Introduction: Appellate Court’s Decision

The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana recently upheld an Orange County Superior Court’s judgment holding that Red Hill Lutheran Church of Tustin rightfully fired its preschool director, Ms. Sara Henry, for living and having a child with her boyfriend, to whom she is not married. In May of 2009, Ms. Henry filed a wrongful termination suit against the church for firing her solely on account of her personal living and relationship status. However, in 2010, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the church, which was found to be entitled to terminate Henry’s employment since she violated a fundamental religious principle. Red Hill Lutheran Church reasoned that Henry was not fired because she had a baby out of wedlock or because she refused to marry, “but because she continued to live with her boyfriend in a sexual relationship while unmarried.”

As flawed as the church’s logic appears, both the Superior Court and Appellate Judge agreed with it and reiterated the church’s claim that Henry had a choice between adjusting her personal life and keeping her job, and she chose to sacrifice the latter. Even the jurists shared the church’s opinion that Henry was not fired because she chose to have a child before she was married, since she returned to work in 2007 after the birth of her son, and that she could have remained employed by Red Hill Lutheran had she made the decision to marry her boyfriend.

1964 Civil Rights Act: Ministerial Exception

The court determined that Henry’s wrongful termination claim against the church was without merit since the church is not considered an “employer” pursuant to the terms of the California Fair Employment Act and Housing. Furthermore, it was decided that the church and school are not within the bounds of the 1964 Civil Rights Act regarding wrongful termination. The elements of a wrongful termination cause of action differ depending on whether the employee is under a contract or employed at-will. In order to be an employee pursuant to a contract, a written contract signed by the employee and employer is required.

The employer must have violated the terms of the contract and caused the employee to suffer tangible damages as a result of the breach. On the other hand, an employee at-will must be the type of individual protected under the applicable law (i.e. not an independent contractor), the employer must be subject to the law, and the improper conduct must have violated the law.

While it is unclear what kind of employee Henry was considered to be, the church argued, and the courts agreed, that Red Hill Lutheran is exempt under the law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against employees for a variety of reasons. However, Congress included a ministerial exception when it enacted the law, which states that religious organizations are protected “from the normally attendant adverse consequences of employment discrimination.”

The ministerial exception derives its justification from the idea that courts wish to avoid excessive entanglement with religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and seek to uphold the church’s autonomy, which is protected by the Free Exercise Clause. To learn more about these constitutional principles, one may want to refer to a competent wrongful termination lawyer in Santa Ana.

First Amendment Considerations

The First Amendment prohibition on the establishment of religion and its protection of the free exercise of such applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause proscribes the government from doling out punishments based on a person’s religious beliefs, and while the Supreme Court has not expressly defined what qualifies as a protected religious belief, it has made it clear that such a belief need not stem from an organized religion.

Similarly, the Establishment Clause forbids laws which respect the establishment of religion, and the government may not prefer one form of religion over another, unless its reason for doing so passes muster under a strict scrutiny standard.

Conclusion

While the reason behind the ministerial exception is to avoid mixing government action and religion, it appears in this case that it accomplishes just the opposite. In forcing Ms. Henry to make a decision either to marry or lose her job, the church and the courts seem to be pushing religious precepts upon her. The decision not to marry may be the result of numerous factors, many of which have nothing to do religion, and Ms. Henry’s personal life should have no effect on whether she is qualified to perform a particular job. Although the problem here appears to lie with a flaw in the legislation, an individual in Henry’s situation should consult a wrongful termination lawyer in Santa Ana to learn his or her rights.