Court Opinion

ID: 9567802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:57:53.410575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:20:43.448549
License: Public Domain

N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.
¶ 89. (dissenting). As a result of the majority opinion, our court is reaching the anomalous conclusion that a first-grade lay schoolteacher at a Catholic school fits within the narrow "ecclesiastical"1 exception barring adjudication of her *326age discrimination suit against her employer. To reach that conclusion, the majority improvidently alters the primary duties test that Wisconsin courts and a significant majority of other jurisdictions have applied when confronted with the question of whether to apply the ecclesiastical exception. I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the freedom of conscience clauses in Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution preclude adjudication of this claim.
¶ 90. Moreover, while I recognize the majority's analysis under the First Amendment centers on the Free Exercise Clause, the majority's sweeping language and analysis nonetheless jeopardizes this court's longstanding decisions under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, and the benefits clause and compelled support clause in Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Specifically, the majority's conclusion that based on the facts here CCS infuses its secular subjects with religion effectively extends a free pass to religious schools to discriminate against their lay employees; moreover, it undoubtedly threatens this court's decision in Jackson v. Benson, 218 Wis. 2d 835, 578 N.W.2d 602 (1998), and, consequently, the continued viability of the Milwaukee school choice program. Accordingly, I dissent.
¶ 91. As an initial matter, I cannot subscribe to the majority's view that the primary duties test should be altered by supplementing it with its self-styled "functional analysis." Indeed, given that "our job is to *327interpret and apply the law the people adopt, not to make it up in accord with ours or society's current policy preferences," majority op., ¶ 86, an examination of Wisconsin court precedent, and the majority of other jurisdictions that use that test, counsels for our continued use of the primary duties test. Wisconsin courts and a majority of other jurisdictions have applied the test to determine whether the ecclesiastical exception should apply to a lay teacher2 at a religious school.
¶ 92. As a matter of context, the law, as it stood when this case moved its way up through the administrative hearings, the circuit court, and the court of appeals, was well-established: The United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution do not categorically deprive courts of subject matter jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate employment discrimination claims against religious organizations because doing so "would dangerously encroach Upon the Establishment Clause's prohibition against furthering religion by providing a benefit exclusively to a religious association." Jocz v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 273, 300, 538 N.W.2d 588 (Ct. App. 1995); see also Sacred Heart Sch. Bd. v. LIRC, 157 Wis. 2d 638, 644, 460 N.W.2d 430 (Ct. App. 1990). However, our courts have also recognized that the First Amendment and Wisconsin Constitution may preclude investigation and adjudication of discrimination complaints in some cases where doing so would impinge on a religious organization's ability to choose ministers to *328teach and interpret its doctrine and policy. Jocz, 196 Wis. 2d at 300. The rationale for that exception reflects an interest in allowing religious associations the right to choose ministers or persons in similar positions without interference by state courts or quasi-judicial agencies interpreting religious canons, doctrines, or policies. Id. at 300-01.
¶ 93. Accordingly, when confronted with the question of whether an employee of a religious organization fits within the ecclesiastical exception, our agencies and courts apply the primary duties test: An employee fits within the ecclesiastical exception 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 or worship ...." Jocz, 196 Wis. 2d at 303 (citing Rayburn v. Gen. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir. 1985)). As the factors demonstrate, the central purpose of this test is to allow a court to distinguish between individuals for whom employment decisions by a religious group are likely to require a court to interpret matters of religious faith, doctrine, and governance, and those for whom employment decisions are highly unlikely to require a court to investigate such matters. See Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2d 302, 327, 533 N.W.2d 780 (1995).
