Religious Institutions Update - December 2013

by Holland & Knight LLP
Contact

Timely Topics

A federal district court has ruled unconstitutional one of the most important tax benefits available to ministers: the minister's housing allowance. A summary of the case follows. The ruling threatens to have a dramatic effect on how churches compensate ministers. An estimated 44,000 ministers, priests, rabbis, imams and others use this allowance. The tax exemption permits them to exclude eligible expenses from income for federal income tax purposes, up to the fair rental value of the home when designated in advance as a housing allowance. Eligible expenses for homeowners include mortgage payments (principal and interest), property taxes and insurance, utilities, appliances and furniture (purchase or rental cost and repairs), and structural repairs and remodeling. Alternatively, eligible rental expenses include rent, furnishings, utilities and insurance. In aggregate, the after-tax benefit is worth an estimated $700 million per year. The average impact on ministers is disputed, but may be in the range of five to ten percent of their income. It is too soon to know whether the Obama administration will appeal the ruling. While keeping a close eye on this case, religious institutions should continue to designate housing allowances for ministerial employees for 2014. For related questions, please feel free to contact qualified counsel.

Court Strikes Ministerial Housing Allowance Exemption

In Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Lew, No. 11-cv-626-bbc, 2013 WL 6139723 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 22, 2013), the court ruled in violation of the Establishment Clause and enjoined at the conclusion of all appeals Internal Revenue Code Section 107(2), which excludes from gross income a minister's "rental allowance paid to him as part of his compensation." The court found that the plaintiffs, who are atheists, had standing to file a facial challenge to section 107(2) because they are excluded from the exemption as "ministers of the gospel" as not performing "sacerdotal" functions, conducting "worship," or acting as "spiritual" leaders under the authority of the "church." Relying primarily upon Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989), the court determined that a tax exemption granted solely to religious persons is unconstitutional.

The court ruled that the tax exemption lacks a secular purpose, results in preferential treatment for religious over secular messages and conveys a message of religious endorsement. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the exemption is merely an accommodation of religion on the grounds that the mere payment of a generally applicable tax does not qualify as a substantial burden on free exercise. "Defendants do not identify any reason why a requirement on ministers to pay taxes on a housing allowance is more burdensome for them than for the many millions of others who must pay taxes on income used for housing expenses." The court also rejected the theory that a mere tax exemption does not implicate the same constitutional concerns as a subsidy.

Last, the court was unimpressed with the defendants' argument that the exemption actually eliminates discrimination because it was intended to balance a different exemption (§119) benefiting ministers who live in parsonages and the "convenience of the employer doctrine" benefiting military members, seamen and others. The court ruled that assisting a subset of religious persons is not constitutional either.

Key Cases

Court of Appeals Enjoins Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

In Korte v. Sebelius, Nos. 12-3841, 13-1077, 2013 WL 5960692 (7th Cir. Nov. 8, 2013), the court of appeals reversed lower district courts and held that: (1) closely held for-profit corporations are "persons" who may assert claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); (2) the contraceptive coverage mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) substantially burdens their religious exercise; and (3) the government failed to adequately justify the burden. Judge Rovner dissented, arguing that the majority bestowed highly personal rights to religious exercise on entities without facility of thought, conscience or belief.

Plaintiff Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc. is a construction company in Illinois with roughly 90 full-time employees. Cyril and Jane Korte discovered their insurance policy covers contraception and they wanted to investigate alternatives consistent with their Catholic faith but the contraceptive mandate precluded it. Co-plaintiff Grote Industries, Inc. has roughly 1,148 full-time employees including 464 in the United States and manufactures vehicle safety systems in Indiana. Consistent with the Catholic faith of the Grote family, its healthcare plan did not cover contraception until the mandate kicked in. The court of appeals ruled that both the corporations and their owners as shareholders with a direct, personal interest in the cause of action had standing to challenge the mandate, and that the Anti-Injunction Act does not preclude the lawsuit because their claim is not primarily to restrain collection of a tax but to seek relief from a regulatory mandate.

