by Becky Dummermuth and Logan Tantibanchachai • 3 minutes
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a significant ruling protecting the rights of religious organizations to hire only those who agree with their religious beliefs for positions that represent the organization to the public.
In McMahon v. World Vision, the court ruled in favor of World Vision, a global Christian ministry that focuses on relief and development, recognizing that it had the right to make hiring and firing decisions based on religion when an employee performed tasks vital to World Vision’s religious mission.
First Liberty filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of World Vision on behalf of The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.
The controversy stemmed from World Vision’s decision to revoke an employment offer made to Aubrey McMahon for a customer service representative (“CSR”) position. World Vision did so after it learned she was in a same-sex marriage. This conduct violated World Vision’s Standard of Conduct, despite the fact that McMahon had assured her interviewer that she was aligned with the organization’s religious beliefs and standards of conduct. McMahon sued, asserting that World Vision had discriminated against her because of sexual orientation. World Vision responded that as a religious organization it had made its decision based on religion and its right to do so was protected.
The main issue in the case was whether a constitutional protection known as “the ministerial exception” could be extended to a customer service representative. The ministerial exception shields religious organizations from lawsuits over their hiring and firing of employees in ministerial roles. It may sound like the “ministerial exception” only applies to pastors and priests, but courts have applied the test to other church employees and also to a variety of teachers in religious schools. And over the last few years, the 9th Circuit has recognized that the principles embodied in ministerial exemption extend beyond teaching roles.
For example, in Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc. (2024), the 9th Circuit affirmed the right of a Buddhist organization to make employment decisions about a Work Practice Apprentice based on religious beliefs. Behrend’s work was mostly menial, but it also included performing “vital religious duties,” and no one disputed that work itself is “an essential component of Zen training.”
Also, in Markel v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (2024), the 9th Circuit used the ministerial exception to end a challenge brought against a Jewish organization related to Markel’s employment as a mashgiach. A mashgiach is an Orthodox Jew appointed by a board of rabbis for the purpose of ensuring prepared food meets kosher requirements.
Drawing from the decisions in Behrend and Markel, the court emphasized the importance of evaluating the specific job responsibilities of a CSR in the context of World Vision’s central mission. It explained: “CSRs are responsible for effectively communicating World Vision’s worldwide ministries and projects to donors and supporters.”
World Vision considers them the voice, face, and heart of the organization because they interact all day with donors. CSRs are even encouraged to pray for donors because the spiritual transformation of the donors is as vital as of the children supported through World Vision. Therefore, the court concluded that World Vision’s employment decision fell within the ministerial exception because CSRs perform “vital religious duties” to carry out the “core mission” of the organization.
The court did limit the scope of its decisions, specifying that the ministerial exception did not extend all of World Vision’s employees such as secretaries, accountants, and custodians, “because, unlike CSRs, they are not charged with conveying the organization’s message to its donors.”
In First Liberty’s amicus brief, we argued that even beyond the protections of the ministerial exception, the statutory protections in Title VII would protect a religious employer in making such hiring decisions. We also explained that our clients believe that they should be able to hire for all positions based on religion, as all employees are “de facto spokesperson(s) of that organization.” But the court focused its opinion on other things.
While we hope that in the future the 9th Circuit will agree with even broader protections for religious organizations, we’re encouraged to see how the court has been applying the ministerial exception.
 |
|
|