¶ 94. Given that background, ALJ Brown, LIRC, the circuit court, and the court of appeals all applied that law and ultimately concluded that Ostlund's position was not ecclesiastical. ALJ Brown's reasoning, as adopted by LIRC, is particularly cogent in its explanation of why Ostlund's position properly fell outside the ecclesiastical exception under the primary duties test:
*329In practical terms, the idea that, as a teacher, Ms. Ostlund should try to infuse religion into her secular subjects, and should strive to create a religious "atmosphere" in her class, meant that, while she performed her primary duty of teaching the typical, secular school curriculum, she occasionally made references to moral or religious lessons, or to religious symbols or rituals. This did not make her job ministerial. Not one example in case law has been cited for holding that a teacher employed by a religious association who taught something other than exclusively religious subjects has a ministerial position, preventing adjudication of a complaint under an employment discrimination law (other than for discrimination on the basis of religion). On the other hand, a number of court decisions considering this issue have found that the position was not ministerial and/or that there was no unconstitutional entanglement with the free exercise clause.
¶ 95. Of course, that is not to say that the primary duties test is definitive. As tests designed for agencies and courts to apply on a case-by-case basis often go, the test speaks in some degree of generality. See Jocz, 196 Wis. 2d at 303 ("While this test is not meant to provide the exclusive definition of ’ministerial' or 'ecclesiastical' functions, it should provide a basic framework for reviewing agencies or courts to follow when addressing the prima facie question of whether a position is entitled to constitutional protection from state interference."). For example, when confronted with the facts here, it is not patently clear when one of Ostlund's specific duties falls within the categories identified in the primary duties test, and what makes a particular duty "primary."
¶ 96. Thus, our task is to identify how broadly or narrowly we resolve those questions. To accomplish that, I believe that the correct approach is much like *330that taken by the court of appeals3 in this case: examining the sources of the primary duties test for a guiding principle, and supplementing that examination by considering other jurisdictions' decisions in which those courts determined whether the ecclesiastical exception applied in circumstances similar to those presented here.
¶ 97. The source of the primary duties test in Wisconsin is Jocz, 196 Wis. 2d at 301. In that case, the court relied on McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1972), and Rayburn in adopting the primary duties test. Of those two cases, Rayburn provides an especially helpful analysis of the constitutional basis for the ecclesiastical exception. In that case, which involved allegations of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by a woman who was denied an associate pastor position in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the court observed that the primary duties test "necessarily requires a court to determine whether a position is important to the spiritual and pastoral mission of the church." Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1169. After concluding that the associate pastor position was of that nature, the court observed that the Free Exercise Clause properly precludes adjudication of "quintessentially religious" matters because those matters present a danger of adjudicative bodies making an "inroad on religious liberty" that is "too substantial to be permissible." Id. However, the court also emphasized that the state's interest in enforcing discrimination laws was one "of *331the highest order," and that courts could properly adjudicate "the secular employment decisions of a religious institution," such as a lay teacher at a religious school or an editorial secretary in a sectarian-based publishing house. Id. (citations omitted).
¶ 98. I derive from Rayburn, as did the court of appeals, the principle that in cases involving discrimination claims the ecclesiastical exception properly overrides enforcement of those claims only when the employee's position is quintessentially religious. In other words, the ecclesiastical exception is designed to remain just that — an exception — reserved for positions of spiritual leadership.
¶ 99. Moreover, other jurisdictions evaluating whether the ecclesiastical exception applied to lay teachers at primary or secondary religious schools alleging employment discrimination against their employers have held, consistently with that principle from Rayburn, that those employees did not fit within the ecclesiastical exception.4
*332¶ 100. Significantly, Guinan v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, 42 F. Supp. 2d 849 (S.D. Ind. 1998), offers nearly identical duties — and, if anything, even more directly religious duties — than the instant case does, yet that court concluded that the ecclesiastical exception did not apply. That case involved a fifth-grade Catholic school teacher, Guinan, who taught religion class and secular courses, was a "Catechist," identified one of her principal duties to be "an example of Christianity" and an "evangelist" to her students, and organized one Mass per month. The court concluded that because the vast majority of her duties were teaching secular courses and because the school did not require its instructors to be Catholic, Guinan did not fit within the ecclesiastical exception. Id. at 853.
