A. Factual Background

The case involved Cheryl Perich, a teacher employed by Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, a member congregation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

The school employed two categories of teachers:

• Lay teachers
• Called teachers

Called teachers completed theological coursework and received the formal title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.”

Perich originally worked as a lay teacher but later completed the necessary theological requirements and became a called teacher.

Although Perich taught secular subjects such as math and art, she also:

• Taught religion classes
• Led students in prayer
• Conducted devotional exercises
• Participated in chapel services

After developing narcolepsy, Perich took disability leave. When she attempted to return to work, the school asked her to resign and offered benefits in exchange. She refused and threatened legal action.

The school subsequently terminated her employment.

The EEOC brought a lawsuit against the school and church alleging retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court held that the ministerial exception barred Perich’s lawsuit.

B. The Court’s Rationale

The Supreme Court emphasized that the ministerial exception is rooted in both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Court explained that government interference in selecting ministers violates religious liberty because religious organizations must remain free to choose individuals who guide and communicate their faith.

Chief Justice Roberts traced the doctrine through centuries of church-state conflict and explained that the First Amendment was designed to prevent government involvement in ecclesiastical decisions.

According to the Court:

“By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause.”

The Court also rejected the argument that neutral laws of general applicability, such as employment discrimination statutes, automatically override religious autonomy concerns.

The Court distinguished Employment Division v. Smith by explaining that the ministerial exception concerns church governance and internal decision-making, not merely outward religious conduct.

C. Hosanna-Tabor’s Reach and Limits

i. The exception applies as a defense to federal, state, and local employment discrimination claims

The ministerial exception applies broadly because it is rooted in constitutional law.

It therefore preempts:

• Federal laws
• State anti-discrimination laws
• Local employment regulations

This is particularly important where state and local protections exceed federal requirements.

ii. The exception applies to more than just the traditional church/pastor relationship

The exception is not limited to traditional clergy roles.

Teachers and other employees who perform important religious functions may qualify as ministers even if they are not formally ordained.

iii. Applicability of the ministerial exception does not turn on the reason for the termination

The Court clarified that the reason behind the termination is irrelevant.

The doctrine protects the church’s right to choose who leads and represents the faith, regardless of whether the employment action involved religious doctrine directly.

iv. The exception can apply even if only monetary damages are sought

The ministerial exception bars lawsuits even where the employee seeks only financial damages and not reinstatement.

The Court reasoned that monetary damages still penalize the church for selecting or dismissing its ministers.

v. There is no single test for determining who qualifies for the exception

The Supreme Court refused to create a rigid formula for determining who qualifies as a minister.

Instead, the Court considered the totality of the circumstances, including:

• The employee’s title
• The religious substance of the title
• The employee’s own use of the title
• The employee’s religious functions

Justice Alito’s concurrence emphasized that religious function should carry particular importance.

vi. The ministerial exception is an affirmative defense, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

The Supreme Court resolved a circuit split by determining that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional issue.

Courts therefore have authority to hear employment discrimination cases but may dismiss them if the ministerial exception applies.

vii. The Supreme Court has sanctioned the exception only in the context of employment discrimination cases

The Court expressly limited its holding to employment discrimination claims.

Questions remain regarding whether the doctrine extends to:

• Breach of contract claims
• Tort lawsuits
• Negligent supervision claims
• Other civil litigation contexts

A. Case Studies

Penn v. New York Methodist Hospital

A hospital chaplain brought race and religious discrimination claims after being denied a promotion.

Although the hospital was largely secular, the court held that it operated according to religious values and could invoke the ministerial exception regarding the chaplain’s employment.

Collette v. Archdiocese of Chicago

A Catholic church music director sued after being terminated following his intention to marry his same-sex partner.

The court declined to dismiss the case immediately because factual development was required regarding whether the music director was truly ministerial.

Curl v. Beltsville Adventist School

A music teacher sued after losing her position following a disability-related dispute.

