Hosanna-Tabor, a Lutheran school affiliated with the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, classified teachers as either called or lay, and called teachers who completed religious training received the formal title "Minister of Religion, Commissioned." Cheryl Perich completed the required theological study, accepted a formal call, and became a commissioned minister. Along with teaching secular subjects, she taught religion classes, led daily prayer and devotionals, attended chapel with students, and led chapel herself about twice a year. After a disability leave, a dispute arose about her return to work, she threatened to assert her legal rights, and the congregation rescinded her call and terminated her employment.
Issue
Do the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses bar an employment discrimination retaliation suit brought on behalf of a church employee who qualifies as a minister? If so, was Perich a minister within the meaning of that exception?
Rule
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws. Whether an employee is a minister is determined from all the circumstances, including the formal title given by the church, the substance reflected in that title, the employee's own use of the title, and the important religious functions the employee performs; no rigid formula controls.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
A church-run elementary school in Columbus, Ohio designates certain teachers as "commissioned faith instructors" after two years of theological coursework, approval by the congregation, and a formal service of commissioning. Nina Patel holds that title, claims the related minister housing allowance on her taxes, teaches mostly math and reading, but also leads daily prayer, teaches religion each afternoon, and leads chapel several times each semester. After she is fired, she brings a federal retaliation claim seeking backpay and damages.
What is the strongest argument for dismissing Nina's suit?
Explanation. The majority held that the Religion Clauses bar employment discrimination suits brought on behalf of ministers against their religious employers challenging termination. Minister status is assessed from all the circumstances, including formal title, religious training and commissioning, the employee's own use of the title, and important religious functions performed. Nina's title, training, self-identification, and religious duties strongly support minister status. The Court also held that not only reinstatement, but frontpay, backpay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees are barred because they would operate as a penalty for terminating an unwanted minister. (Derived from Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012).)