¶ 101. That court went on to emphasize, "Moreover, the application of the ministerial exception to non-ministers has been reserved generally for those positions that are, at the veiy least, close to being *333exclusively religious based, such as a chaplain or pastor's assistant." Id. (citing Scharon v. St. Luke's Episcopal Presbyterian Hosps., 929 F.2d 360 (8th Cir. 1991), and Rayburn, 772 F.2d at 1164).
¶ 102. From the cases discussed, I cull, as did the court of appeals, several persuasive points: First, those cases reject the proposition that the primary duties test may be satisfied in favor of the employer school simply because that school has a religious mission. See, e.g., Dole v. Shenandoah Baptist Church, 899 F.2d 1389, 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1990); EEOC v. Tree of Life Christian Sch., 751 F. Supp. 700, 706 (S.D. Ohio 1990). Second, those cases also reject, as a determinative factor, a stated duty by teachers to serve as a model of particular religious values. See, e.g., Guinan, 42 F. Supp. 2d at 852 n.6; Gallo v. Salesian Soc'y, Inc., 676 A.2d 580, 588 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996). Indeed, neither of those factors would appear to distinguish between ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical positions; those conclusions are consistent with Rayburn and offer assistance to the analysis here.
¶ 103. In contrast, the majority cannot identify one opinion implementing the primary duties test as developed under Rayburn, and as applied by Wisconsin courts and a majority of other courts, that concludes that the ecclesiastical exception applies in a lay teacher/religious school context.5 That is not surprising. As the principles stated in Rayburn show, courts have recognized that the point of the primary duties *334test is to distinguish between employees of churches or religious organizations for whom employment decisions are likely to involve ecclesiastical decisions or matters of church governance, faith, and doctrine, and those other employees for whom such employment decisions are unlikely to implicate such matters. In other words, the ecclesiastical exception is intended to apply narrowly in situations where lay teachers assert claims alleging employment discrimination by a religious school employer.
¶ 104. Hence, given the facts in this case, I conclude, as did ALJ Brown, LIRC, the circuit court, and the court of appeals, that Ostlund does not fit within the ecclesiastical exception. As an initial matter, the focus of the primary duties test is, as its name indicates, the employee's duties, not the religious mission of the group, the school, or its teachers. To conclude otherwise would impermissibly broaden the ecclesiastical excep*335tion, given that all sectarian schools are likely to identify a religious purpose that is integral to the particular religion's mission.
¶ 105. In addition, I conclude, as did the court of appeals, that Ostlund's duty to model and support Catholic values is not a distinguishing factor to be included within the primary duties test. Again, undoubtedly all sectarian schools ask many, if not all, of their employees to serve as models of particular values. That factor does not operate to distinguish between employees whose positions fit within the ecclesiastical exception and those whose positions do not.
¶ 106. Further, I am not persuaded that the facts here present a situation where the secular subjects taught by Ostlund are so infused with religious doctrine that that instruction can be characterized as teaching the faith in each secular subject. CCS uses non-religious textbooks for its secular classes; the isolated instances in which religious images and concepts crossed over into secular subjects — the "Christmas around the world" unit in social studies, the use of connect-the-dots religious images in math class, and the reading exercise using images from the Garden of Eden — cannot logically be said to "infuse" the first-graders' secular education with religious doctrine. Furthermore, I conclude, as did the court of appeals, that evaluations of Ostlund's job performance generally refer not to specific Catholic doctrine, but to moral qualities and values (such as honesty, fairness, and following rules) that are not exclusive to Catholicism.
¶ 107. Moreover, in light of the above conclusions, I reach a different result than the majority reaches when I apply the primary duties test to the undisputed facts here. Although Ostlund had religious duties as part of her job, those duties cannot be considered *336"primary," which I use in both the quantitative and qualitative sense. The religion class, prayers, and participation in and planning of liturgies did not come close to making up a major portion of Ostlund's work day, nor was inculcating children with Catholic doctrine and practices a central focus of her job description or evaluation. Further, CCS did not require its teachers to be Catholic. We are aware, however, that Ostlund and other elementary school teachers were required to complete in-service religious training. I conclude, as did the court of appeals, that such information certainly is not enough to lead me to the conclusion that Ostlund's religious duties were her primary duties.6
¶ 108. Finally, the conclusion that Ostlund's circumstances do not satisfy the ecclesiastical exception is consistent with the underlying principle that the exception should be applied to quintessentially religious positions for which employment decisions are likely to implicate matters of religious canons, doctrines, or policies. In short, employment decisions involving Ostlund's position are unlikely to implicate matters of Catholic governance, faith, or doctrine. Thus, neither the First Amendment of the United States Constitution nor Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution *337operate, in this situation, to bar adjudication of Ostlund's discrimination claim. Hence, LIRC did not err in concluding as much.