The court concluded she was ministerial because:

• She taught religious music
• Led prayer services
• Integrated Adventist philosophy into teaching
• Received compensation partly from tithe funds

Drumgoole v. Paramus Catholic High School

A Catholic school guidance counselor sued after being terminated following her same-sex marriage.

The court required further factual discovery before deciding whether the ministerial exception applied.

Yin v. Columbia International University

A professor alleged discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin.

The university attempted to dismiss the case early, but the court held that the complaint itself did not clearly establish ministerial status.

Ciurleo v. St. Regis Parish

A Catholic school teacher claimed age discrimination after nonrenewal of her contract.

The court found the teacher ministerial because she:

• Taught religious doctrine
• Led prayer
• Helped transmit the faith to students

Ginalski v. Diocese of Gary

A Catholic high school principal claimed discrimination based on sex, age, and disability.

After discovery, the court concluded that her leadership role within the religious school rendered her ministerial.

Richardson v. Northwest Christian University

A university professor was terminated after becoming pregnant outside marriage.

The court refused to apply the ministerial exception because:

• Her title was secular
• She lacked ministerial training
• Her religious functions were secondary to secular duties

Sterlinski v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago

A church music director brought discrimination and retaliation claims after demotion and termination.

The court held that selecting music for religious services constituted an important religious function sufficient to establish ministerial status.

Fratello v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York

A Catholic school principal alleged discrimination and retaliation after termination.

The court held that her role clearly involved religious leadership and transmission of the Church’s mission.

The Second Circuit later affirmed the decision.

B. Case Study Analysis: Five Key Principles

i. Defendants are rarely traditional churches

Many ministerial exception cases involve:

• Religious schools
• Hospitals
• Universities
• Ministry-affiliated organizations

Courts generally focus on whether the organization acts religiously in the employment relationship rather than whether it resembles a traditional church.

ii. Religious organizations are not getting out as early in the litigation as they had in the past

Before Hosanna-Tabor, courts often dismissed these cases early based on jurisdiction.

Now that the exception is treated as an affirmative defense, courts frequently require:

• Limited discovery
• Factual development
• Summary judgment proceedings

As a result, litigation is often more expensive and prolonged.

iii. Asserting the defense early still pays off for religious organizations

Despite the procedural shift, raising the ministerial exception early remains advantageous.

Courts often:

• Limit discovery to ministerial status issues
• Focus litigation narrowly
• Reduce costs for religious organizations

iv. The issue of “who is a minister” is the main focus of this kind of litigation

The central factual dispute in nearly every ministerial exception case is whether the employee qualifies as ministerial.

Courts often evaluate:

• Titles
• Job duties
• Religious training
• Public representations
• Religious functions

Religious function frequently becomes the decisive factor.

v. Termination for violating moral policies may be harder to win

The paper notes increasing hostility in some courts toward employment decisions involving:

• Marriage
• Sexual orientation
• Cohabitation
• Human sexuality issues

Some courts narrowly interpret religious discrimination exemptions and distinguish between religious affiliation and compliance with religious morality standards.

A. Can Advance Preparation Make a Difference?

Religious organizations should proactively define and document who qualifies as a ministerial employee.

Recommended preparation includes:

• Clear job descriptions
• Employee handbooks
• Written ministerial designations
• Signed acknowledgments by employees
• Clear explanations of moral expectations

Organizations should also avoid ambiguous anti-discrimination policies that conflict with religious standards or expectations.

Employees should clearly understand:

• The organization’s moral expectations
• Their ministerial role
• The possibility that certain anti-discrimination protections may not apply

The paper also recommends considering Christian conciliation, mediation, or arbitration clauses where appropriate.

B. Beyond Employment Discrimination in the Church: How Far Will the Exception Extend?

The Supreme Court limited Hosanna-Tabor to employment discrimination lawsuits.

However, lower courts continue debating whether the ministerial exception extends to:

• Breach of contract actions
• Negligent supervision claims
• Negligent retention lawsuits
• Other tort claims

Some courts have extended the doctrine broadly, while others have refused to do so.

This remains an evolving area of law.