Opinion ID: 71642
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Religious Educational Institution Exemption

Text: 8 Section 702(a) of Title VII provides as follows: 9 This subchapter shall not apply ... to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities. 10 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a). Plaintiff presents two arguments about Section 702. First, Plaintiff says that Samford is a secular institution, not a religious one. Second, Plaintiff says that Samford is entitled to an exemption only if its employment decision was the result of an institutional religious policy and that Samford cannot meet this requirement. 11 Plaintiff argues that Samford is no religious institution as it is not sufficiently sectarian. In so arguing, Plaintiff seeks to distinguish EEOC v. Mississippi College, 626 F.2d 477 (5th Cir.1980). In Mississippi College, the former Fifth Circuit accepted the district court's conclusion that Mississippi College was a religious educational institution. 1 Id. at 486. Plaintiff says that this conclusion was based on the fact that Mississippi College was owned and operated by the Mississippi Baptist Convention and was pervasively sectarian. Id. at 487. The Mississippi College court, however, looked at all the circumstances to determine whether Mississippi College was a religious educational institution: 95% of the faculty were Baptist, 88% of the students were Baptist, the curriculum included study of the Bible, chapel was mandatory and the school expressly sought to provide educational enrichment in a Christian atmosphere. Id. at 479. Plaintiff has cited to us no authority supporting his idea that some kind of rigid sectarianism is a requirement for the religious educational institution exemption, and we are aware of none. 12 Samford presented extensive evidence to establish that it is a religious educational institution. Samford was founded as a theological institution in 1841 by the Alabama Baptist State Convention (the Convention). While Samford recently amended its charter to remove the Convention's power to elect the school's trustees, its trustees are now, must be, and always have been (with one historical exception) Baptist. 13 Samford receives roughly seven percent of its annual budget (over four million dollars) from the Convention. This sum is its largest single source of funding. 2 This money is also the largest amount (from a single source) received by a Baptist college in the United States. Samford reports financially to both the Convention and the Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions and submits financial reports to the Convention's audit, budget and insurance committees. The audited financial statements are published in the Convention's annual proceedings, and both it and Samford's external audit are made available to all churches within the Convention. In addition, the school is a member of the Association of Baptist Colleges and Schools, which limits membership to Baptist educational institutions. 14 Before teaching religion courses at the school, all faculty must subscribe to the 1963 Baptist Statement of Faith and Message, which contains various affirmations and commitments to advancing Christianity. Both the faculty handbook and individual faculty contracts affirm this commitment, with termination as a potential penalty for failing to abide by it. Samford's charter designates its chief purpose as the promotion of the Christian Religion throughout the world by maintaining and operating ... institutions dedicated to the development of Christian character in high scholastic standing. Samford's student handbook describes Samford's purpose this way: to foster Christianity through the development of Christian character, scholastic attainment, and a sense of personal responsibility, ... Furthermore, all students are required to attend chapel. 15 Both the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Education recognize Samford as a religious educational institution and grant it exemptions on that basis. Plaintiff has requested and received a minister's housing allowance from the IRS based on Samford's exemption. In sum, Samford is doubtlessly a religious educational institution. 16 Plaintiff further argues that Section 702 requires that Samford act pursuant to a specific religious policy, as opposed to ad hoc acts of religious discrimination. Plaintiff seeks to distinguish between the religious requirements of Samford as an institution and the religious views of the divinity school's dean. According to Plaintiff, the former constitute legitimate religious requirements with which he has complied, while the latter constitute religious discrimination. 17 Plaintiff argues that Samford must establish a causal relationship between a specific religious policy--such as a preference for a particular sect in hiring--and his termination. Plaintiff says that here the only pertinent policy is Samford's requirement that religion teachers subscribe to the 1963 Baptist Statement of Faith and Message. As Plaintiff has so subscribed, he argues that no valid reason of religious policy can support the employment decision about which he complains. 18 Plaintiff has presented no authority for his view of an institutional policy requirement for the Section 702 exemption, and we are aware of none. We think that the idea of institutional policy is not as narrow as Plaintiff seems to think it is; we think Samford's policy includes its general purpose, principles, and tendencies as a religious institution. We are also aware of no requirement that a religious educational institution engage in a strict policy of religious discrimination--such as always preferring Baptists in employment decisions--to be entitled to the exemption. 19 This case comes down to this situation: Plaintiff is not allowed to teach at the divinity school of a religious educational institution because his religious beliefs--as Plaintiff frankly admits--differ from those of the school's dean, the person selected by the religious educational institution to apply its policy and to lead the faculty at the divinity school. The Section 702 exemption's purpose and words easily encompass Plaintiff's case; the exemption allows religious institutions to employ only persons whose beliefs are consistent with the employer's when the work is connected with carrying out the institution's activities. To us, a teaching job in a divinity school of a religious educational institution is at the core of the Section 702 exemption: the inherent purpose of such schools is the study of God and God's attributes. We conclude that the exemption protects Samford in this case. 3 20