¶ 109. Indeed, the majority and I appear to agree that a fair application of the primary duties test, as our courts and a majority of others have applied it, yields only one sensible result: that Ostlund's position is not "ecclesiastical." Yet rather than accept that result, the majority opts to gild the primary duties test with a functional analysis that produces a significantly broader approach, see majority op., ¶ 47, and to apply the facts selectively to that approach. I disagree with the majority's view for three primary reasons.
¶ 110. First, the majority, in advocating for its so-called functional analysis, fails to identify — nor can I point to — a principle in Wisconsin law justifying its adoption as an addendum that significantly alters the primary duties test.7 More specifically, it fails to explain persuasively why this court should toss out the analysis that Wisconsin courts and a majority of other courts have been applying8 and replace it with an approach that has little or no support from other jurisdictions *338and that appears to be merely a matter of preference for the majority. The majority furthermore uses its new test to reach a result that is an utter anomaly compared with the results reached by nearly every other court that has confronted a similar issue. Here, the majority extends the ecclesiastical exception, which has traditionally been reserved for ordained clergy and ministers, to a first-grade lay teacher at a Catholic school.
¶ 111. Second, what is of great concern is that the majority's overbroad and sweeping language implicates significantly far-reaching consequences beyond simply calling Ostlund "ecclesiastical" for purposes of applying the exception. As an initial matter, I cannot take comfort in the majority's assurances that its proposed analysis will be very fact-sensitive, majority op., ¶¶ 48-49, and that its holding is "not giving a blanket exception to all religious school teachers," id., ¶ 84. CCS's mission is not unique among Catholic schools, and Ostlund's duties are not unique among lay Catholic *339schoolteachers. If this case is to serve as an example of how a Catholic school infuses Catholic doctrine into every secular subject taught there, I fail to see how any lay Catholic schoolteacher will fall outside of this broad "exception" devised by the majority.
¶ 112. Third, and of greatest concern, as noted previously, while I recognize the majority's analysis under the First Amendment centers on the Free Exercise Clause, the majority's sweeping language and analysis nonetheless jeopardizes this court's longstanding decisions under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, and under Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Specifically, thanks to the majority's opinion, the continued viability of Jackson v. Benson, which upheld the Milwaukee school choice program, is in grave danger.
¶ 113. In Jackson v. Benson, the central issue before our court was the constitutionality, under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution, of the amended Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (amended MPCP), a school choice program that enables children in low-income families to attend private schools through a voucher system. The participating schools in that program include both nonsectarian and sectarian schools. Significantly, the program also includes an "opt-out" provision that prohibits private schools from requiring children to participate in religious activities if their parents or guardians wish their children to be exempt from such activities. Jackson, 218 Wis. 2d at 849. The program also requires participating private schools to comply with nondiscrimination laws. Id. at 846-47. We ultimately concluded that the amended MPCP did not run afoul of either the Establishment Clause or Article I, Section 18. Id. at 875-76, 883-84.
