Protect The 1st Foundation
  • About
    • Leadership
  • Issues
  • Scorecards
  • News
  • Take Action
    • Educational Choice for Children Act
    • PRESS Act
    • Save Oak Flat Act
  • DONATE
  • About
    • Leadership
  • Issues
  • Scorecards
  • News
  • Take Action
    • Educational Choice for Children Act
    • PRESS Act
    • Save Oak Flat Act
  • DONATE
Picture

Fourth Circuit Protects Right of Religious Institutions to Make Faith-Based Employment Decisions

5/29/2024

 
Picture
​Generally speaking, terminating someone’s employment because of their sexual orientation is a gross violation of the law – and it should be. But that doesn’t apply in every instance, particularly when the employer is a religious institution engaged in guiding the spiritual development of others according to the tenets of their faith.
 
Lonnie Billard served as a teacher of English and drama at Charlotte Catholic High School (CCHS). After CCHS fired him for planning to marry his same-sex partner, Billard brought suit for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court granted Billard’s motion for summary judgment, rejecting the school’s argument that religious exceptions inoculated them against Billard’s claim. Now, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in, reversing the district court’s decision, and entering judgment for the school.
 
This is a tricky and emotional situation, and one would be forgiven for an impassioned reaction – no matter which side of the issue you’re on. Yet, from both a policy and practicality standpoint, you cannot be a teacher charged with imparting a given set of spiritual values while acting in public violation of them. Religious institutions must be able to restrict their staff positions – particularly teaching positions – to those who hold their same beliefs. Otherwise, religion would cease to mean much at all. A Methodist could teach at a mosque, an atheist at a Baptist church school, or an evangelical Christian at a high school atheist club.

CCHS describes itself as “an educational community centered in the Roman Catholic faith that teaches individuals to serve as Christians in our changing world.” It posits that “individuals should model and integrate the teachings of Jesus in all areas of conduct in order to nurture faith and inspire action,” and that “prayer, worship and reflection are essential elements which foster spiritual and moral development of [CCHS’s] students, faculty and staff.”
 
Indeed, all members of the teaching staff are expected to play a part in promoting the Christian faith. This includes leading prayers, attending Mass, and ensuring the “catholicity” of their classrooms. As such, the Fourth Circuit found that CCHS’ employment decision fell under a “ministerial exception” to Title VII. We think a better term today is a “religious mission exception,” one that covers all the positions in which those who work in a particular faith are expected to model it for others.
 
As the Court wrote, “settled doctrine tailored to facts like these – the ministerial exception – already immunizes CCHS’s decision to fire Billard.” Drawing from the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, the Fourth Circuit concluded that CCHS tasked Billard with “vital religious duties,” effectively making him a “messenger” of the faith. Thus, related employment decisions require the courts to stay out.
 
The CCHS/Billard controversy is not an ideal situation for anyone, and an employer’s similar actions in nearly any other scenario would constitute illegal discrimination. The long-established ministerial exception, however, requires the courts to abstain from weighing in on ecclesiastical employment matters – and for good reason: the First Amendment requires it, and it protects the beliefs of everyone.

Comments are closed.

    Archives

    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021

    Categories

    All
    2022 Year In Review
    2023 Year In Review
    2024 Year In Review
    Amicus Briefs
    Analysis
    Book Banning
    Campus Speech
    Censorship
    Congress
    Court Hearings
    Donor Privacy
    Due Process
    First Amendment
    First Amendment Online
    Freedom Of Press
    Freedom Of Religion
    Freedom Of Speech
    Government Transparency
    In The Media
    Journalism
    Law Enforcement
    Legal
    Legislation
    Legislative Agenda
    Letters To Congress
    Motions
    News
    Online Speech
    Opinion
    Parental Rights
    PRESS Act
    PT1 Amicus Briefs
    Save Oak Flat
    School Choice
    SCOTUS
    Section 230
    Speaking Of The First Amendment
    Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

we  the  people.

LET  YOUR  VOICE  BE  HEARD:


ABOUT

Who We Are

​Leadership

ISSUES

1st Amendment

TAKE ACTION

Donate

​Contact Us
® Copyright 2024 Protect The 1st Foundation