We want to briefly review two cases that have been decided in recent weeks.
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC
In early January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that federal discrimination laws “do not protect church employees who perform religious duties, a major church-state decision that recognizes religious groups’ constitutionally protected right to select their own leaders.” (Quoting from a Washington Post article). The case involved a teacher at a Lutheran school in Michigan who sued for disability discrimination. Due to a specific set of circumstances, the teacher was also deemed to be a “minister”—and it was on this key fact that the entire case turned. On this basis, the school was deemed to be covered by the “ministerial exemption,” which permits religious institutions to select their ministers without interference from the courts—and thus the former teacher’s lawsuit was dismissed.
Implications—The impact and scope of this decision will take many months to become clear, as is true with all significant legal rulings. As a general matter, faith-based schools are cautioned against over-interpreting the results—i.e., not all (and perhaps not even many) employees at your school might truly be deemed “ministers” by a court. Thus, a faith-based school is safest in anticipating that most (if not all) of its employees are still covered by discrimination laws, and schools must act accordingly to maintain compliance.
Additional commentary and advice from Lyle Denniston, a constitutional expert, is available here.
EEOC Settles Racial Bias Case for $3.1 Million
It was reported this week that Pepsi Beverages Co. will pay $3.1 million to settle federal charges of race discrimination for using criminal background checks to screen out job applicants—even if they weren't convicted of a crime. (Quoting from an AP article on the case.)
“EEOC officials said the company's policy of not hiring workers with arrest records disproportionately excluded more than 300 black applicants. The policy barred applicants who had been arrested but not convicted of a crime, and denied employment to others who were convicted of minor offenses. Using arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal if it's irrelevant for the job, according to the EEOC, which enforces the nation's employment discrimination laws. The agency says such blanket policies can limit job opportunities for minorities with higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.”
Implications—We strongly recommend that criminal background checks are conducted on new employees prior to being offered a position. Before doing so, however, it is vital that the school establishes internal administrative guidelines on what types of criminal records it seeks (i.e., only convictions, not arrests) and how it determines what types of violations are relevant to what types of jobs (e.g., embezzlement convictions being relevant to jobs handling or overseeing money). Without these guidelines in place, the school is at risk for its screening procedures to run afoul of the law.