*340¶ 114. Those features of the Milwaukee school choice program were not remarkably different from those in a Cleveland school voucher program in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002). Notably, compliance with nondiscrimination laws was also a requirement of the school choice program upheld by the United States Supreme Court in that case. The majority correctly states that in Zelman, the Court "found that the Cleveland [school voucher] program was neutral and a program of true private choice, and thus did not violate the Establishment Clause." Majority op., ¶ 74 n.29. However, the majority omits the fact that the United States Supreme Court expressly noted in that case that participating private schools were required by statute to comply with nondiscrimination laws. Zelman, 536 U.S. 639, 645 (citing to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3313.976). In contrast, under the majority's overly broad interpretation of the ecclesiastical exception here, a participating private school may, in fact, disregard such nondiscrimination laws with impunity where lay teachers are concerned because no claim of discrimination — whether based on race, religion, ethnic background, or other forbidden grounds of discrimination — can be pursued.
¶ 115. I believe that the majority opinion, by its holdings, undermines our court's conclusions in Jackson v. Benson in multiple respects. First, as to our conclusion that the amended MPCP did not violate the Establishment Clause, the majority opinion here cannot be squared with our analyses in Jackson v. Benson under (a) the second prong of the Lemon test, under which we assessed whether the school choice program had a primary effect of advancing religion, and (b) the third prong of the Lemon test, under which we assessed whether the school choice program would result in excessive government entanglement. See Lemon v. *341Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971). Second, as to our conclusion in Jackson v. Benson that the amended MPCP did not violate Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution, the majority opinion likewise runs counter to our analyses under both (a) the benefits clause and (b) the compelled support clause of that constitutional provision. Below, I revisit all four of those portions of our analysis in Jackson v. Benson and explain in detail why I believe the majority opinion here undermines those conclusions.
¶ 116. As an initial matter, as to our Establishment Clause9 analysis in Jackson v. Benson, we applied the test first established in Lemon. In the context of a public benefit such as a school voucher program, that benefit does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause if (1) it has a secular legislative purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) it does not create excessive entanglement between government and religion. Jackson, 218 Wis. 2d at 856 (citing Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13). Our analysis in Jackson v. Benson under the second prong of that test — whether the benefit in question has a principal or primary effect of neither advancing nor inhibiting religion — cannot be squared with the majority opinion here.
¶ 117. In assessing the constitutionality of the amended MPCP under the second prong of the Lemon test, we first explained that benefits under the amended MPCP needed to be "determined by 'neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion,' and aid 'is made available to both religious and secular benefi*342ciaries on a nondiscriminatory basis.'" Jackson, 218 Wis. 2d at 869 (quoting Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)). We observed that the criteria for selecting schools eligible to participate in the program were established on a religion-neutral basis — that is, both sectarian and nonsectarian schools could participate in the program. However, we also emphasized that the "opt-out" provision, preventing religious private schools from requiring students to participate in any religious activity provided at the school, was a significant factor in finding the amended MPCP did not have a primary effect of advancing religion. Jackson, 218 Wis. 2d at 869-70. We further concluded that, because of those features in the program, the amended MPCP "provides a neutral benefit to beneficiaries selected on religious-neutral criteria" and "neither leads to religious indoctrination, nor creates [a] financial incentive for students to undertake a sectarian education." Id. at 871 (quotation marks and citations omitted; brackets in Jackson v. Benson).
¶ 118. Yet, the majority in the instant case reaches its conclusion by conflating selected evidence that, taken together, creates the false impression that the teaching of secular subjects at CCS is infused with religion. For example, the majority particularly emphasizes the school's stated mission, which, as I observed earlier, see supra, ¶ 102, does not differentiate at all between ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical positions at the school. See, e.g., majority op., ¶ 5 ("The Catholic school is considered a 'ministry' of the Catholic Church. . . . [T]he Catholic Church considers 'the foundation of the whole educational enterprise in a Catholic school' to be Jesus Christ. The Catholic school aims at 'a Christian concept of life centered on Jesus Christ.'"); id., ¶ 73 (citing CCS's mission to provide "a distinctly *343Catholic education aimed at a 'Christian concept of life'"); id. ("[CCS] aims to be a worship-filled educational environment with a faith-centered approach to learning."). Likewise, the majority puts great weight on CCS's view that teachers should attempt to incorporate religious material into teaching secular subjects. See id., ¶ 74 ("Teachers made efforts to integrate Catholic values into various aspects of the curricula," including the integration of "theological and moral principles into each subject, as well as the use of religious examples and symbols that would not be found in a public school.").
