by Jorge Gomez • 5 minutes
First Liberty is supporting World Vision, a Christian humanitarian aid, development and advocacy organization active in nearly 100 countries. Its mission is to serve children and families struggling with poverty.
This week, we filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in World Vision v. McMahon, case that deals with the right of religious organizations to make employment decisions consistent with their beliefs.
We filed the brief on behalf of The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (“BGEA”) and Samaritan’s Purse, arguing that both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution allow religious organizations to make hiring decisions on the basis of their religious beliefs, including adherence to a code of conduct.
Since 2021 World Vision has been fighting a lawsuit brought by a job candidate who was in a same-sex marriage. Aubrey McMahon applied for a position as a customer service representative—a role on the front lines of World Vision’s communications with and ministry to donors, prayer supporters and partner churches. World Vision expects these representatives to serve as a liaison with donors and the general public. They also to attend and participate in staff devotions and pray with donors, when appropriate.
During her job interview, McMahon affirmed that she agreed with World Vision’s religious beliefs and would comply with its code of conduct, which includes a belief in traditional marriage. But after the organization extended her a job offer, McMahon shared that she was married to a woman, prompting World Vision to withdraw the offer.
World Vision argues its employment decision was justified because its written standards of conduct hold to the biblical position that marriage is between a man and a woman. McMahon sued alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
A federal district court judge ruled against World Vision last November. Attorneys appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit in May.
Our brief asks the court to reverse the lower court’s ruling, as that decision could impact how ministries and houses of worship across the country serve the most vulnerable. Our brief argues that while some claim that Title VII’s exemption for religious organizations is narrow and applies only if the claim is religious discrimination, the plain text exempts religious organizations from all of Title VII—including the prohibition on sex discrimination—when the organization is making the decision on the basis of its religious beliefs.
“[Title VII’s exemption for religious organizations] and the church autonomy doctrine … play a critical role in preserving the autonomy of religious organizations, allowing them to hire individuals who align with their faith mission. When employees are united in purpose, they amplify the organization’s impact on society,” the brief states.
“Forcing religious organizations to hire employees who may openly disagree with their religious beliefs violates both Title VII and the constitutional doctrine of church autonomy,” First Liberty attorney Becky Dummermuth explained. “Denying religious organizations that protection would not only hurt them, it would also impact that multitudes of vulnerable people they serve in this country and around the world.”
Both BGEA and Samaritan’s Purse, like World Vision, rely heavily on the work of those in donor relations and communications to explain the organizations’ religious beliefs, purpose and mission. In fact, having every employee onboard with the organizations’ religious mission and living consistently with its religious beliefs is essential so that when anyone asks “Why did you come to help us?” or “Why do you do this work?” they hear about the gospel vision that motivates both organizations’ work.
Shared religious beliefs also ensure faithfulness and efficacy in pursuing the organizations’ missions. Therefore, BGEA and Samaritan’s Purpose require all employees to routinely acknowledge the organizations’ religious beliefs and mission and that their employment is for the purpose of furthering that mission.
Because their work, their religious beliefs, and the faithfulness of their employees to them are so closely tied together, BGEA and Samaritan’s Purse understand that the outcome of this case won’t just affect World Vision. If religious organizations’ rights under Title VII and the church autonomy doctrine are not respected, not only will the organizations be hurt, so will the multitudes they serve.
One study estimated that religious congregations and organizations contribute between $378 billion to $1.2 trillion in quantifiable socioeconomic value to the U.S. economy annually. The report explained that this is more than the global annual revenues of tech giants Apple and Microsoft combined!
As Justice Alito recently observed:
“To force religious organizations to hire messengers and other personnel who do not share their religious views would undermine not only the autonomy of many religious organizations but also their continued viability. If States could compel religious organizations to hire employees who fundamentally disagree with them, many religious non-profits would be extinguished from participation in public life—perhaps by those who disagree with their theological views most vigorously. Driving such organizations from the public square would not just infringe on their rights to freely exercise religion but would greatly impoverish our Nation’s civic and religious life.”
Protecting religious institutions from government interference is foundational to who we are as a nation. It’s the point of the church autonomy doctrine that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for nearly 150 years. Church autonomy in employment affects every church, synagogue or faith-based organization in America.
In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious freedom in Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru. The Court sided with two Catholic schools defending themselves against employment discrimination claims by their former teachers. That ruling further defined and secured the “ministerial exception,” a legal doctrine protecting religious organizations’ right to choose their leaders, ministers and teachers.
Other federal appeals courts have also ruled favorably for religious organizations in employment cases. In 2023, the 4th Circuit ruled in favor of Charlotte Catholic High School in North Carolina, which terminated a substitute teacher after he posted online about his upcoming same-sex marriage. The Court held that the school’s employment decision was constitutionally protected by the ministerial exception.
First Liberty is fighting a similar case on behalf of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. We argued that case at the 5th Circuit in April and explained that the Constitution protects the independence of religious organizations to choose their leaders. We also argued that courts and the government have no role in determining who should be leaders of religious organizations or how those organizations communicate regarding the spiritual fitness of leaders.
Religious institutions have a legal right to hire people who share their values and beliefs. There should be no doubt it’s up to them—and not the government—to decide how and who carries out their mission.
Read More:
First Liberty: Churches Have a Right to Choose Their Leaders
Daily Citizen: World Vision Serves as Stark Warning to Christian Ministries
Christianity Today: World Vision Appeals Employment Discrimination Case to Ninth Circuit
 |
|
|