RFRA precludes the federal government from putting substantial burdens on "a person's exercise of religion." The government argued that for-profit corporations are not persons by analogy to Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court disagreed on several grounds: (1) in the absence of a definition of "person" in RFRA, the Dictionary Act (which is the default act for the U.S. Code) defines a person to include a corporation; (2) even the government recognizes that some corporations have religious exercise rights (e.g., churches and integrated auxiliaries) and exempts them; (3) RFRA applies comprehensively to the U.S. Code, whereas Title VII and the ADA are particular legislative applications of the church autonomy doctrine to employment law; (4) RFRA codifies pre-Smith free exercise jurisprudence that extended religious exemptions to individuals engaged in profit-making activity; and (5) the U.S. Supreme Court has held that corporations may claim many constitutional rights including free speech rights.

The court ruled that the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the companies' religious exercise by imposing upon them ruinous fines unless they violate their religious conviction that they must not provide contraceptive coverage. The court criticized the government's argument that the burden on corporate exercise is too attenuated because it is up to the companies' employees to decide whether to use the insurance coverage. The court ruled that it was not up to civil authority to decide whether the indirectness of the burden resolves its moral incompatibility with Catholic doctrine: "The contraception mandate forces them to do what their religion tells them they must not do. That qualifies as a substantial burden on religious exercise, property understood."

Last, the court ruled that the government failed to shoulder the burden of demonstrating that the mandate "is the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling government interest." The court identified two public interests: public health and gender equality. The court ruled that by stating them so generally, "the government guarantees that the mandate will flunk the test." It was skeptical that these interests were akin to other recognized compelling interests, but even giving the government the benefit of the doubt, the millions exempt under the ACA make it impossible for the government to prove the mandate is the least restrictive means of achieving its public purposes. Moreover, there are many other ways to increase access to contraception without violating plaintiffs' convictions, according to the court.

District Court Rules Religious Organization Accommodation in ACA Inadequate

In Zubik v. Sebelius, Nos. 13cv1459, 13cv0303, 2013 WL 6118696 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2013), the court granted an injunction against the contraceptive coverage mandate in the ACA to the plaintiffs, not-for-profit Catholic organizations involved in good works (e.g., Catholic Charities). The plaintiffs argued that they could not qualify for the religious employer exception to the mandate due to a required self-certification. In their view, signing the self-certification form initiates and facilitates coverage (albeit without direct expense to them) for contraceptive products, services and counseling by their health insurer contrary to their religion. It was as if, the plaintiffs argued, they gave a knife to someone knowing he planned to kill another with it.

The government argued that "merely sign[ing] a piece of paper" could not amount to a "substantial burden" on religious exercise, but the court disagreed. "Although the 'accommodation' legally enables Plaintiffs to avoid directly paying for the portion of the health plan that provides contraceptive products ... [t]he court concludes that plaintiffs have a sincerely held belief that 'shifting responsibility' does not absolve or exonerate them from the moral turpitude created by the 'accommodation.'" Additional evidence of the substantial burden, according to the court, is that it would have the effect of dividing the Catholic Church against itself. Whereas houses of worship would qualify for total exemption without the self-certification, the plaintiffs with the very same religious beliefs and accountable to the same bishop could not.

The court ruled that the government's interests used to justify the infringement — the promotion of public health and assuring that women have equal access to healthcare services — are not of the highest order and cannot overbalance the plaintiff's legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion. In light of the many exemptions to the ACA, the court also concluded that the government failed to adduce evidence that establishes that it used the least restrictive means to meet the stated compelling government interests.

Court Affirms Dismissal of Professors' Lawsuit against Religious College

In Winbery v. Louisiana College, No. 13-339, 2013 WL 5926210 (La.App. 3d Cir. Nov. 6, 2013), the court affirmed the trial court's determination that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit filed by former college professors against a Baptist college for defamation, retaliation and breach of contract due to the excessive entanglement with religion that it would require. The court agreed that a proper resolution could not be made without interpreting or choosing between competing religious principles or doctrines. However, the court also affirmed the trial court's determination that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply to the lawsuit because the college is not a "church" and the plaintiffs are not "ministers."

Court Dismisses Intrachurch Presbyterian Dispute for Lack of Jurisdiction

In Seafler v. Smith, No. 13-0532, 2013 WL 6152963 (W.Va. Nov. 22, 2013), the court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioners' lawsuit to determine whether: (1) they are members of a Presbyterian church; (2) one of the petitioners is still a trustee of the church; and (3) the church is a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), because these "are unquestionably matters of religious doctrine and internal church operations over which the circuit court and this court have no jurisdiction." The petitioners also requested relief under West Virginia Code §35-1-11 to stop the respondents from conveying or encumbering the church's property, but the court ruled that this claim "would necessarily require an inquiry into subject matter that is solely within the province of the church," because only church "members" may bring the claim.