¶ 119. The majority then overgeneralizes the evidence of the school's actual practices, see id., ¶ 77, to support its statements that CCS infuses the teaching of its subjects with religious doctrine where the actual evidence of faith-based instruction and activity is unremarkable for a Catholic or any other religious primary or secondary school. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 7, 9 (evidence of incorporated religious examples and symbols and values into lessons included a unit on Christmas celebrations around the world in social studies, a reading exercise using objects in the Garden of Eden, and a math exercise connecting dots to form "religious images"); id. ¶¶ 6, 8 (Ostlund led students in prayer before school and after lunch); id., ¶ 10 (Ostlund taught 30 minutes of religion three days a week and participated in school-wide recognition of several Catholic holidays); id., ¶ 12 (the classroom had a prayer corner, crucifix, and other seasonal religious objects). Those instances of religious activity fuel the majority's conclusion that "it is obvious that Ostlund's role was of high importance and closely linked to the mission of the school — the inculcation of a Christ-centered concept of life." Id., ¶ 76.
*344¶ 120. Put bluntly, the majority's conclusions here are based on facts that do not distinguish CCS's practices and Ostlund's duties from those of any other Catholic school or schoolteacher in Wisconsin, or, for that matter, from any other religious school and its approach toward education. If the majority is correct in its conclusions, I fail to see how it can continue to be maintained that benefits flowing from the Milwaukee school choice program do not have the primary effect of advancing religion. If indeed a Catholic school infuses religion into all of its subjects, including courses thought to be secular, as the majority claims, how can the jurisprudential reasoning of Jackson v. Benson survive the majority's holding in this case?
¶ 121. Further, we concluded in Jackson v. Benson that the amended MPCP does not create excessive entanglement between the state and religion under the third prong of the Lemon test. See Lemon, 403 U.S. at 613. Although that program requires participating schools to be subject to some state oversight, including the requirement that "[p]articipating private schools are subject to . . . applicable nondiscrimination, health, and safety obligations," Jackson, 218 Wis. 2d at 874 (emphasis added), we concluded that standard oversight activities, such as the requirement to comply with nondiscrimination laws, do not create excessive entanglement. Quoting Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 696-97 (1989), we observed:
[Rloutine regulatory interaction which involves no inquiries into religious doctrine, no delegation of state power to a religious body, and no detailed monitoring and close administrative contact between secular and religious bodies, does not of itself violate the nonentanglement command.
Jackson, 218 Wis. 2d at 875.
*345¶ 122. Again, if it is unconstitutional for a court to adjudicate a claim for discrimination by a lay teacher against a Catholic school, as the majority holds here, surely the amended MPCP's provision requiring participating schools to comply with nondiscrimination laws must then also be unconstitutional.
¶ 123. Likewise, the majority's decision endangers our holding in Jackson v. Benson under the benefits clause in Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. That clause, which is the Wisconsin equivalent of the federal Establishment Clause, provides: "nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries." See Jackson, 218 Wis. 2d at 876 n.20. Our inquiry under the benefits clause is identical to our analysis under the second prong of the Lemon test. See id. at 878 (the ultimate question under the benefits clause is "whether [a benefit's] primary effect advances religion" (citation omitted)). Additionally, our courts have treated that clause as such. Compare State ex rel. Warren v. Nusbaum, 64 Wis. 2d 314, 325, 219 N.W.2d 577 (1974) (Nusbaum II) (no violation of benefits clause where a state program subsidized special-needs children's attendance at sectarian private schools where the program chose students through a neutral process and the legislature went to "great lengths" to ensure "that the inculcation of religious tenets [did] not take place"), with State ex rel. Weiss v. Dist. Bd., 76 Wis. 177, 44 N.W. 967 (1890) (public funds may not be used to fund a school that requires students to read from the Bible).
