On the Docket: Lutherans and the Supreme Court

Today is the first Monday in October, which means that a new term for the Supreme Court has begun.

This is widely expected to be a significant term for the Court.  The theme for the year that seems to be emerging is the extent of the federal government's power. While the case isn't yet on the docket, with four states and the Obama Administration appealing decisions to the Court, the debate over health care reform will likely see action in the form of oral arguments to the Justices this year.

Another case of note before the Court this term is Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al. (docket 10-553).  Links to briefs and Court info here. This Court will hear oral arguements in this case on Wednesday.
 
This is a case that involves a Lutheran elementary school in Michigan that rescinded the call (fired) a teacher after the teacher had a prolonged illness and diagnosis of narcolepsy.

While the Court has never explicitly ruled on its existence, it is widely accepted among appeals courts that a "ministerial exemption" applies to those workers who are obviously pursuing a religious vocation (ie, pastors, rabbis, etc).  The question at the heart of this case is whether the ministerial exemption extends beyond pastors, etc, to include teachers at a religious grade school.  Or, how should the exemption be interpreted and who gets to decide who falls under the ministerial exemption?

The school in this case (the school closed in 2009) is arguing for a categorical, or "robust" exemption, while the EEOC is arguing for a narrow, case by case exemption.  For a case by case determination, the government would get to decide who is covered by the ministerial exemption based on an evaluation of their "primary duties."  Under this test, an employee falls under the ministerial exemption if their primary duties “consist of teaching, spreading the faith, church governance, supervision of a religious order, or supervision or participation in religious ritual and worship.”  Through this case, the Court has the ability to shape the body of law surrounding this doctrine quite significantly.  The Court could choose to interpret the case very narrowly, focusing just on the case at hand, or it could issue a more sweeping interpretation of the doctrine.  If it does this, it will have a significant impact on parochial schools across the country. 

For a good overview and analysis of the facts, see here and here.  For the LCMS amici brief, see here.

My kids attend a Lutheran school.  The teachers teach not only religion, but math, science, reading, pe, etc. etc.  Their faith is infused in all aspects of the school day.   I'm not at all comfortable with the federal government stepping in to decide who in the school has as their primary duties, "spreading the faith" based without a real understanding of the culture and importance of faith in the school. The LCMS has one of the largest parochial school systems in the country, and has, since the days of Martin Luther viewed education as of the important duties of the church.  It is expected that the teaching of faith be present in all activities--it isn't confined to just chapel, or just religion class. 

My family, and thousands of others, choose parochial school for a reason. I believe the majority of teachers who choose to teach in parochial schools are there because they are called and inspired to teach the next generation not only math and science, but of the love of Jesus.  I don't want the government stepping in to mess that up with layers of tests and formulas to decide who they think qualifies as having the duty to teach and "spread the faith."