I. Introduction

One of the most powerful tools for religious organization defense is the ministerial exception.
This exception prevents a minister from bringing an employment discrimination claim against
his church (or religious organization). In 2012, the United States Supreme Court decided
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, and unanimously held that
the exception exists and is grounded in both religion clauses of the First Amendment.

Five years out from this decision, lower courts continue to grapple with how to apply it.
This paper explores the impact of Hosanna-Tabor, reviews case law developments, and provides
practical recommendations for religious organizations.

II. Overview of the Exception: Hosanna-Tabor Decision

A. Factual Background

Cheryl Perich, a teacher at a Lutheran school, transitioned from a “lay” teacher to a
“called” teacher with formal religious training and designation as a commissioned minister.

After developing narcolepsy and taking leave, she attempted to return to work but was
ultimately terminated. She filed an ADA retaliation claim, which escalated to the Supreme Court.

The Court ruled that the ministerial exception barred her claim.

B. The Court’s Rationale

The Court emphasized that both the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause prevent
government interference in religious institutions’ internal decisions.

Selecting ministers is central to religious autonomy, and any interference would violate
constitutional protections.

C. Reach and Limits

• Applies to federal, state, and local employment laws
• Not limited to pastors or traditional ministers
• Independent of termination reasoning
• Applies even when only damages are sought
• No strict test for determining “minister”
• It is an affirmative defense
• Primarily applies to employment discrimination cases

III. Post-Hosanna-Tabor Reflections

A. Case Studies

Penn v. New York Methodist Hospital: Ministerial exception applied to hospital chaplain.

Collette v. Archdiocese of Chicago: Music director case required further discovery.

Curl v. Adventist School: Teacher classified as minister due to religious duties.

Drumgoole Case: Guidance counselor status required factual analysis.

Yin v. Columbia University: Professor not clearly ministerial at pleading stage.

Ciurleo Case: Teacher classified as minister due to religious function.

Ginalski Case: Principal deemed ministerial leader.

Richardson Case: Professor not considered minister.

Sterlinski Case: Music director partially covered.

Fratello Case: Principal considered minister based on role and responsibilities.

B. Case Study Analysis

1. Defendants are often not traditional churches
2. Litigation is longer and more complex post-Hosanna-Tabor
3. Early assertion of defense remains beneficial
4. Main issue: defining who qualifies as a minister
5. Moral policy-based terminations face increased scrutiny

IV. Recommendations and Precautions

A. Advance Preparation

Religious organizations should clearly define ministerial roles in writing, including job
descriptions, contracts, and policies. Employees should acknowledge and agree to these definitions.

Documentation and transparency are critical in establishing the applicability of the exception.

B. Extending the Exception

The Supreme Court limited its ruling to employment discrimination, but lower courts have explored
broader applications in tort and contract contexts.

The scope of the exception continues to evolve through litigation.

V. Conclusion

The ministerial exception reflects the constitutional balance between church and state.
It is a powerful defense but does not eliminate the need for strong policies, preparation,
and legal compliance.

Religious organizations should proactively manage risk and ensure alignment between
their practices and legal protections.

Appendix: Index of Cases

Includes federal circuit, district, and state court cases interpreting the ministerial exception
post-Hosanna-Tabor, demonstrating its evolving application across jurisdictions.