¶ 124. Thus, just as with the above analysis under the second prong of the Lemon test, the majority's characterization of facts that religion is central to every part of CCS's curriculum, see, e.g., majority op., ¶¶ 5, *34672, 73, 75-77, and, by extension, any other Catholic or otherwise religious school, likewise jeopardizes our holding in Jackson v. Benson that the amended MPCP does not violate the benefits clause in Article I, Section 18.
¶ 125. Finally, the majority's conclusion implicates our holding in Jackson v. Benson under the compelled support clause in Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution. That clause provides: "nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship." In upholding school choice, it was very significant to our court that the program prohibited "a sectarian private school from requiring students attending under the program to participate in religious activities offered at such school." Jackson, 218 Wis. 2d at 883. Hence, a query: If secular subjects at CCS are so infused with religion {see majority op., ¶¶ 5, 72, 73, 75-77), how does a student whose parents wish to exempt him or her from participation in religious activities escape inculcation? The answer to such a question, if the position of the majority is followed here, clearly jeopardizes our analysis of the constitutionality of the Milwaukee school choice program under the compelled support clause. I disagree with the majority, see majority op., ¶ 74 n.29, that the opt-out provision was not important to our holding in Jackson v. Benson.
¶ 126. In conclusion, I disagree with the majority's view that the primary duties test needs to be altered with its self-styled "functional analysis." The primary duties test is the test that Wisconsin courts and most other courts in the country have been applying. To the extent courts have applied that test to lay teachers at religious schools, the results have been consistent: The ecclesiastical exception is not intended to be applied to such *347individuals. That result is consistent with the underlying rationale for the ecclesiastical exception and in no way implicates state interference with matters of religious polity or doctrine. Additionally, the majority fails to identify a compelling reason to change how Wisconsin courts have approached such cases. Finally, the majority's conclusion that, based on the facts here, CCS infuses its secular subjects with religion effectively extends a free pass to religious schools to violate nondiscrimination laws with regard to their lay employees; moreover, it undoubtedly threatens this court's decision in Jackson v. Benson and, consequently, the continued viability of the Milwaukee school choice program.
¶ 127. For those reasons, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 128. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON and Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY join this dissent.

 Courts have used the terms "ministerial" and "ecclesiastical" interchangeably to describe the function of employment positions that fall within the exception. See, e.g., Miller v. Bay View United Methodist Church, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1180 (E.D. Wis. 2001); Jocz v. LIRC, 196 Wis. 2d 273, 301, 538 N.W.2d 588 (Ct. App. 1995). Although most courts have described the *326exception as the "ministerial exception," I use the word "ecclesiastical" (rather than "ministerial") throughout this dissent because it is a more precise term than ministerial and avoids confusion with an exception to immunity in other contexts.

 The facts presented here involve a lay teacher. It is unnecessary in this case to speculate on the question of how the ecclesiastical exception would apply "if Ostlund had been a nun instead of a lay teacher." Majority op., ¶ 41 n.l6. A nun who is a teacher may very well have primary duties that would differ from the primary duties of a lay teacher. In any event, that question is not before us.

 In an appeal following an administrative agency decision, this court reviews the decision of the agency, in this case, LIRC. See County of Dane v. LIRC, 2009 WI 9, ¶ 14, 315 Wis. 2d 295, 759 N.W.2d 571. However, this court benefits from the analyses of the circuit court and the court of appeals. Seider v. O'Connell, 2000 WI 76, ¶ 27, 236 Wis. 2d 211, 612 N.W.2d 659.

