Job Bias Laws Do Not Protect Teachers in Catholic Schools, Supreme Court Rules

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: New York Times

Job Bias Laws Do Not Protect Teachers in Catholic Schools, Supreme Court Rules
The case was the court's latest consideration of the relationship between the government and religion.

By Adam Liptak
July 8, 2020, 10:10 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that federal employment discrimination laws do not apply to teachers whose duties include instruction in religion at schools run by churches.

The vote was 7 to 2, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor in dissent.

The court has been active in considering the relationship between church and state, generally siding with religious groups. It has ruled in recent years that a state must let a church participate in a government aid program, that a war memorial in the shape of a cross could remain on public property and that town boards may start their meetings with sectarian prayers. Last week, it said state programs that provide scholarships to students in private schools may not exclude religious schools.

The new cases considered another aspect of the church-and-state divide -- what role the government can play in regulating religious institutions.

The new cases -- Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267, and St. James School v. Darryl Biel, No. 19-348 -- were brought by teachers in Catholic schools in California who sued their employers for job discrimination.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/job-bias-catholic-schools-supreme-court.html

[GeorgeGist]

1. Fuckers are crazy

[Polybius]

6. It was a 7-2 decision

Second one of the day.

[Historic NY]

2. Why would anyone submit to the whim's of their boss.

They get paid less.

[mountain grammy]

3. As we keep on marching to theocracy

[Steelrolled]

4. I like 7-2 decisions

as it means it wasn't ruled purely along party lines.

[keithbvadu2]

5. Yet the church protected their pederast priests for many decades.

Yet the church protected their pederast priests for many decades.

Moving them around to prey on other children.

[elleng]

7. 'teachers whose duties include instruction in religion at schools run by churches'

[caraher]

9. Seems like it was made on narrow technical grounds

The beginning of Sotomayor's dissenting opinion:

Two employers fired their employees allegedly because one had breast cancer and the other was elderly. Purporting to rely on this Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171 (2012), the majority shields those employers from disability and age-discrimination claims. In the Court’s view, because the employees taught short religion modules at Catholic elementary schools, they were “ministers” of the Catholic faith and thus could be fired for any reason, whether religious or nonreligious, benign or bigoted, without legal recourse. The Court reaches this result even though the teachers taught primarily secular subjects, lacked substantial religious titles and training, and were not even required to be Catholic. In foreclosing the teachers’ claims, the Court skews the facts, ignores the applicable standard of review,and collapses Hosanna-Tabor’s careful analysis into a single consideration: whether a church thinks its employees play an important religious role. Because that simplistic approach has no basis in law and strips thousands of schoolteachers of their legal protections, I respectfully dissent.

The full opinion

[turbinetree]

10. Okay how many Catholics on the bench............just asking...............

[Polybius]

13. A lot, but not all 7 who voted for the majority are Catholics

I'm still surprised it was 7-2.

[turbinetree]

14. Me also.............

[Yavin4]

11. Anyone else disturbed that our republic issues laws based on an invisible man in the sky?

It's a sign of a backwards culture.

[azureblue]

12. then they don't get public funds

Simple - the ruling makes it clear the school is a part of the church and as such can abide by church dogma. But OTOH that means the school now falls outside of federal discrimination guidelines so it cannot get federal money because it is an extension of the church. Can't have it both ways