Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC

When is the melding of church and state ok? It could be decided soon by the Supreme Court. The Court, recently reconvening, is considering the case of Cheryl Perich, a former teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan. She began her “official” capacity in the church as a lay person and later, as a faculty member of both secular and religious instruction. She even conducted chapel for the students from time to time. She fell ill in 2004 and was diagnosed as having narcolepsy, a condition that impacts sleep patterns and can caused involuntary sleeping during the day or at normal times of alertness. When she returned to the church, they had hired another to take her place. When she threatened to sue, the church stated that the potential litigation violated church beliefs that issues should be settled within, not from without, the church. If she pursued such action, she would be fired. She did and she was. Ms. Perich is declaring she was fired for threatening to “blow the whistle” by suing and she is being supported by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Most forceful in his initial impression of the case was the most senior member of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, who declared that the government had no business in determining the interest of the church. There is quite a bit of evidence to support this. Many court decisions have stated that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and an exemption in the EEOC regulations does not apply to church matters. For instance, the Catholic Church’s position of not allowing women as priests has never been challenged, a point that Justice Samuel Alito brought out in opening arguments.

As recently as 1993, the Court has ruled on the nature of government interference in church practices. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida was conducting animal sacrifices. The city, in an attempt to convince the newcomers they were not welcomed, passed several ordinances limiting to practice of animal sacrifice. The Court ruled in favor of the church, 9:0 with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority. In his decision, Justice Kennedy said the ordinances were unconstitutional because they singled out the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye. Justice Kennedy weighed in also on Ms. Perich’s case, saying he doubted the success of the claim. The argument could be made that, absent of other instances of government involvement of church affairs, the Lutheran church is also being singled out.

There is also judicial precedent on the idea that religious ideas can conflict with civil law. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Court ruled 5:4 that a former scout leader, who was dismissed because he was gay, could not sue the Boy Scouts. As a private organization, if it were forced to accept James Dale as a leader, its first amendment rights would be violated. The organization would be forced to send a message to its members of acceptance that goes against its core beliefs and values. For the Court to recognize Ms. Perich’s lawsuit would be to violate the core beliefs of the Lutheran Church.

This case is not about wrongful firing but whether the state can dictate who serves in a religious capacity. What is the proper course of action? As much as it is not the purview of the church to interject itself in the business of governance, so it should not be the purview of the government to interpret, rule on or interfere with the business of the church. The dictates of the faith are paramount and must be protected in a country that purports freedom of religion.