 Although not all of those courts expressly applied the primary duties test, those cases are relevant to this court's analysis. For example, several courts, in addressing whether the exception applies to lay teachers, looked to Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir. 1985), for guidance on defining the scope of the exception but did not expressly apply the primary duties test. See, e.g., Dole v. Shenandoah Baptist Church, 899 F.2d 1389 (4th Cir. 1990) (no ecclesiastical exception for elementary and high school teachers in Baptist school system who teach Bible study and integrate biblical material into secular subjects, but who did not perform sacerdotal functions, serve as church governors, or belong to a clearly delineated religious order); EEOC v. Fremont Christian Sch., 781 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1986) (no ecclesiastical exception for elementary and high school teachers required to follow specific tenets of faith); EEOC v. Tree of Life Christian Sch., 751 *332F. Supp. 700 (S.D. Ohio 1990) (no ecclesiastical exception for primary through secondary school teachers, even though they view their primary responsibility to be inculcating the students with Christianity). Nonetheless, those decisions are consistent with the underlying principle in Rayburn and with the reasoning by other courts that have expressly applied the primary duties test to a lay teacher at a religious primary or secondary school. See, e.g., Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 440 F. Supp. 2d 211 (E.D. N.Y. 2006) (no exception applies where Seventh-day Adventist school's lay teacher had generally secular duties except for one daily hour of Bible instruction and attendance at a religious ceremony once a year); Gallo v. Salesian Soc'y, Inc., 676 A.2d 580 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996) (no exception applies to a secondary English and history teacher who was required to exemplify Christian principles in her teaching and to begin class with a prayer, and who taught at a school with a religious philosophy and purpose).

 Stately v. Indian Community School of Milwaukee, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 858 (E.D. Wis. 2004), which is the only published case that appears to go the other way under the primary duties test, is of limited utility. In that case, the school in question taught Native American culture and practices to Native American children; it is not clear from that case the degree to which *334that school or the teacher taught secular subjects or was required to inculcate Native American culture and practices into those subjects.
Furthermore, one can easily distinguish the other published cases that the majority invokes for support for the case at hand. See, e.g., EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch., 582 F. Supp. 2d 881 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (ecclesiastical exception applied to a teacher designated "commissioned minister," as opposed to its non-titled lay teachers); Pardue v. Ctr. City Consortium Sch. of the Archdiocese of Wash., Inc., 875 A.2d 669 (D.C. 2005) (determining that exception applied to elementary Catholic school principal). Cf. Porth v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Kalamazoo, 532 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (refusing to allow state religious discrimination laws to apply to parochial schools). But see Weishuhn v. Catholic Diocese of Lansing, 756 N.W.2d 483 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (concluding that Porth is not controlling of question of whether ecclesiastical exception exists in Michigan).

 The court of appeals, in an effort to increase the utility of the primary duties test, adopted the school's "hiring criteria" as an additional factor to supplement the primary duties test, based on Starkman v. Evans, 198 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1999). Because our review is limited to LIRC's decision, we need not decide whether evidence of such hiring criteria supplements the primary duties test. Moreover, evidence of an employer's hiring criteria or the individual's job description seemingly would be relevant to an analysis under the primary duties test as indicative of what the parties considered to be the primary duties.

 The majority appears to support its reasoning in great part with the freedom of conscience clauses in Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution and those clauses' use of the "strongest possible" language to ensure autonomy for religious groups and individuals. Majority op., ¶ 59. However, it is worth noting that Article I, Section 18 uses identically strong language ("nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect, or support a place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall... any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies ... ") in describing its prohibitions against state advancement of religion.

 The majority appears to conflate the concept of de novo review of the application of constitutional principles to a given *338set of facts with the concept of overruling precedent. Majority op., ¶ 47 n.22. Jocz is a decision of the court of appeals, in which the court adopted the primary duties test. In Cook v. Cook, we stated, "[Wis. Stat. § 752.41(2)] provides that officially published opinions of the court of appeals shall have statewide precedential effect. Thus, the principle of stare decisis is applicable to the decisions of the court of appeals." Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 186, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997) (citing Wis. Stat. §752.41(2) (1995-96)). Therefore, while we of course review de novo the application of constitutional principles to the facts of this case, that concept in no way authorizes wholesale disregard of the principle of stare decisis. In other words, though we, in essence, "start over" in the analysis of the application of the law to this case, we do not "start over" with respect to determining whether the primary duties test is the right test unless we are prepared to undertake a full explanation of the reasons we are disregarding precedent. Otherwise, it is entirely appropriate to follow the approach in Jocz.

 The Establishment Clause to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...."