Statute Barring Sex Between Clergy and Parishioner Constitutional

In State v. Wenthe, No. A12-0263, 2013 WL 5928458 (Minn. Nov. 6, 2013), the court held that a statutory provision (Minn. Stat. §609.344, subd. 1(l)(i) (2012)) barring sexual conduct between a clergy member and a parishioner during the course of a single meeting in which the parishioner seeks or receives spiritual counsel does not facially violate the Establishment Clause, and ruled that it was not unconstitutional as applied to the defendant, resulting in his criminal conviction and sentence. The court found that the statute: (1) has a secular purpose; (2) does not interfere with the practice of any particular religious doctrine or only certain religions; and (3) does not single out clergy members because of their affiliation with a religious group, as opposed to recognizing the existence of a power imbalance between clergy members and their parishioners. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the statute interferes with a civil right to have a sexual relationship with a friend on the grounds that the statute criminalizes exclusively the behavior of clergy members who use their position to enter into such a relationship with vulnerable persons. Last, the court found that the statute does not create an excessive entanglement with religion, because it applies neutral principles of law and regulates only secular aspects of the clergy-parishioner relationships. The court ruled that it was not improper to require courts to decide whether the advice given by a clergy member was of a religious or spiritual nature. With respect to the statute's application in this case, the court also ruled that the evidence used to convict the defendant was not based on religious doctrine.

Termination of Public School Teacher Affirmed for Refusing to Remove Religious Materials

In Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 2012-0613, 2013 WL 6067987 (Oh. Nov. 19, 2013), the court affirmed termination of a public school teacher, recognized by his peers for outstanding instruction, for good and just cause not due to the teacher's disobedience of a school district's invalid order to remove his Bible from display on his desk, but from orders requiring removal of religious materials displayed by the teacher in the classroom for reasons other than the exercise of his religion. The court found that the teacher kept his personal Bible inconspicuously on his desk, the school district sought to regulate this conduct solely because it was religiously motivated, the regulation infringed the teacher's free exercise rights and the school district had no compelling reason for its actions under the Establishment Clause. In contrast, the court ruled that the teacher's refusal to remove other items from his classroom such as a poster of George W. Bush and Colin Powell praying was unrelated to the teacher's religious exercise. He added these items to his room to make a point and the refusal to remove them was blatant insubordination. Justice Pfeifer dissented with respect to this latter ruling. Justices O'Donnell, Pfeifer and Kennedy also dissented on the grounds this dispute was not about insubordination at all, but the teacher's treatment of evolution, creationism and intelligent design in the classroom. The majority recognized the debate, but declined to decide whether the teacher had acted lawfully in this respect.

Sikh's Authorization to Bear Kirpan Scrutinized

In Tagore v. United States, No. 12-20214, 2013 WL 6008901 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2013), the court ruled that the Internal Revenue Service did not engage in religious discrimination against a Sikh employee when it would not let the employee enter a federal building wearing a kirpan (a Sikh ceremonial sword). However, the court remanded the plaintiff's claim under the RFRA for analysis whether the burden on the plaintiff furthers a compelling governmental interest. The court found that the IRS is not authorized to determine the security requirements of federal buildings and that, even if it was, Title VII requires the employer to bear no more than a de minimis cost to accommodate the plaintiff. But under RFRA, the government must do more than make a categorical or sweeping justification that the security of federal buildings requires the prohibition. The government must explain with particularity why applying the prohibition to the plaintiff, given his security clearance, frequency of visits, method of concealment and degree of attachment to the person's body, furthers a compelling governmental interest.

Religious Institutions in the News

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review two cases involving the contraceptive coverage mandate: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/us/justices-take-companies-cases-challenging-contraception-rule.html?_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-review-contraceptive-coverage-mandate/2013/11/26/e9627f5a-56bc-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), extending workplace protection to gay, bisexual and transgender workers, passed the Senate.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/7/senate-passes-non-discrimination-bill/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-set-to-approve-gay-rights-bill/2013/11/07/05717e4a-47c1-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html

Pope Francis laid out a blueprint for his papacy in Evangelii Gaudium.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/pope-francis-evangelii-gaudium_n_4342964.html

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Holland & Knight LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Holland & Knight LLP
Contact
more
less

Holland & Knight LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.