Religion and workers' rights
The New York Times has a very interesting article on the ministerial objection and other loopholes that protect religious organizations from most employee lawsuits:
It's interesting how some churches want to dissolve the wall between church and state when it comes to education and public health care, but suddenly become big fans of the First Amendment when it's standing between them and a wrongful dismissal suit.Judges have routinely invoked the ministerial exception to dismiss lawsuits against religious employers by rabbis, ministers, cantors, nuns and priests — those “whose ministry is a core expression of religious belief for that congregation,” as Mr. McNicholas put it.
But judges also have applied the exception to dismiss cases filed by the press secretary at a Roman Catholic church, a writer for The Christian Science Monitor, administrators at religious colleges, the disgruntled beneficiaries of a Lutheran pension fund, the overseer of the kosher kitchen at a Jewish nursing home and a co-founder of Focus on the Family, run by the conservative religious leader James C. Dobson. Court files show that some of these people were surprised to learn that their work had been considered a “core expression of religious belief” by their employer.
Religious employers have long been shielded from all complaints of religious discrimination by an exemption that was built into the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and expanded in 1972. That historic exemption allows them to give preference in hiring to candidates who share their faith. In recent years, some judges have also refused to interfere when religious groups have dismissed lesbians, unwed mothers and adulterous couples, even if they profess the same faith, because they have violated their employers’ religious codes. [NYT]
Update: Did you know that church-run daycare centers are exempt from inspections and licensing in some states?
And good stuff from Mahablog.
Worth noting--it's usually the Free Exercise Clause (not the Establishment Clause) that's invoked to allow religious groups exemptions from general rules.
SamChevre
random minutiae a specialty
On a more general note, Stephen Carter's "The Culture of Disbelief" is an awesomely helpful book on the general subject of church and state. He's a professor at Yale Law, probably best known for his book, "Reflections of an Affirmative-Action Baby." (As you might guess from that title, he's African-American; it is thus unsurprising that many of his examples come from the abolition and civil-rights eras.)
Posted by: SamChevre | October 09, 2006 at 01:36 PM
I know about the daycare exemption because my husband's church runs a daycare. They voluntarily comply with county rules, and they are not exempt from all state laws, specifically, child abuse reporting rules. One of the reasons they are exempt has to do with facility management -- since most churches weren't built as daycare centers, applying building codes would effectively shut them down, which would be a bad thing for most communities. Some exemptions make sense, but obviously, churches run mack trucks through many of them. The hardest one for many to understand is the exemption from many pension protection laws for so-called church plans, which often cover the employees of Catholic hospital systems. The NYT recently ran an article about a system in New Jersey that is basically set to reduce the retirement benefits of its retirees by half or even more. I am guessing that's where the idea for this series might have been born.
Posted by: Barbara | October 09, 2006 at 02:24 PM
I would never let my children be put into christian day care centers. They can use their time to seduce the children into a deviant christian lifestyle - and then they'll become child molesters, or look the other way when their christian brethren molest the children.
And, if you think my rhetoric is a bit overboard: substitute the word homosexual where you see the word christian, and you might get a hint about where the original came from...
Posted by: (: Tom :) | October 09, 2006 at 07:16 PM
"The New York Times has a very interesting article on the ministerial objection and other loopholes that protect religious organizations from most employee lawsuits:"
Funny thing those "loopholes", some call them that others call them well established fundamental constitutional rights.
Remember what is also in the first amendment, Do reporters protecting their sources rely on a “loophole”? Is this blog saying what it wants because of the freedom of speech “loophole”?
Wait until they try and close the 527’s “loophole” in campaign finance law, -MoveOn.org won’t think of it as a loophole.
Posted by: Fitz | October 09, 2006 at 07:22 PM
No, it's a loophole. Free exercise is a fundamental constitutional right, but its scope is not unlimited.
Child health and safety regulations should apply to all caregivers in the state whether they are secular or religious. Your right to exercise your religion doesn't include the right to endanger children.
If churches employ people to do ordinary jobs, they should have to play by the usual rules for employers.
Posted by: Lindsay Beyerstein | October 09, 2006 at 07:30 PM
Lindsay
Well you have gone narrow with your emphasis on childcare. Remember though these are no for-profit going concerns. These are church groups who’s “childcare” can range from a weekend Sunday school to a Romper room (with Jesus) organized play session were you drop your kids off for a few hours. State regulation could easily destroy such programs in an effort to “bring them under state regulation”
But of coarse you ignore the bulk of the article. Women Chaplin’s on a Catholic campus? Age discrimination suits brought when a new Minister is hired over an old one by a congregation. Disability Act lawsuits brought when an applicant for a religious sisterhood is not accepted for ordination? I’m afraid your guest is (above) is misinformed. The religious exercise/non-establishment clause, is ONE clause. This illustrates how multiple laws and State encroachment can effectively dictate a religions basic character and violate the first amendment.
He is Maggie Gallagher’s critique (one I support wholeheartedly)
“You've probably already noticed that enormous number of pages the NYT is devoting to the question of "special favors" for religious groups: big stories "Religion Outweighs Regulation" on Sunday and "Employees Have Few Rights" on Monday. (Are we done or can we expect front page stories all week?)
Is this a declaration of war against conscience exemptions in law? (and gee, could it have anything to do with the gay marriage debate?) The most striking new "framing" development in this piece is the attempt to describe religious exemptions as part of a general collapse of "separation of church and state." Whereas, for most of our history, they were understood to be necessary parts of keeping the government from becoming too involved in regulating church affairs. Keep watching.”
Posted by: Fitz | October 09, 2006 at 07:53 PM
Is that the same Maggie Gallagher that took administration money to pimp opeds for them?
Posted by: whig | October 09, 2006 at 09:16 PM
God, that PERSON. I sometimes feel that she gets away with what she says because it's just a touch left of and less outrageous than Ann Coulter, so Ann gets the grief. Foof.
Posted by: 1984 Was Not a Shopping List | October 10, 2006 at 03:28 AM
Fitz, the difference between "church nursery" and daycare is pretty simple: daycares charge tuition. See how easy it was for the state to make a distinction between what should and should not be regulated (from a health and safety perspective)?
Posted by: Barbara | October 10, 2006 at 09:28 AM