Exceptions and Exclusions Benefit Religious Institutions and Clergy
Thirty years ago, in Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), the U.S. Supreme…
September 14, 2017 at 12:00 AM
8 minute read
Thirty years ago, in Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that highlighted one of a number of significant differences in the law that applies to religious institutions and their clergy as compared to the law that applies to other not-for-profit and general business corporations and their executives.
In Presiding Bishop, the court upheld the validity of a statutory exception to the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This article explores that decision and other examples of the law's special treatment of religious institutions and clergy members.
Title VII
Congress has exempted religious institutions such as churches, synagogues, and mosques from much of Title VII's prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Specifically, pursuant to §702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of religion does not apply to religious organizations “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such [an organization] of its activities.”
The question in Presiding Bishop was whether §702 was constitutional. The case involved The Deseret Gymnasium in Salt Lake City, Utah, a nonprofit facility, open to the public, run by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CPB) and the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CP), religious entities associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an unincorporated religious association sometimes called the Mormon or LDS Church.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllReported Refusal to Officiate Gay Wedding Prompts Review by NY Judicial Misconduct Watchdog
GOP's National Gains Prompt NY Gov., AG, to Brace for Legal Battles Over Equal Rights Measure
Court Preserves Racial Discrimination Claims Against NYC Law Department
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
- 2Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 3US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 4‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
- 53 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250