On July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued two new opinions applying First Amendment religious rights to employers. The first case, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267 (July 8, 2020), overturned the Ninth Circuit in expanding the individuals employed by religious institutions that are exempt from anti-discrimination laws. The second case, Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-431 (July 8, 2020), overturned a nationwide injunction instituted by the Third Circuit and held that employers were permitted religious or moral exemptions from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) mandate to provide health insurance coverage for certain contraceptives, including birth control.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

In Morrissey-Berru, two primary school teachers sued their respective schools for employment discrimination after their termination. The schools argued that they should be exempt from employment discrimination laws as it relates to teachers because religious institutions are protected by the First Amendment to decide for themselves, free from government interference, matters of church governance, as well as those of faith and doctrine. In the employment context, this exemption is called the “ministerial exception.” The teachers argued that their treatment by the schools was not subject to this exception because they were lay teachers without traditional training in religion.

The Court held that it is not the title nor religious training that determines if an employee’s treatment qualifies for the so-called “ministerial-exception.” Rather, the Court held that it is “what an employee does.” The Court noted that “educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private religious school.” The Court then applied this holding to the two teachers at issue and determined that their employment did qualify for the exception because of the abundant evidence that they performed vital religious duties. This evidence included: testimony about the teachers’ duty to educate students in the Catholic faith, employment agreements and faculty handbooks noting the expectations to help carry out the faith mission of the school, testimony about the teachers’ duty to teach all subjects including religion, the expectation that they would guide their students by word and deed toward the goal of living life in accordance with faith, praying with their students, attending worship services with students, and preparing students for participation in religious activities.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania

After prior Supreme Court decisions permitting closely held corporations with religious objections to covering certain contraceptives for their employees to opt out, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury updated the regulations to the ACA permitting all employers the option to object to the mandated coverage for either religious or moral reasons. Two states, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, challenged these new regulations as procedurally improper. The Court rejected this challenge stating that the regulations had been enacted properly. As such, the new regulations exempting employers from the contraceptive mandate under the ACA for religious or moral reasons are now enacted.

Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. The author has provided the links referenced above for information purposes only and by doing so, does not adopt or incorporate the contents. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.