Are Religious Organizations Exempt from Discrimination Laws?

The First Amendment protects individuals' rights to practice their religion without government interference. The Supreme Court has interpreted these religious freedoms, and other laws protect them. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enforces the religious freedom of the First Amendment.

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on religion. However, there are exceptions to the terms of Title VII. One such exception applies to religious organizations, which can discriminate in certain circumstances.

The First Amendment and The Civil Rights Act

The First Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1791. It guards essential freedoms, including:

• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of religion
• Freedom of the press
• Freedom of assembly and petition

These freedoms allow individuals to express their opinions. They allow people to practice their faith and gather peacefully. They also allow people to seek changes from their government without fear of censorship or retaliation.

The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enforces First Amendment freedom of religion. It prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on religion. It mandates that employers accommodate their employee’s religious practices. Provided that doing so does not cause undue hardship on the business.

Furthermore, the Civil Rights Act addresses religious freedom in public accommodations under Title II. Title II forbids discrimination in places like hotels, restaurants, and theaters. Title VI extends this protection to federally funded programs. It guards against discrimination in activities receiving federal financial assistance.

Below are some specific ways the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects First Amendment religious freedoms:

1. Title VII. This section prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their religion. It also prohibits discriminating against job applicants based on religion. Finally, it requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices. Employers must accommodate unless doing so would cause undue hardship on the business.

2. Public Accommodations (Title II). This part of the Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion in places of public accommodation. This includes hotels, restaurants, theaters, and other public facilities.

3. Federally Funded Programs (Title VI). This section prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion in programs and activities. Specifically, those that receive federal financial assistance.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognizes religion as a protected category. This reinforces the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Act protects individuals from religious discrimination. It guards their ability to practice their faith without fear of unfair treatment in key areas of public life.

U.S. Supreme Court Cases on Discrimination

Key Supreme Court decisions like Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (2012) and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020) have established the "ministerial exception." This exception grants religious institutions autonomy in employment decisions central to their mission.

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987) sets an important precedent in this area. It allows religious organizations to give preference to co-religionists in hiring. The case affirms that this conduct doesn't violate the First Amendment.

The Court has also defined the extent of religious accommodations in the workplace. Landmark rulings in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) and Groff v. Dejoy (2023) have set and refined standards for "undue hardship." These cases have determined the limits of employer obligations to accommodate religious practices. They highlight the struggle to maintain anti-discrimination protections along with religious liberty.

Decisions on Exceptions to the Civil Rights Act

The autonomy of religious institutions in employment decisions has been clarified by the Supreme Court. A few noteworthy decisions include:

• Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. This decision established that religious organizations could select their ministers without government interference. It exempts them from certain employment discrimination claims under federal law. The exception exempts religious institutions from anti-discrimination laws in hiring ministers.

• Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru. This case reinforced that the ministerial exception applies broadly. It covers employees who perform key religious roles. It is not limited to positions designated as ministers. The exception allows religious organizations more leeway in employment decisions. The Court’s opinion extends the "ministerial exception" to include teachers at religious schools. Specifically, those who perform vital religious duties. It applies even if the teachers do not hold the formal title of minister.

• Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos. This case affirmed that religious organizations could prefer co-religionists in employment decisions. It clarified that such decision-making doesn't violate the First Amendment. The opinion in this case upheld the constitutionality of Section 702 of the Civil Rights Act. This section allows religious organizations to give employment preference to certain individuals. Namely, those of the same religion.

These decisions underscore the Court's recognition of religious autonomy in employment decisions. Particularly, for roles that are integral to the religious mission of the organization.

Decisions on Religious Accommodations at Work

The Court has also interpreted the obligations of employers to accommodate religious practices. These decisions highlight the Court's position on such accommodations:

• Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. In this case, the Court determined when an employer isn’t required to accommodate an employee's religious practices. It clarified that the employer is not required to accommodate if doing so would impose more than a minimal (de minimis cost) or burden on the business. The case set a precedent that employers are only required to make reasonable accommodations that do not cause undue hardship.

• Groff v. Dejoy. This recent Supreme Court case revisited the standard for "undue hardship" under the Civil Rights Act. The case involved Gerald Groff, a Christian who sought to avoid working on Sundays due to his religious beliefs.

  Gerald Groff worked as a postal worker for the U.S. Postal Service. He requested not to work Sunday shifts as a mail carrier to observe the Sabbath. The USPS initially provided this accommodation but later required him to work Sundays.

  Groff sued, claiming the USPS failed to reasonably accommodate his religious practice. He claimed accommodation would not have caused undue hardship.

  The lower courts applied the "de minimis cost" standard from the Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison case. This case defined "undue hardship" as anything more than a minimal cost to the employer.

   

  Groff’s case gave a new standard for undue hardship. It requires employers to bear more than minimal costs to accommodate religious practices. This clarification aims to provide greater protection for employees seeking religious accommodations.

The Civil Rights Act does provide a religious exemption for employers. However, it also requires employers to accommodate religious practices. It shows the ongoing struggle to maintain freedom of religion in a diverse nation.