employees for purposes of the exception. See, e.g., DeMarco v. Holy Cross High Sch., 4 F.3d 166, 171-72 (2d Cir. 1993); EEOC v. Fremont Christian Sch., 781 F.2d 1362, 1370 (9th Cir. 1986); Redhead v. Conf. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 440 F.Supp.2d 211, 221-22 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); Guinan v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, 42 F.Supp.2d 849, 852-54 (S.D.Ind. 1998); see also Dole v. Shenandoah Baptist Church, 899 F.2d 1389, 1396-97 (4th Cir. 1990).[fn3] In contrast, courts have found teachers to be ministerial employees where the teachers have taught religious subjects and/or had a key role in the religious mission of the church. See Clapper v. Chesapeake Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 166 F.3d 1208 (4th Cir. 1998) (unpublished); EEOC v. Catholic [**13] Univ. of Am., 83 F.3d 455, 463-65 (D.C. Cir. 1996); EEOC v. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 651 F.2d 277, 283-84 (5th Cir. 1981); Coulee Catholic Sch. v. Labor and Indus. Rev. Comm., 320 Wis.2d 275, 768 N.W.2d 868 (2009).
Of these cases, four present situations similar to that here — plaintiff teachers who taught primarily secular subjects at a religious school and court decisions turning on a primary-duties analysis. Two plaintiffs were not found to be ministerial employees. See Redhead, 440 F.Supp.2d at 221-22 (teacher at Seventh-day Adventist elementary school teaching secular subjects and daily Bible study not a ministerial employee because teaching duties were "primarily secular" and religious duties "were limited to only one hour of Bible instruction per day and attending religious ceremonies with students only once per year"); Guinan, 42 F.Supp.2d at 852-53 (fifth-grade teacher teaching mostly secular courses along with one class in religion and organized Mass once a month not a ministerial employee; secular nature of the teaching position demonstrated by the fact that some teachers were not Catholic). Two plaintiffs were found to be ministerial employees. See Clapper, 166 F.3d 1208 (elementary school teacher teaching traditional academic curriculum who also led students in prayer and taught the Bible on a daily basis is a ministerial employee; court rejected argument that only one of teacher's thirteen responsibilities was explicitly religious, relying on the fact that the church's code made clear that the "the primary purpose of the Seventh-day Adventist elementary education" is the redemption of students' souls through belief in and adherence to Seventh-day Adventist beliefs); Coulee, 768 N.W.2d at 881-82 (in applying primary-duties test, state supreme court eschewed quantitative analysis of time spent on tasks in favor of functional approach focusing on whether organization has a fundamentally religious mission and how important or closely tied [*784] the employee's work is to the fundamental mission, concluding plaintiff's teaching Catholic doctrine and practice to students four days a week occupied a role "of high importance and closely linked to the mission of the school — the inculcation of a Christ-centered concept of life.").
Perich's daily duties resemble to some extent those of the plaintiffs in each of these cases, including those in which the courts found the plaintiffs' "primary duties" to be ministerial in nature. Tipping the scale against the ministerial exception in this case is that, as the majority points out, there is evidence here that the school itself did not envision its teachers as religious leaders, or as occupying "ministerial" roles. Hosanna-Tabor's teachers are not required to be called or even Lutheran to teach or to lead daily religious activities. The fact that the duties of the contract teachers are the same as the duties of the called teachers is telling. This presence (or lack) of a predominantly religious yardstick for qualification as a teacher is a key factor in decisions finding the ministerial exception applicable and those finding it inapplicable alike. See Clapper, 166 F.3d 1208 (4th Cir. 1998) (applying ministerial exception) ([**14] noting that teachers are required to be "tithe paying members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and are expected to participate in church activities, programs, and finances" and "The purpose of this requirement is obvious-the Chesapeake Conference desires to insure that the minds of its youth are shaped by model members of the Seventh-day Adventist faith."); Coulee, 768 N.W.2d at 891 (applying ministerial exception) (court found that the plaintiff teacher was "required to live, embody, and teach Catholicism in her role as a teacher consistent with the mission of the school" where teacher was required to "engage in Catholic worship, model Catholic living, and impart Catholic teaching," even though not required to be a Catholic); Guinan, 42 F.Supp.2d at 852-53 (S.D.Ind. 1998) (ministerial exception does not apply) ("the secular nature of [the teacher's] position is underscored by the fact that the Archdiocese did not require teachers at [the school] to be Catholic and, as a matter of fact, some were not Catholic.")
[fn1] It is worth clarifying that "the ministerial exception" is fundamentally distinct from the statutory exceptions in federal antidiscrimination laws like the ADA and Title VII. See Douglas Laycock, A Syllabus of Errors, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 1169, 1181-82 (2007) (book review). The statutory exception to the ADA allows religious entities to "giv[e] preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion" and to "require that all applicants and employees conform" to the organization's religious tenets. 42 U.S.C. § 12113(d). The statutory exception only covers religious discrimination, but it applies to any employee of a religious entity. See Laycock at 1182. In contrast, the ministerial exception is a separate judge-made exception rooted in the First Amendment designed to allow religious organizations to hire and fire religious leaders according to any criteria they choose. See id. at 1181 ; Hollins v. Methodist Healthcare, Inc., 474 F.3d 223, 225 (6th Cir. 2007). The ministerial exception is broad — it covers any kind of discrimination — but applies only to religious leaders, or those whose duties are "ministerial." See Laycock at 1182.
[fn2] Courts have struggled in determining the proper application of the ministerial exception to teachers at religious schools. A student note points out that application of the primary-duties test has created split authority in several areas, including regarding parochial school teachers. See Note, The Ministerial Exception to Title VII: The Case for a Deferential Primary Duties Test, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 1776, 1788 (2008). And several courts have recognized the lack of uniformity in this area. See Rweyemamu v. Cote, 520 F.3d 198, 208 (2d Cir. 2008) ("Circuit courts applying the ministerial exception have consistently struggled to decide whether or not a particular employee is functionally a `minister.'"); Coulee Catholic Sch. v. Labor and Indus. Rev. Comm., 320 Wis.2d 275, 768 N.W.2d 868, 881 (Wis. 2009) (explaining contrasting ways in which courts have interpreted primary-duties test); Weishuhn v. Catholic Diocese of Lansing, 279 Mich.App. 150, 756 N.W.2d 483, 492-93 (2008) (listing cases in which ministerial exception has been applied to teachers, and cases in which it has not). See also Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Archdiocese of Washington v. Moersen, 128 S.Ct. 1217, 170 L.Ed.2d 59 (No. 07-0323 ) (Sept. 7, 2007) ("teachers at church-related schools have been included within the ministerial exception by some courts and excluded by others"). The Supreme Court has declined to weigh in on the issue. See Moersen, 552 U.S. 1179, 128 S.Ct. 1217, 170 L.Ed.2d 59 (2008) (mem.); The Ministerial Exception, supra , at 1776 n. 3 (noting certiorari denials in 2006 and 2007).
[fn3] The majority cites Dole for the original proposition that parochial school teachers are not ministerial employees for purposes of the ministerial exception. However, Dole addresses whether a specific statutory exception applies. See id. at 1396-97. (evaluating whether teachers are ministers for purposes of statutory exception from the definition of "employees" in the Fair Labor Standards Act).